. Forum

[HYPSM]

Well, you made a very large clarification.

I, likely like many others, thought you were referring not just to college students.

Even then I'm not sure. Maybe if you could build psychological resilience. But I knew A LOT of students in college that would become mentally exhausted if they had to think about the same thing for longer than a minute.

Kids that might take 7 minutes to read an RC passage, still not understand it, and not recognize a bunch of words.

Hubris? Frivolous? Yes, I've encountered enough students that don't know words like those (and much worse).

I'm still not confident that they could crack 170 under your new stipulations.

OK, I suppose I can see what you're saying, but I thought it was reasonable to assume that I was talking about average people who would actually take the LSAT.

Also, I feel like the students you described would be below average (e.g., don't know what frivolous means, take 7 minutes to read an RC passage, etc.)

[Voyager]

If by "enough time" you mean 20 years to go academically train the way top students did the first go around... then sure.

Realistically, though, some people worked hard in elementary and high school while others did not.

How about the following poll: "given enough time, anyone can make it onto a Division 1 university football team"?

You either trained in football as a kid or you didn't. Very difficult to make up for all those years that your competition invested in.

These tests are completely learnable. That isn't the issue. The issue is that they are graded on a curve and a bunch of your competition for those 170+ scores have been practicing these skills for 2 decades already....

Great points. I definitely agree that your analogy would be fitting for RC, but I wonder if mastering LG, for instance, is truly comparable to making it onto a Division I football team in college, and whether some people would simply be unable to do it because of inadequate education early on (even with resources and a year to study for example).

What I observed in teaching LSAT is that starting points for students varies quite dramatically. Skills you make take for granted are major obstacles for others.

Reading speed for one. That impacts everything. Simple logic rules as well.

Never mind broader testing strategy. If you prepped for the SAT, many of those same techniques transfer over. I prepped like a demon for the SAT (took over 100 practice exams!!!!). That allowed me to pick up the LSAT quite easily.

Scoring a 170+ on the LSAT means you are in the 2% or something. Again: graded on a curve. Super hard to beat out people like me who have been doing this since elementary school... much like it was damn hard for me to turn myself into a Marine officer and beat out former high school athletes for a 2nd Lt. slot during OCS. Took me 4 years of HARD work (and Creatine). I did it... but I trained hard for 4 years to get up to a fitness level my Officer Candidate peers already had a huge leg up on.

Similar story here...

[PrezRand]

No.

[stego]

Ah, I see. I ask because my friend (who is reasonably intelligent and did well on the SAT, if that means anything) will be studying for the LSAT for one year. He will not have any job, as his family is quite wealthy, and he will be spending all of his time on the LSAT during that time (he is quite motivated as well).

Is your friend planning to take the LSAT only once during that year, twice, or all three times?

[HYPSM]

Ah, I see. I ask because my friend (who is reasonably intelligent and did well on the SAT, if that means anything) will be studying for the LSAT for one year. He will not have any job, as his family is quite wealthy, and he will be spending all of his time on the LSAT during that time (he is quite motivated as well).

Is your friend planning to take the LSAT only once during that year, twice, or all three times?

I have no idea to be honest, I guess I can ask? I'm pretty sure he'll only take it once though. I got the impression that he wanted to study for a year, take it, and never think about it again. This is just a guess, though, as I'm not sure why anybody would want to take it that many times.

[izha]

The presumption, of course, is that the individual puts in the necessary time -- whether that be 6 months or a year (perhaps two, three, etc.).

Does everyone have the capacity to score 170, or are some people just "intellectually" limited, even if they put in the hours? I'm more interested in what people think about those with average intelligence, though (it goes without saying that those with lower than average intelligence will probably not score 170.)

Please explain down below!

I absolutely believe anyone could break 170 with enough time & preparation. It's not unfathomable. Your average individual could become extraordinarily proficient at logic games with a month of dedicated prep and study. Proficient to the point of -0.

I absolutely believe that no one with average intelligence would ever say this.

[stego]

Ah, I see. I ask because my friend (who is reasonably intelligent and did well on the SAT, if that means anything) will be studying for the LSAT for one year. He will not have any job, as his family is quite wealthy, and he will be spending all of his time on the LSAT during that time (he is quite motivated as well).

Is your friend planning to take the LSAT only once during that year, twice, or all three times?

I have no idea to be honest, I guess I can ask? I'm pretty sure he'll only take it once though. I got the impression that he wanted to study for a year, take it, and never think about it again. This is just a guess, though, as I'm not sure why anybody would want to take it that many times.

I guess it all depends on what score he gets the first time and how badly he wants to go to law school. If someone is serious about going, it's worth it to retake if it gives them a realistic shot of getting the score that he/she needs. Also depending on how his PTs are going he might not need the full of year of study to get that score.

[GreenEggs]

voting was not what i expected.

but yes.

[HYPSM]

Ah, I see. I ask because my friend (who is reasonably intelligent and did well on the SAT, if that means anything) will be studying for the LSAT for one year. He will not have any job, as his family is quite wealthy, and he will be spending all of his time on the LSAT during that time (he is quite motivated as well).

Is your friend planning to take the LSAT only once during that year, twice, or all three times?

I have no idea to be honest, I guess I can ask? I'm pretty sure he'll only take it once though. I got the impression that he wanted to study for a year, take it, and never think about it again. This is just a guess, though, as I'm not sure why anybody would want to take it that many times.

I guess it all depends on what score he gets the first time and how badly he wants to go to law school. If someone is serious about going, it's worth it to retake if it gives them a realistic shot of getting the score that he/she needs. Also depending on how his PTs are going he might not need the full of year of study to get that score.

Oh yeah, I definitely think re-take is almost always worth it, and I agree that he might not even need the full year, seeing as how he's only studying for the LSAT.

[HYPSM]

voting was not what i expected.

but yes.

I'm a little surprised as well, to be honest. But I think a big part of it is that everybody here has a very different understanding of "average intelligence" (and I think this is inevitable).

[HYPSM]

The presumption, of course, is that the individual puts in the necessary time -- whether that be 6 months or a year (perhaps two, three, etc.).

Does everyone have the capacity to score 170, or are some people just "intellectually" limited, even if they put in the hours? I'm more interested in what people think about those with average intelligence, though (it goes without saying that those with lower than average intelligence will probably not score 170.)

Please explain down below!

I absolutely believe anyone could break 170 with enough time & preparation. It's not unfathomable. Your average individual could become extraordinarily proficient at logic games with a month of dedicated prep and study. Proficient to the point of -0.

I absolutely believe that no one with average intelligence would ever say this.

I'm not the person you quoted, but could you elaborate as to why? (E.g., RC is not as learnable, etc.)

[Big Dog]

I don't fully understand why some people simply think that 170 is beyond reach for so many people, regardless of factors such as time, resources, above average intelligence, etc.

Except that was not the question, which clearly asked about "average intelligence" not "above average".

[dontsaywhatyoumean]

Well, you made a very large clarification.

I, likely like many others, thought you were referring not just to college students.

Even then I'm not sure. Maybe if you could build psychological resilience. But I knew A LOT of students in college that would become mentally exhausted if they had to think about the same thing for longer than a minute.

Kids that might take 7 minutes to read an RC passage, still not understand it, and not recognize a bunch of words.

Hubris? Frivolous? Yes, I've encountered enough students that don't know words like those (and much worse).

I'm still not confident that they could crack 170 under your new stipulations.

OK, I suppose I can see what you're saying, but I thought it was reasonable to assume that I was talking about average people who would actually take the LSAT.

Also, I feel like the students you described would be below average (e.g., don't know what frivolous means, take 7 minutes to read an RC passage, etc.)

What I said didn't even really make sense.

Up to your clarification you still had a disparity.

And I forgot about the average college student specification.

An average college student? I still disagree, but not as strongly.


I think the problem here is that smart people can be very biased toward thinking that something isn't as difficult for others as it really is.

I liked that comment that the other poster made about "Only a smart person would say this."

I think that's relevant.

[HYPSM]

I don't fully understand why some people simply think that 170 is beyond reach for so many people, regardless of factors such as time, resources, above average intelligence, etc.

Except that was not the question, which clearly asked about "average intelligence" not "above average".

The poll question was: "Anyone can break 170 (given average or slightly above intelligence and enough time to study)"

But yeah, you're right; this is not very clear because average applicants who have graduated from college and are applying to law school are probably above average when compared to average Joes you'd meet on any sidewalk.

[ready2attend]

I vote no.

The average person can probably achieve up to a 165 or so through sheer persistence, strategy, and gimmicks; but for anything above that, the margin of error is simply too small for the average person. In fact, I'd say that achieving a 170+ requires a small degree of luck even for a lot of candidates with above average intelligence (guessing right on the questions where you're stuck between two answers; getting fortunate with the type of difficult LR questions; difficult reading passages that you happen to handle better than others, etc)

You also need to remember that PTs are different than the real thing. The added pressure and other variables make a difference. I scored 170+ on more PTs than I can count - I only have a 165 to show for it.

[ready2attend]

I don't fully understand why some people simply think that 170 is beyond reach for so many people, regardless of factors such as time, resources, above average intelligence, etc.

Except that was not the question, which clearly asked about "average intelligence" not "above average".

The poll question was: "Anyone can break 170 (given average or slightly above intelligence and enough time to study)"

But yeah, you're right; this is not very clear because average applicants who have graduated from college and are applying to law school are probably above average when compared to average Joes you'd meet on any sidewalk.

Law school applicants certainly are more intelligent than the average Joe - and even for them, the 50th percentile is a pathetic 153 or so. And believe me, it's not for a lack of effort.

Also, how many law schools in existence have a median in the 170s? Like 5? That's not an accident.

[Clearly]

If you think the answer is yes, you need to actually make a living teaching the LSAT. I've had kids in classes that would never ever break 150. Seriously anyone who's made a living with this test is going to say no.

[HYPSM]

I vote no.

The average person can probably achieve up to a 165 or so through sheer persistence, strategy, and gimmicks; but for anything above that, the margin of error is simply too small for the average person. In fact, I'd say that achieving a 170+ requires a small degree of luck even for a lot of candidates with above average intelligence (guessing right on the questions where you're stuck between two answers; getting fortunate with the type of difficult LR questions; difficult reading passages that you happen to handle better than others, etc)

You also need to remember that PTs are different than the real thing. The added pressure and other variables make a difference. I scored 170+ on more PTs than I can count - I only have a 165 to show for it.

Thank you for your thoughts! How long did you study? Do you plan on retaking? I feel like you underperformed considerably (given that you were PTing at 170+).

[ObiWahooKenobi]

The answer to this question hinges on several assumptions: 1) how malleable is intelligence, especially post college? 2) if intelligence is static, what level is required to score in the 90+ percentile? 3) is the LSAT measuring this static type of intelligence or is it testing a widely learnable skill?

I'm definitely not sure, but I lean towards thinking that most people could improve their baseline scores substantially but that an average college grad would struggle to score 170+ even with good coaching and practice. This test is really, really hard, and many people just don't think this way. Anecdotally, most people in the course I took struggled with several types of questions despite incredible coaching and practice, and I suspect these people were above average intelligence and motivation. But, again, I could be wrong: maybe most people putting in Malcom Gladwell's 10,000 hours could master it. I don't think many people would invest 5 years regardless, but it's a possibility. I think his outlier theory rests on both natural talent AND strong work ethic. Apparently most psychometricians think that you work to achieve your full innate ability on these tests: they think that the tests are learnable, but only to a degree. My guess is that this threshold is below 170 for average college graduates.

[Big Dog]

But yeah, you're right; this is not very clear because average applicants who have graduated from college and are applying to law school are probably above average when compared to average Joes you'd meet on any sidewalk.

Still does not matter, since it would be extremely difficult for any average college grad (IQ 115) to clear 17x. Heck, even the "average" Harvard College grad does not even clear 17x....however, the average H grad could clear 17x with proper prep. (And that is bcos Harvard College, like every other top private college, purposely only admits top test scorers, at least those that are unhooked; in other words, H screens out poor test takers..)

[HYPSM]

But yeah, you're right; this is not very clear because average applicants who have graduated from college and are applying to law school are probably above average when compared to average Joes you'd meet on any sidewalk.

Still does not matter, since it would be extremely difficult for any average college grad (IQ 115) to clear 17x. Heck, even the "average" Harvard College grad does not even clear 17x....however, the average H grad could clear 17x with proper prep. (And that is bcos Harvard College, like every other top private college, purposely only admits top test scorers, at least those that are unhooked; in other words, H screens out poor test takers..)

I was definitely really surprised when I first saw the avg. LSAT scores at all the Ivies. I always assumed they simply didn't study hard enough or weren't preparing properly. Every Harvard grad I know got 2300+ on the SAT. Wth?

[Voyager]

May I again reiterate that the test is GRADED ON A CURVE. By definition, the answer to your question is "no"

[Shemp]

May I again reiterate that the test is GRADED ON A CURVE. By definition, the answer to your question is "no"

The test is normed, not curved. Your premise is invalid, but your conclusion is still accurate.

[stego]

May I again reiterate that the test is GRADED ON A CURVE. By definition, the answer to your question is "no"

The test is normed, not curved. Your premise is invalid, but your conclusion is still accurate.

Also, the "by definition" part is inaccurate, because the question was not "can everyone break 170," it was "can anyone break 170." And besides, theoretically everyone actually could get a perfect score on the LSAT if they answered every question correctly.

If you think the answer is yes, you need to actually make a living teaching the LSAT. I've had kids in classes that would never ever break 150. Seriously anyone who's made a living with this test is going to say no.

Would you describe those kids who can't break 150 as being average or above average in intelligence?

The more I think about, though, the more I'm inclined to say that 170 is just too high for some people (of average or above average intelligence), even with sufficient study.

[RamTitan]

If by average intelligence, we mean someone who is able to graduate college, then I'd say yes. Though it may take a damn long time (1 year +), I don't see why it couldn't be done. Deficiencies like a slower reading ability can be overcome.