Requisite IQ for a 170+ LSAT Score? Forum

[MyNameIsntJames]

I think the question misses the point. Anyone asking this question is trying to justify a lack of studying on their end. But whether it's jumping from 150 to 160 or 160 to 170, every additional point on the LSAT is worth thousands of dollars. So why not put in every possible hour towards achieving a higher score?

Because who wants to put in hard work when you can either

1) cling to that IQ score you got as an 8-year-old to prove you could be successful if you tried, you just don't want to

2) use your IQ score as an excuse: "obviously logic games are really a form of genome sequencing, and I wasn't born smart enough"

Geez, do we have to claw at OP's throat like that? Lmao. I'm sure this individual is only asking this out of pure curiosity!

[smaug]

Yes, your expectations are unreasonable.

[MyNameIsntJames]

Yes, your expectations are unreasonable.

Why? And can you elaborate on why the law profession is terrible for "anyone" as you claimed? I'm not even trying to challenge you, I really want your insight as someone who has yet to even apply to a law school yet. Maybe you can help save me from a life of misery and disappointment.

[smaug]

Yes, your expectations are unreasonable.

Why? And can you elaborate on why the law profession is terrible for "anyone" as you claimed? I'm not even trying to challenge you, I really want your insight as someone who has yet to even apply to a law school yet. Maybe you can help save me from a life of misery and disappointment.

It'll be difficult to get the in house job even if you get biglaw. Biglaw pays more than your old job but is often, to many, less enjoyable than a minimum wage job. It's not about the hours. Most people dislike the job itself. Even those who were paralegals often dislike the reality of the job.

You can probably get some other job that will be less stressful. It'll pay less but if you're looking at 100k+ in loans it'll probably be better.

There are very few superlative outcomes in law, and the modal ones just aren't that great. Unless you have a burning passion to be a lawyer, don't go. Going for money is dumb.

[PrezRand]

Hilarious thread

[MyNameIsntJames]

Yes, your expectations are unreasonable.

Why? And can you elaborate on why the law profession is terrible for "anyone" as you claimed? I'm not even trying to challenge you, I really want your insight as someone who has yet to even apply to a law school yet. Maybe you can help save me from a life of misery and disappointment.

It'll be difficult to get the in house job even if you get biglaw. Biglaw pays more than your old job but is often, to many, less enjoyable than a minimum wage job. It's not about the hours. Most people dislike the job itself. Even those who were paralegals often dislike the reality of the job.

You can probably get some other job that will be less stressful. It'll pay less but if you're looking at 100k+ in loans it'll probably be better.

There are very few superlative outcomes in law, and the modal ones just aren't that great. Unless you have a burning passion to be a lawyer, don't go. Going for money is dumb.

Why is it less often than a minimum wage job? Because minimum wage jobs really really really suck. Taking orders all day, making drinks, sweeping floors, cleaning toilets, speeding around a hot oven to serve people in a goofy looking outfit to make $7.50/hour is a really unpleasant situation. Especially when you're older and more qualified. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around what exactly about big law could make the experience worse than that for folks.

Is it the stress? I can handle stress pretty well. And when you mention the 'reality' of the job, what does that mean? Is there some notion of what big law is that is shattered by the field? Sorry for the probing questions, but if its this terrible I need to know entirely what I'm getting myself into lol.

[HYSplease]

Why is it less often than a minimum wage job? Because minimum wage jobs really really really suck. Taking orders all day, making drinks, sweeping floors, cleaning toilets, speeding around a hot oven to serve people in a goofy looking outfit to make $7.50/hour is a really unpleasant situation. Especially when you're older and more qualified. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around what exactly about big law could make the experience worse than that for folks.

Is it the stress? I can handle stress pretty well. And when you mention the 'reality' of the job, what does that mean? Is there some notion of what big law is that is shattered by the field? Sorry for the probing questions, but if its this terrible I need to know entirely what I'm getting myself into lol.

There are so many threads on this... peruse the legal employment page or just search big law in the forums and you'll find countless negative anecdotes from big law associates. Literally on the first page of legal employment there is a 4 page thread titled "Any biglaw first years already bored and indifferent? "

[asdfdfdfadfas]

This is probably the best one: The guy basically won at Biglaw about as much as you can possibly win and still doesn't recommend it.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5#p9293765

[RZ5646]

I'm not gunning for biglaw, but devil's advocate: might there be a sample bias where only those who hate working in biglaw take the time to voice their opinion about it on TLS?

[Hikikomorist]

I'm honestly skeptical if there is a hard IQ floor for a 170+ on the LSAT. In theory, if you sat someone down and had them work strictly on the LSAT & prep for a year straight, 8 hours a day and they had a 110 IQ, they could probably bang out a 170+. The test is learnable and so is logic. It would be different if the test had an entirely different setup every year.

Perhaps a better question would be to ask what the IQ floor is for someone to get a 170+ studying reasonably as hard as everyone else aiming for the same score. I'd take a whiff at a 140 IQ, but the concept, accuracy & definition of "IQ" is debatable as well.

I think studying & determination is much more important than raw IQ for this exam. Even if you're a genius, you're probably not gonna crack 170 without putting in some level of studying.

I disagree with both of the bolded statements. For the first, I don't think I disagree with your general message, but I just think the IQ to LSAT correlation (while it probably exists to some degree) is much too weak to say that one probably can't get a 170+ without much study unless they have an IQ of at least 140. I don't think I could put an IQ # on that at all, but under duress would throw out something 115-120.

As for the second part, I disagree simply because some people are just very naturally-gifted at standardized tests. Not saying that they are geniuses, but I would argue that there are definitely some "geniuses" who can get over a 170 with no study, and some people who probably aren't "geniuses" that could also do so.

True lol. I mean I'm sure someone somewhere on this planet might smack a 170 on the exam, but factoring in the nuance, time constraints and general unorthodox nature of the exam I think that it would be extraordinary for any one of any intelligence level to smack a 170+ on their first go.


In terms of the 140 for the 170+ I was just pulling numbers out of my ass lol. Who knows, maybe 100 is the mark. Maybe we all have IQs of 100-110 and we've grossly overestimated our abilities. My personal belief is that IQ is an iffy theory to begin with, so answering this question is somewhat difficult.

I would guess most people with 145+ IQs could break 170 on the LSAT without any study at all. I've known a handful of people who have done it, in fact. Not unreasonable to think someone at 140 could do it, but I wouldn't bet on the majority (but I think it would be close).

I wouldn't rule it out, but I'd just be very shocked if someone broke 170 on a TIMED exam the very first time with absolutely no prior preparation.

For most of the people I've known scoring at that level or close to it, timing was never much of an issue. If you're a reasonably speedy reader, three-fourths of the exam presents no time concerns at all. If you're at all good at puzzles, LG doesn't pose a time concern, either. These people aren't even that uncommon.

[Hikikomorist]

With all due respect, I find these stories hard to believe.

For one, unless you know how to do logic games and how the different games work, I don't see how you would just walk in and be able to do them. Yes, of course they can be learned, but it isn't as if we all walk around with the ability to do everything innately unless you perhaps majored in something that had those specific types of problems or very similar problems in your major.

It's still just reasoning. I'll admit that math majors and those who did puzzles growing up seemed to do a little better in that section initially, but I don't think LG requires any super-specialized training for plenty of bright people.

[landshoes]

I know so many people who have gotten 178-180s without studying at all.

It's hilarious how hard people will work to convince themselves that innate intelligence isn't a thing. It obviously is. Sorry that you had to work really hard for it, but a lot of people don't.

[GreenEggs]

I know so many people who have gotten 178-180s without studying at all.

lol

ok.

[somethingElse]

Turned it down TWICE, people!!

[landshoes]

I know so many people who have gotten 178-180s without studying at all.

lol

ok.

yeah, none of them go to my law school (or they haven't told me) but it's a thing

especially with math / philosophy people

[landshoes]

I busted ass for my score, in part with a prep book from one of those people, it wasn't even opened. 179


^^^^ not me the guy who gave me his prep book

[landshoes]

"what there are people who can run faster than me??? LOL I doubt it I am the peak of human achievement" <----tls geniuses

[smaug]

I'm not gunning for biglaw, but devil's advocate: might there be a sample bias where only those who hate working in biglaw take the time to voice their opinion about it on TLS?

I promise you I am much happier than my friends who aren't posters.

So, no, no sample bias. Sorry.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

"what there are people who can run faster than me??? LOL I doubt it I am the peak of human achievement" <----tls geniuses

I don't think that is the attitude at all. In fact, I'd say it is the complete opposite. I have known very intelligent people in my life, people who have graduated from the top of their class with a Harvard MBA, or Columbia law school at a young age, or have scored in the 99th percentile on the MCAT. I am sorry, you don't walk into the LSAT with zero knowledge of the test and walk out with a 180. If you do, I would genuinely like to meet you because I have never met anyone like that.

[QuentonCassidy]

I don't think that is the attitude at all. In fact, I'd say it is the complete opposite. I have known very intelligent people in my life, people who have graduated from the top of their class with a Harvard MBA, or Columbia law school at a young age, or have scored in the 99th percentile on the MCAT. I am sorry, you don't walk into the LSAT with zero knowledge of the test and walk out with a 180. If you do, I would genuinely like to meet you because I have never met anyone like that.

I'm curious as to whether you feel the same way about other standardized tests, like SAT/ACT/MCAT/GMAT/GRE? Clearly you are not going to take my datapoint regarding the LSAT, which I don't blame you for. I am a little surprised that you don't accept those from the multiple other posters who have said that they know of people who have gotten 170+ with zero prep, but I'm pretty confident that you would accept that there are many people who can ace tests like the SAT/ACT with no preparation, so I'm just wondering what you think makes the LSAT so different?

[asdfdfdfadfas]

I don't think that is the attitude at all. In fact, I'd say it is the complete opposite. I have known very intelligent people in my life, people who have graduated from the top of their class with a Harvard MBA, or Columbia law school at a young age, or have scored in the 99th percentile on the MCAT. I am sorry, you don't walk into the LSAT with zero knowledge of the test and walk out with a 180. If you do, I would genuinely like to meet you because I have never met anyone like that.

I'm curious as to whether you feel the same way about other standardized tests, like SAT/ACT/MCAT/GMAT/GRE? Clearly you are not going to take my datapoint regarding the LSAT, which I don't blame you for. I am a little surprised that you don't accept those from the multiple other posters who have said that they know of people who have gotten 170+ with zero prep, but I'm pretty confident that you would accept that there are many people who can ace tests like the SAT/ACT with no preparation, so I'm just wondering what you think makes the LSAT so different?

Sure. I would say maybe the ACT/SAT with minimal prep. I mean, those tests are specifically testing you over basic Mathematics/ other bits of knowledge that you have specifically studied for in your high school classes. If you aced out high school there is a real chance you could sit for those and have a real shot at doing well.

However, my general thoughts on the GMAT/MCAT/LSAT are that certain questions/parts of the test aren't really testing anything that you would be directly familiar with without sitting down and trying to figure the questions out and what information is being tested. Logic Games, for example, aren't presented anywhere else in academia to my knowledge. Data Sufficiency questions on the GMAT are a question type that you would have probably never seen before the test. In addition, in regards to the GMAT, when was the last time you did serious Geometry or hard combination problems? I know without sitting down and going over what is on that exam,how the questions work and what they are testing over, and putting in a time re-going over old, you know, Geometry equations would take a little bit of time. I just don't believe people walk around with that specific knowledge in their head unless for some reason they had to know it for some other reason.

Perhaps, you could have a relatively refined skill set before going into the LSAT, from let's say studying Philosophy, Economics, or any other course of study that requires reading dense material and critically thinking about it. Ok, you could perhaps swing a respectable score in the upper 150s or 160s without any prep, but still you don't know exactly how the test questions work, what the test is testing, or how to manage the time constraint. However, to be able to swing a near perfect score without ever looking at it? I just find it hard to believe especially given the people who score in the upper 160s and 170s are spending 2 to 3 months on average studying.

Like I said, I'd love to meet you if that truly is the case, you must be an anomaly.

[smaug]

you just know dumb people

lots of folks score 170+ blind

[landshoes]

there is like a certain genre of person who is super good at math and philosophy and they can do logic games really easily

they don't really require knowledge, just being good at making accurate inferences and avoiding making inaccurate inferences

(and having a good working memory)

[Hikikomorist]

there is like a certain genre of person who is super good at math and philosophy and they can do logic games really easily

they don't really require knowledge, just being good at making accurate inferences and avoiding making inaccurate inferences

(and having a good working memory)

Intelligent people?

Nah, must be unicorns and shit.

[QuentonCassidy]

I don't think that is the attitude at all. In fact, I'd say it is the complete opposite. I have known very intelligent people in my life, people who have graduated from the top of their class with a Harvard MBA, or Columbia law school at a young age, or have scored in the 99th percentile on the MCAT. I am sorry, you don't walk into the LSAT with zero knowledge of the test and walk out with a 180. If you do, I would genuinely like to meet you because I have never met anyone like that.

I'm curious as to whether you feel the same way about other standardized tests, like SAT/ACT/MCAT/GMAT/GRE? Clearly you are not going to take my datapoint regarding the LSAT, which I don't blame you for. I am a little surprised that you don't accept those from the multiple other posters who have said that they know of people who have gotten 170+ with zero prep, but I'm pretty confident that you would accept that there are many people who can ace tests like the SAT/ACT with no preparation, so I'm just wondering what you think makes the LSAT so different?

Sure. I would say maybe the ACT/SAT with minimal prep. I mean, those tests are specifically testing you over basic Mathematics/ other bits of knowledge that you have specifically studied for in your high school classes. If you aced out high school there is a real chance you could sit for those and have a real shot at doing well.

However, my general thoughts on the GMAT/MCAT/LSAT are that certain questions/parts of the test aren't really testing anything that you would be directly familiar with without sitting down and trying to figure the questions out and what information is being tested. Logic Games, for example, aren't presented anywhere else in academia to my knowledge. Data Sufficiency questions on the GMAT are a question type that you would have probably never seen before the test. In addition, in regards to the GMAT, when was the last time you did serious Geometry or hard combination problems? I know without sitting down and going over what is on that exam,how the questions work and what they are testing over, and putting in a time re-going over old, you know, Geometry equations would take a little bit of time. I just don't believe people walk around with that specific knowledge in their head unless for some reason they had to know it for some other reason.

Perhaps, you could have a relatively refined skill set before going into the LSAT, from let's say studying Philosophy, Economics, or any other course of study that requires reading dense material and critically thinking about it. Ok, you could perhaps swing a respectable score in the upper 150s or 160s without any prep, but still you don't know exactly how the test questions work, what the test is testing, or how to manage the time constraint. However, to be able to swing a near perfect score without ever looking at it? I just find it hard to believe especially given the people who score in the upper 160s and 170s are spending 2 to 3 months on average studying.

Like I said, I'd love to meet you if that truly is the case, you must be an anomaly.

Here is the thing though, you don't need "specific knowledge in [your] head" for the LSAT. Strong reading and critical thinking skills are sufficient for RC and LR, and I am thoroughly puzzled as to why you seem to think that the logic games section is so impossible without having prior knowledge as to how it works. It is a group of interconnected word puzzles. I'm pretty certain that almost anyone, if given 3 hours for the section instead of 30 minutes, could ace the logic games section. If that is the case then why is it so extraordinary that some people can simply process the information faster than others? As Hikikomorist said earlier, for people who are naturally good standardized-test takers, time is almost never the issue.
Given the bolded part of your post, you seem to be saying that you doubt people can ace the LSAT without study simply because there are a lot of people out there who have to study for 2 to 3 months before being able to do it, and that simply does not follow.
If you really want to believe that it is impossible (or very nearly so) to score highly on the LSAT with no exposure, feel free, but I can tell you with certainty that is not the case, and while you can believe that I'm lying if you want (though I don't stand to gain from doing so), other posters have had similar experiences/know people who have and there does not seem to be any logical reason that would preclude people from acing the LSAT cold.

Feel free to pm me if you want some more personal details that might explain/provide corroborating evidence for my LSAT experience. It just puzzles me that you think I must either be a liar or some incredible anomaly. I would say that I am an anomaly when it comes to standardized testing, but not some sort of once-in-a-lifetime one, and Hikikomorist seems to vouch for that as well.