Requisite IQ for a 170+ LSAT Score? Forum

[RZ5646]

Obviously some people can get 170+ cold. Someone might have even gotten a 180 diagnostic once. But let's not pretend that those people are at all common.

[QuentonCassidy]

Obviously some people can get 170+ cold. Someone might have even gotten a 180 diagnostic once. But let's not pretend that those people are at all common.

I can agree with this; my issue was with the initial idea that it was impossible, followed by granting that it was possible but only some sort of one-in-a-billion chance.

[curry1]

.

[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.

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.

Let me try to specify. Here are the facts- 97.5% of test takers who take the LSAT don't score above a 170. In 2015 there were 101,689 people who took the lsat. That means there were roughly 2,542 people who scored a 170+ out of 101,689 people. In my opinion, that alone is relatively impressive if you think about it like that. Your score beat out some 99,000 other people. As we all know, not all of those takers, are um, the most articulate individuals ever but at the very least they are all in college or have a college degree (side note- only 40% of all Americans even have a college degree). Now, we can probably assume some of those 2,542 are probably retakers and some are people from test prep companies. Let's say 2000 people are taking it for the first time. Now breaking that down even further, how many of those people do you think took it completely blind with that score? 200, 100? 200/101689= .19%?

Who knows what the answer is. My point is, statistically, if you did do that you are really a statistical outlier compared to other people who took the LSAT. I am sure it can be done, I don't think you have any reason to lie, and I am sure some people do it. It's just everyone on the internet has a 17 inch dick, a 180 LSAT score, and is an Olympic gold medalist.

From my personal experience, I have gone to relatively good schools since I was young-except for my college that is-, had peers who went on to top schools, and have family members in Biglaw. I don't think I have ever heard of someone just blind taking a 170+ in real life other than on the internet. Then again, the college I went to could hinder that a bit.

[smaug]

again, you just know dumb people

[asdfdfdfadfas]

again, you just know dumb people

Again, that isn't true.

[smaug]

again, you just know dumb people

Again, that isn't true.

maybe you're just too dumb to realize it

[QuentonCassidy]

Let me try to specify. Here are the facts- 97.5% of test takers who take the LSAT don't score above a 170. In 2015 there were 101,689 people who took the lsat. That means there were roughly 2,542 people who scored a 170+ out of 101,689 people. In my opinion, that alone is relatively impressive if you think about it like that. Your score beat out some 99,000 other people. As we all know, not all of those takers, are um, the most articulate individuals ever but at the very least they are all in college or have a college degree (side note- only 40% of all Americans even have a college degree). Now, we can probably assume some of those 2,542 are probably retakers and some are people from test prep companies. Let's say 2000 people are taking it for the first time. Now breaking that down even further, how many of those people do you think took it completely blind with that score? 200, 100? 200/101689= .19%?

Who knows what the answer is. My point is, statistically, if you did do that you are really a statistical outlier compared to other people who took the LSAT. I am sure it can be done, I don't think you have any reason to lie, and I am sure some people do it. It's just everyone on the internet has a 17 inch dick, a 180 LSAT score, and is an Olympic gold medalist.

From my personal experience, I have gone to relatively good schools since I was young-except for my college that is-, had peers who went on to top schools, and have family members in Biglaw. I don't think I have ever heard of someone just blind taking a 170+ in real life other than on the internet. Then again, the college I went to could hinder that a bit.

Haha alright, point well taken. I can agree that the probability might be around 0.2% as you stated; I just wanted to clear up that it certainly wasn't impossible and also not one-in-a-billion as I said earlier. 0.2% would give a figure of 1 in 500, which I am perfectly ok with. I don't really care whether you believe that I am one of those 0.2% as long as we are in agreement that this isn't some impossible feat. I have enjoyed talking through this with you and wish you the best.

[Stardust84]

Performance on the LSAT is clearly not a straight line measurement of raw intelligence. It's possible to be a brilliant person and have a habit of reading slowly for example, and consequently, such a person won't have a tendency to score well naturally. I'm sure there are other examples of this sort of thing. On the other hand, given the distribution of scores on the bell curve, it's pretty obvious that the higher one scores on the LSAT the more likely that person has a higher IQ. Philosophy and Mathematics/Physics majors have the highest average IQ scores compared to other majors. Those majors also have the highest average LSAT scores.

Still there are likely very intelligent people who don't score well naturally, and people who aren't exceptionally intelligent who just have a particular knack for the test. I'd say there is a correlation, no way to know how strong that is without peer reviewed research. Either way, intelligence is a nebulous and controversial idea in the first place and I tend to think people shouldn't read too much into their own intelligence one way or the other based on a single exam which tests a few particular skills/abilities, rather its best to focus on getting the best possible score.

[smaug]

rather its best to focus on getting the best possible score.

deep

[stego]

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?

I don't think you can just ace the MCAT cold. You have to have actually studied science to some extent to do well on it. The MCAT tests real-world knowledge in a way that the LSAT doesn't.

[Stardust84]

rather its best to focus on getting the best possible score.

deep

Its not. Just more advisable than someone carrying on thinking they are a special snowflake or an idiot on the basis of a high or low LSAT score.

[Poldy]

It is entirely possible to take the LSAT without studying and score above a 170 without being a genius. That test has a very limited range and plays perfectly into some people's strengths. There are exactly two skills tested on the LSAT: reading speed and logical reasoning. I can't believe this is even being debated.

[Asterismos]

I think rather than straightforward 'IQ,' I think the LSAT is more correlated with the specific way in which your brain works. I'm not super clear on the details/exact science behind it, but in the very similar brain of left-brained, right-brained philosophy, and how there are people whose brains are better at humanities vs. math, and the same way in which those who are good at chemistry are typically also very good at directions because both pertain to spatial awareness: I think the LSAT measures for a very specific way a brain can think that would arguably be conducive to law school.

Of course smartness and IQ may have something to do with it, but I also think that it's really more a matter of 'does your brain randomly happen to operate in the way that would make the LSAT easier for you' \ o /

[smaug]

rather its best to focus on getting the best possible score.

deep

Its not. Just more advisable than someone carrying on thinking they are a special snowflake or an idiot on the basis of a high or low LSAT score.

lmao

[WinterComing]

The arguments from asdf in this thread show poor logical reasoning. Perhaps that's why he can't fathom doing well on the LSAT without a lot of practice. The idea that one needs to be a philosophy major to excel at the games is downright laughable.

I know QC and know that he isn't lying about hitting a top score without much practice. I'm not as smart as he is, but I scored in the mid-170s after similarly minimal study (though I admittedly struggled a bit with the games and aced the rest of the test, which to me felt like the verbal part of the SAT). This does not prove that either one of us is a genius or a special snowflake. I'm certainly neither. But it does prove that you're wrong; it is possible to score 170 cold.

To the original question, I'm not sure that has much to do with IQ, but maybe more specific skills related to logic and literacy and spatial reasoning that some people have more innately and others develop through practice.

[kcdc1]

The LSAT tests reading comp and logic skills. IQ tests mostly test pattern recognition skills. Separate tests, separate skills, neither measures "intelligence."

I took the LSAT twice--once my junior year in college (decided not to apply), and then again 7 years later after working in a reading and logic intensive job. I am 100% sure I got dumber during the intervening 7 years. On top of normal aging and losing brain cells, I mostly screwed around and played video games that whole time. But my diagnostic went up 5 points because I had to read and respond to arguments in whatever time I spent working.

Luckily, lawyering well doesn't require being smart. It requires reading and logic skills.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

The arguments from asdf in this thread show poor logical reasoning. Perhaps that's why he can't fathom doing well on the LSAT without a lot of practice. The idea that one needs to be a philosophy major to excel at the games is downright laughable.

I know QC and know that he isn't lying about hitting a top score without much practice. I'm not as smart as he is, but I scored in the mid-170s after similarly minimal study (though I admittedly struggled a bit with the games and aced the rest of the test, which to me felt like the verbal part of the SAT). This does not prove that either one of us is a genius or a special snowflake. I'm certainly neither. But it does prove that you're wrong; it is possible to score 170 cold.

To the original question, I'm not sure that has much to do with IQ, but maybe more specific skills related to logic and literacy and spatial reasoning that some people have more innately and others develop through practice.

Did I state specifically anywhere you needed to have a Philosophy major to do games? Didn't I say it was certainly possible to score a 170 without studying in my previous post?

[asdfdfdfadfas]

again, you just know dumb people

Again, that isn't true.

maybe you're just too dumb to realize it

You are a regular Kevin, aren't you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuwprXAaSv0

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Let me try to specify. Here are the facts- 97.5% of test takers who take the LSAT don't score above a 170. In 2015 there were 101,689 people who took the lsat. That means there were roughly 2,542 people who scored a 170+ out of 101,689 people. In my opinion, that alone is relatively impressive if you think about it like that. Your score beat out some 99,000 other people. As we all know, not all of those takers, are um, the most articulate individuals ever but at the very least they are all in college or have a college degree (side note- only 40% of all Americans even have a college degree). Now, we can probably assume some of those 2,542 are probably retakers and some are people from test prep companies. Let's say 2000 people are taking it for the first time. Now breaking that down even further, how many of those people do you think took it completely blind with that score? 200, 100? 200/101689= .19%?

Who knows what the answer is. My point is, statistically, if you did do that you are really a statistical outlier compared to other people who took the LSAT. I am sure it can be done, I don't think you have any reason to lie, and I am sure some people do it. It's just everyone on the internet has a 17 inch dick, a 180 LSAT score, and is an Olympic gold medalist.

From my personal experience, I have gone to relatively good schools since I was young-except for my college that is-, had peers who went on to top schools, and have family members in Biglaw. I don't think I have ever heard of someone just blind taking a 170+ in real life other than on the internet. Then again, the college I went to could hinder that a bit.

Haha alright, point well taken. I can agree that the probability might be around 0.2% as you stated; I just wanted to clear up that it certainly wasn't impossible and also not one-in-a-billion as I said earlier. 0.2% would give a figure of 1 in 500, which I am perfectly ok with. I don't really care whether you believe that I am one of those 0.2% as long as we are in agreement that this isn't some impossible feat. I have enjoyed talking through this with you and wish you the best.

Hey thanks for being a reasonable human being. I thought it was an enjoyable conversation as well.

Cheers.

[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)

Intelligent people?

Nah, must be unicorns and shit.

I can't tell who you're making fun of but if it's me you're stupid

[WinterComing]

The arguments from asdf in this thread show poor logical reasoning. Perhaps that's why he can't fathom doing well on the LSAT without a lot of practice. The idea that one needs to be a philosophy major to excel at the games is downright laughable.

I know QC and know that he isn't lying about hitting a top score without much practice. I'm not as smart as he is, but I scored in the mid-170s after similarly minimal study (though I admittedly struggled a bit with the games and aced the rest of the test, which to me felt like the verbal part of the SAT). This does not prove that either one of us is a genius or a special snowflake. I'm certainly neither. But it does prove that you're wrong; it is possible to score 170 cold.

To the original question, I'm not sure that has much to do with IQ, but maybe more specific skills related to logic and literacy and spatial reasoning that some people have more innately and others develop through practice.

Did I state specifically anywhere you needed to have a Philosophy major to do games? Didn't I say it was certainly possible to score a 170 without studying in my previous post?

You said:

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... Perhaps, you could have a relatively refined skill set before going into the LSAT, from let's say studying Philosophy... 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

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.

I am sorry, you don't walk into the LSAT with zero knowledge of the test and walk out with a 180.

Though, yes, you did eventually reverse and say it could be done, so I suppose you reached a consensus and there was no need for me to pile on. Kumbaya.

ETA: Just to be clear, I don't attach any value judgment to this. If one person scores 170 through natural ability and another person scores 170 through intense study, they still both got the same score. If anything, the person with the work ethic might do better in law school where those study habits could pay off.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

The arguments from asdf in this thread show poor logical reasoning. Perhaps that's why he can't fathom doing well on the LSAT without a lot of practice. The idea that one needs to be a philosophy major to excel at the games is downright laughable.

I know QC and know that he isn't lying about hitting a top score without much practice. I'm not as smart as he is, but I scored in the mid-170s after similarly minimal study (though I admittedly struggled a bit with the games and aced the rest of the test, which to me felt like the verbal part of the SAT). This does not prove that either one of us is a genius or a special snowflake. I'm certainly neither. But it does prove that you're wrong; it is possible to score 170 cold.

To the original question, I'm not sure that has much to do with IQ, but maybe more specific skills related to logic and literacy and spatial reasoning that some people have more innately and others develop through practice.

Did I state specifically anywhere you needed to have a Philosophy major to do games? Didn't I say it was certainly possible to score a 170 without studying in my previous post?

You said:

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... Perhaps, you could have a relatively refined skill set before going into the LSAT, from let's say studying Philosophy... 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

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.

I am sorry, you don't walk into the LSAT with zero knowledge of the test and walk out with a 180.

Though, yes, you did eventually reverse and say it could be done, so I suppose you reached a consensus and there was no need for me to pile on. Kumbaya.

ETA: Just to be clear, I don't attach any value judgment to this. If one person scores 170 through natural ability and another person scores 170 through intense study, they still both got the same score. If anything, the person with the work ethic might do better in law school where those study habits could pay off.

Yeah, I said, "Perhaps, you could have a relatively refined skill set before going into the LSAT, from let's say studying Philosophy or Economics.." No where in that statement did I state that Philosophy was a prerequisite to doing Logic Games.

I still stand by my statement with a slight tweak- the vast majority of people, even 99% of people, do not walk into the LSAT cold and score above a 170, no matter how many bros/ internet superstars claim to.

That is all I got on this topic.

Cheers

[landshoes]

yeah, the vast majority don't

this is actually probably because of where you went to undergrad

in my undergrad no one walked into the LSAT and did really well cold, but I know a lot of people who went to an "elite" undergrad (barf), who did very well there in difficult subjects. those people are, in fact, smarter than 99% of people (probably more like 99.9%).

or, perhaps, the right combo of smart and privileged, but that's another topic

[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.

I can't tell who you're making fun of but if it's me you're stupid

Nah, not you.