Top Law Schools

intelligent? i m currently shooting for 166, but i m afraid that the score would not be reached despite the effort and time i spend. i hate to admit, but i m not close to being smart..
from ur experiences, is a 166 an approachable score that i can reach??

166 here...Have you taken any practice tests? If so, what were your scores?

Why do you think you're not smart? And not to be mean, but if you feel that way, why consider law school?

Also, what're you scoring on practice tests? It's definitely possible to see a large improvement if you can keep practicing and identify your weak areas.

As I'm sure many law students can attest, there are tons of less intelligent people even at top law schools. (And some intelligent people even at TTTs.) Even if you were right that you're less intelligent, you shouldn't let it stop you.

I do think the test is learnable so just put in the effort; don't be discouraged from the beginning because you think yourself to be less intelligent.

And as someone mentioned, why consider law school? And from the fact that you have a specific number in mind seems to indicate that you are aiming for a certain school. But you have to remember, even after spending a very long time and managing to score 166 and you manage to be accepted there, you might struggle academically at that school because it'll be too hard.

I think you should focus more on which school is a better match for you if you do think there's a limit in the intelligence department.

LSAT is not a measure of intelligence.

incompetentia wrote:LSAT is not a measure of intelligence.

Yeah it is, it is just also learn-able.

mrwarre85 wrote:

incompetentia wrote:LSAT is not a measure of intelligence.

Yeah it is, it is just also learn-able.

While there may be some degree of a positive correlation between general intelligence and one's cold diagnostic score (greater intelligence, greater first time score), the test is too learn-able to be a measure of intelligence, and it only measures a subset of abilities.

deblaw wrote:intelligent? i m currently shooting for 166, but i m afraid that the score would not be reached despite the effort and time i spend. i hate to admit, but i m not close to being smart..
from ur experiences, is a 166 an approachable score that i can reach??

First off, saying that you are "not close to being smart" does little for us. I know a few 2.5 GPA ass-hats who manage 170s after studying for months while I have a 3.8 and only managed a 169 (granted, I only studied for a month, but still kinda pissed how they skated by in college and one is going to a better lawl school than I am because of a fucking 3 hour test). We don't know anything about you (IQ score, GPA, prior LSAT scores, practice LSAT scores, work ethic, motivation, intellectual ability). Thus, we cannot come to a good conclusion.

My takeaway: the LSAT is so learn-able it's disgusting, and I hate that law schools put so much emphasis on it (please let's not start a fight about the LSAT here, just my $.02) because of it. But with enough practice, I suppose ALMOST anyone who can graduate college can get a score in the 160s.

MrPapagiorgio wrote:

deblaw wrote:intelligent? i m currently shooting for 166, but i m afraid that the score would not be reached despite the effort and time i spend. i hate to admit, but i m not close to being smart..
from ur experiences, is a 166 an approachable score that i can reach??

First off, saying that you are "not close to being smart" does little for us. I know a few 2.5 GPA ass-hats who manage 170s after studying for months while I have a 3.8 and only managed a 169 (granted, I only studied for a month, but still kinda pissed how they skated by in college and one is going to a better lawl school than I am because of a fucking 3 hour test). We don't know anything about you (IQ score, GPA, prior LSAT scores, practice LSAT scores, work ethic, motivation, intellectual ability). Thus, we cannot come to a good conclusion.

My takeaway: the LSAT is so learn-able it's disgusting, and I hate that law schools put so much emphasis on it (please let's not start a fight about the LSAT here, just my $.02) because of it. But with enough practice, I suppose ALMOST anyone who can graduate college can get a score in the 160s.

Law schools are also testing for preparation, so I think the test is still a good indication of who can handle the workload.

Sure. I know people who scored that high who I am surprised are capable of reading and breathing at the same time.

incompetentia wrote:LSAT is not a measure of intelligence.

+1. I think that anyone can achieve their goal if they work hard enough. The LSAT can be intimidating at first glance, but it's really not so bad. If you can read fairly well, there's really only two types of new thinking you need to learn.

If it helps, when I took my first diagnostic about a month ago, I couldn't even finish the games section, I essentially just penciled in randoms because I had no idea what I was doing. After a month of practice I'm now I'm at -0/-3 on TIMED games sections, and I'm definitely not some kind of genius.

In the words of one of my favorite Dexter characters, "if you want it, take it!" Do I get extra credit in staying consistent w/ my avatar?

The LSAT is specifically designed to predict your abilities in law school. The test makers validate the test by analyzing students LSAT scores and eventual class rank. In predicting class rank the LSAT has a validity of .4. GPA has a validity of .3. When combined the two have a validity of .5. This means that an LSAT score is better predictor of student success than GPA. This is the reason why the LSAT is weighed more heavily than GPA.

Don't worry about IQ, intelligence, or any of that crap. Just study until you get your desired score, even if it takes 1 year. However, you will probably have to work harder in law school than someone who got the same score as you on their diagnostic.

[The above info is pulled from the LSAC website. A validity of 0.0 has no predictive power and a validity score of 1.0 has perfect predictive power. For example: If a students combined GPA and LSAT (validity of .5) are both above the median, then there is a 75% probability that the student will be above the median class ranking.]

loomstate wrote:In the words of one of my favorite Dexter characters, "if you want it, take it!" Do I get extra credit in staying consistent w/ my avatar?

That's not Dexter's line so in the words of my favorite Seinfeld character, "NO SOUP FOR YOU!"

RobMD wrote:The LSAT is specifically designed to predict your abilities in law school. The test makers validate the test by analyzing students LSAT scores and eventual class rank. In predicting class rank the LSAT has a validity of .4. GPA has a validity of .3. When combined the two have a validity of .5. This means that an LSAT score is better predictor of student success than GPA. This is the reason why the LSAT is weighed more heavily than GPA.

Don't worry about IQ, intelligence, or any of that crap. Just study until you get your desired score, even if it takes 1 year. However, you will probably have to work harder in law school than someone who got the same score as you on their diagnostic.

[The above info is pulled from the LSAC website. A validity of 0.0 has no predictive power and a validity score of 1.0 has perfect predictive power. For example: If a students combined GPA and LSAT (validity of .5) are both above the median, then there is a 75% probability that the student will be above the median class ranking.]

You do realize how bad this information is right? You're working with classes that have an LSAT band of 3-4 points. The LSAT correlation doesn't apply in this situation.

The LSAT is a horrible measure of eventual class rank in law schools.

MrPapagiorgio wrote:

deblaw wrote:intelligent? i m currently shooting for 166, but i m afraid that the score would not be reached despite the effort and time i spend. i hate to admit, but i m not close to being smart..
from ur experiences, is a 166 an approachable score that i can reach??

First off, saying that you are "not close to being smart" does little for us. I know a few 2.5 GPA ass-hats who manage 170s after studying for months while I have a 3.8 and only managed a 169 (granted, I only studied for a month, but still kinda pissed how they skated by in college and one is going to a better lawl school than I am because of a fucking 3 hour test). We don't know anything about you (IQ score, GPA, prior LSAT scores, practice LSAT scores, work ethic, motivation, intellectual ability). Thus, we cannot come to a good conclusion.

My takeaway: the LSAT is so learn-able it's disgusting, and I hate that law schools put so much emphasis on it (please let's not start a fight about the LSAT here, just my $.02) because of it. But with enough practice, I suppose ALMOST anyone who can graduate college can get a score in the 160s.

I felt this way for awhile too, but I've since tutored a few people who I don't consider smart but are not drooling idiots either and yet who I also am convinced will never break 160. It isn't a very precise measure of intelligence, for sure, but people definitely have peaks, and in that sense, it measures something.

Curry wrote:

RobMD wrote:The LSAT is specifically designed to predict your abilities in law school. The test makers validate the test by analyzing students LSAT scores and eventual class rank. In predicting class rank the LSAT has a validity of .4. GPA has a validity of .3. When combined the two have a validity of .5. This means that an LSAT score is better predictor of student success than GPA. This is the reason why the LSAT is weighed more heavily than GPA.

Don't worry about IQ, intelligence, or any of that crap. Just study until you get your desired score, even if it takes 1 year. However, you will probably have to work harder in law school than someone who got the same score as you on their diagnostic.

[The above info is pulled from the LSAC website. A validity of 0.0 has no predictive power and a validity score of 1.0 has perfect predictive power. For example: If a students combined GPA and LSAT (validity of .5) are both above the median, then there is a 75% probability that the student will be above the median class ranking.]

You do realize how bad this information is right? You're working with classes that have an LSAT band of 3-4 points. The LSAT correlation doesn't apply in this situation.

The LSAT is a horrible measure of eventual class rank in law schools.

Just go to the LSAC website and see for yourself. The studies LSAC performs are based on the LSAT score and the eventual class rank. If the LSATs were a horrible (invalid) measure of your ability to well in law school no law schools would use them for admission. But they are valid. That is why law schools use the LSAT and not the GMAT or GRE.

Below are a few of the LSAT studies that may be interest to TLS'ers. There are many more on the LSAC website.

For a history of the LSAT see: http://www.lsac.org/LSACResources/Publi ... c-lsat.pdf

One of the many studies that lay out the LSAT's predictive validity for First Year GPA:
http://www.lsac.org/LSACResources/Resea ... -09-03.pdf

Answers why some top schools give the most weight to the first LSAT: http://www.lsac.org/LSACResources/Resea ... -10-02.pdf

Shows that the LSAT retains its predictive validity for URM's (in fact, it over-predicts): http://www.lsac.org/LSACResources/Resea ... -98-02.pdf