Top Law Schools

What would you estimate it to be? At least 130?

180orDie wrote:What would you estimate it to be? At least 130?

180

asdfdfdfadfas wrote:

180orDie wrote:What would you estimate it to be? At least 130?

180

+180

You can find other threads on this if you look hard enough. The bottom line is that there is a correlation between IQ, LSAT, and SAT, but the correlation isn't super strong, and there is no discernible IQ floor. These exams test different skills, and you can make up for a lack of talent by practicing. (Note that this principle applies to life in general too.)

Some factors that will prevent you from reaching a conclusion: IQ may be meaningless, it is difficult to evaluate and compare IQ scores without knowing which tests were used, IQ can change significantly after childhood (and most data will be from people who were tested in elementary school for "gifted" programs), small sample size, sample bias.

RZ5646 wrote:You can find other threads on this if you look hard enough. The bottom line is that there is a correlation between IQ, LSAT, and SAT, but the correlation isn't super strong, and there is no discernible IQ floor. These exams test different skills, and you can make up for a lack of talent by practicing. (Note that this principle applies to life in general too.)

Some factors that will prevent you from reaching a conclusion: IQ may be meaningless, it is difficult to evaluate and compare IQ scores without knowing which tests were used, IQ can change significantly after childhood (and most data will be from people who were tested in elementary school for "gifted" programs), small sample size, sample bias.

To sum up all of this: 180

I don't believe in there being a correlation between IQ and the LSAT because the LSAT is very much learnable if you can put yourself to it. But if there was, then the minimum IQ you'd need would definitely be a 179. *giggles*

While you are at it, what is the minimum weight to make a free throw?

.

zeglo wrote:Well I don't think it's that high. It's more about discipline and motivation. And conversely of course, those with very high IQ's don't necessarily do that well without proper studying.

I was just joking friend.

Not that it matters, I would say your IQ is indeed correlated to your LSAT score; however, it isn't as if your IQ has to be X to achieve a 170 or achieve a 165. I would say you just do the best with your circumstances and not dwell on OH my IQ is a 100 so I'll never get a 170. Just focus on the task at hand.

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.

Well, I will have you know, I got into the Prometheus Society TWICE and turned it down each time.

No you didn't.

^ Jelly member of Mensa (lol) ALERT.

MyNameIsntJames wrote: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.

I think you'd need at least a 69, but that just sounds like a lot of fun.

lmao

i bet you could teach someone with a 100 IQ to hit 170 on the LSAT if you had enough time

Getting a 170+ with an IQ of 100 is like making it into the nba as a short white guy.

philepistemer wrote:Getting a 170+ with an IQ of 100 is like making it into the nba as a short white guy.

keep telling yourself that

QuentonCassidy wrote:

MyNameIsntJames wrote: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.

philepistemer wrote:Getting a 170+ with an IQ of 100 is like making it into the nba as a short white guy.

Haha that's absurd. The test is LEARNABLE. Anybody with a reasonable level of intelligence level could crack 170+ with proper preparation.

MyNameIsntJames wrote:

QuentonCassidy wrote:

MyNameIsntJames wrote: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).

Hikikomorist wrote:

MyNameIsntJames wrote:

QuentonCassidy wrote:

MyNameIsntJames wrote: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.

MyNameIsntJames wrote:

Hikikomorist wrote:

MyNameIsntJames wrote:

QuentonCassidy wrote:

MyNameIsntJames wrote: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.

I mean, FWIW, I scored 174 the first time I ever tried an LSAT (given by my undergrad, simulating real test conditions, including experimental section). I had never seen an LSAT question before, nor did I know anything about the test beyond "it's like 4 hours long and required to get into law school." Obviously this is only one datapoint, and obviously you don't have to believe me, but I imagine that Hikikomorist is speaking from similar experience.

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.

Also, I don't think ANYONE could learn to do well on the LSAT even given unlimited time. I think the people who think this, perhaps, have gone to good schools or have a peer groups that are probably in the upper cohort of the bell curve. From my experience, I have worked with a wide array of people and I promise you, there are people I would bet thousands of dollars couldn't break a 160. Another thing to consider is help. I mean of course if you have a tutor that makes learning the test a lot easier than studying on your own, where you have to discern through the test and figure it out yourself.

i think, if everyone could score above a 170, everyone would go home, sit in their mother's basement and pound out the LSAT until you got a 200k offer for your 170+.

Statistically speaking, only like 1 or 2% (or whatever the exact figure is) of people score above a 170.

asdfdfdfadfas wrote:i think, if everyone could score above a 170, everyone would go home, sit in their mother's basement and pound out the LSAT until you got a 200k offer for your 170+.

???

You seriously think everyone would have the work ethic/motivation to do that? I think you're confusing ability with work ethic...most LSAT takers are not on TLS and worrying about their score every day of their lives