It would be interesting to see whether there really is a correlation. (And, no, I didn't read all 15 pages of responses, so forgive me for not addressing them.)
The chart was actually dead-on for me: I took the WAIS-III IQ test & scored a 137. When I took the LSAT, I'd only studied for it for two weeks (just to see what the format was; what to expect). I did about 6 or 7 practice exams. (Obviously, I wasn't seriously considering going to law school -- just finished a philosophy & law course & decided to see how I'd do.) I also have ADHD, which I didn't know when I took the exam...and that's about the worst possible environment for someone w/ ADHD to take an exam in -- elbow-to-elbow in a crowded auditorium! Crazy.
Regardless, on my practice exams, I was scoring consistent 169-171...right in there every time. That's pretty close to what the original post says should be expected. Not bad.
(I only scored a 163 on the actual exam, but, like I said, that was before I even knew what ADHD was, and certainly before I knew better how to deal with the distractions.)
I quickly perused this thread now that you revived it, and the conversion table is not accurate, nor is any comparison between IQ and LSAT score.
I too had both the WISC-III and Stanford-Binet IV/LM tests administered to me when I was much younger as part of my IEP and gifted education assessment. If there were any direct and reliable correlation between IQ and LSAT I should be scoring a 180 without any difficulty at all. Unfortunately, this is what makes this coversion table so suspect.
One could argue that there is slight overlap between the two measures. Certainly you wouldn't expect say, someone who is subaverage (in terms of IQ - numerically, lets say 90-100), or even average to score well on the LSAT regardless of preparation. By the same token, one would expect that those concentrated on the right distribution of the scale on the LSAT (numerically, lets say 160+) to have higher IQs - but not necessarily significantly higher than average. But this is the only relationship we could reasonably infer.
IQ tests are meant to be 'g loaded', that is, they test an array of abilities supposedly specific to intelligence - the ability to learn or adapt to novel or unfamiliar stimuli. The LSAT tests only a certain type of ability specific to success in first year law school (supposedly). The said relationship is what determines the validity of any standardized tests (such as the LSAT and IQ tests). Since both tests are meant to assess differing abilities they cannot be compared in numerical terms.
Not to mention that LSAT scores can be improved significantly through intensive preparation.
the discrepancy between the scores obtained and those predicted by your IQ test most likely lies with the IQ test that you took. there's a lot of confusion floating around these days with regards to IQ scores. i think that i just might vomit the next time i hear someone (i.e. jessica simpson, quentin tarantino, etc) say that they have a 160 IQ (or greater). there is only one "real" IQ test that has garned general acceptance and use amongst pyschologists. that test (the name escapes me) more or less places individuals on a 1-150 scale. an IQ of 140 is 1 in 1,000, 145 1 in 10,000, and an IQ of 150 is 1 in 1,000,000. other tests (which do not have anywhere near the same degree of use or acceptance but are popular in certain circles due to the inflated scale) use a 1 to 200 scale. the problem here is that most do not realize that there are different scales in play. so someone can announce an IQ of 160 (omg, a super genius!) which really, when scaled down to match the *only legitimate test* is something prob in the 125-132 range (if that). not to be a bubble popper, but this prob explains why your IQ would predict a guaranteed 180 but in actuality you're scoring (guessing here) in the 164-170 range.