Law School Discussion

LSAT/IQ Conversion Table

Hocine

  • ****
  • 336
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT/IQ Conversion Table
« Reply #40 on: October 29, 2004, 01:50:12 AM »
OIC

I found out today that my arguments teacher got a 180 taking the test cold..

Too bad he refuses to take the test for any of us :(

Re: LSAT/IQ Conversion Table
« Reply #41 on: October 29, 2004, 06:54:15 AM »
I didn't take the Mensa test. I got in by a score I got on an I.Q test that I took in grade school--about 30 years ago. I.Q. tests test innate intelligence, whereas the LSAT tests your ability to find small incongruities in argumentation which is something you obviously must study for.

Re: LSAT/IQ Conversion Table
« Reply #42 on: October 29, 2004, 11:02:48 AM »
I didn't take the Mensa test. I got in by a score I got on an I.Q test that I took in grade school--about 30 years ago. I.Q. tests test innate intelligence, whereas the LSAT tests your ability to find small incongruities in argumentation which is something you obviously must study for.

Wouldn't you think finding errors in arguments had something to do with intelligence?

Re: LSAT/IQ Conversion Table
« Reply #43 on: October 29, 2004, 12:15:07 PM »
I didn't take the Mensa test. I got in by a score I got on an I.Q test that I took in grade school--about 30 years ago. I.Q. tests test innate intelligence, whereas the LSAT tests your ability to find small incongruities in argumentation which is something you obviously must study for.

Wouldn't you think finding errors in arguments had something to do with intelligence?

Define intelligence.  Seriously, intelligence to me means creativity first and foremost, and you're not going to find a test testing that.

I'm really surprised people are taking this so seriously. 

Dillon

  • ****
  • 475
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT/IQ Conversion Table
« Reply #44 on: October 29, 2004, 12:24:12 PM »
There is very little “innate” about performing well on the lsat… speaks for itself! 

This conversation only yields itself to english speaking elitists puffing themselves!

Hocine

  • ****
  • 336
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT/IQ Conversion Table
« Reply #45 on: October 29, 2004, 12:27:00 PM »
Your IQ determines your potential, but it is never sufficient to determine achievement (other than on tasks that require the specific skills tested by IQ test, which I do not believe the LSAT does)

So a smart person necessarily has the potential to do quite well, but if their environment throughout life has not been condusive to the development of the skills that are required for the LSAT, then they might not do that well at first.

For example, I would expect a genius whose parents who are philosophers, and went to Brearley, to do much better on her first test than a genius whose parents were catholic missionaries, and went to catholic school.. (of course this is not a hard and fast rule, just a generalization of what I'd expect to be true the majority of the time.)

Re: LSAT/IQ Conversion Table
« Reply #46 on: October 29, 2004, 12:32:50 PM »
If IQ doesn't strongly enough predict LSAT performance such that a correlation between the two can be drawn, how can it be said to measure anything meaningful?  You need some kind of standard to judge these tests against.  If the IQ test only measures a skill set that consists of how well one does on IQ tests and there's no external correlation, it seems like it's just really masturbatory and a way for MENSA to continue to exist and make money.

I assume, however, that there is some sort of correlation and it is appropriate to draw an analogue.  Maybe the R value is only 0.4 or something, but intuitively they ought to predict one another to an order of magnitude estimate, especially assuming you prepped the average amount, etc.  If that isn't true, though, I would be very skeptical of your status as a genius unless you have something more substantial than an IQ test to back it up.

Hocine

  • ****
  • 336
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT/IQ Conversion Table
« Reply #47 on: October 29, 2004, 12:46:12 PM »
ghostpirate, you're saying that in order for something that's being tested to be 'meaningful,' it has to test the same things that the IQ test does?  Or it has to correlate with the IQ test?

Then why don't law schools just require an IQ test?

Law schools don't care how quickly you can do simple arithmetic calculations, or about your ability to manipulate the orientatioin of shapes in your mind (spatial reasoning?), or your ability to memorize patterns or numbers in the short-term... these are some of the things that are tested by IQ tests and are rarely useful for the LSAT (I guess you could write a 2 page paper showing how spatial reasoning skills are required for games), if at all.

Law schools really don't find these things very important, or at least not nearly as important as your ability to solve problems, analyze arguments, understand things you've read, etc.

Think about it, they could EASILY implement sections that test some of these things quite accurately, but they don't.


Different tests test different things, and IQ is not the only thing that makes things "meaningful"

Of course the IQ is still meaningful.. it's pretty good at testing a lot of basic mental skills.. but, as I explained in my post above, it's not sufficient to ensure a high level of achievement on the LSAT, even if your IQ is 200 (explained this in depth in my last post).

You could be the smartest person in the world, but if you don't have the skill sets that law schools are looking for... you get the picture.

Re: LSAT/IQ Conversion Table
« Reply #48 on: October 29, 2004, 12:50:42 PM »
Backwards.  In order for the IQ test to mean anything, it has to have some relevance to the world outside the IQ test.

vmersich

Re: LSAT/IQ Conversion Table
« Reply #49 on: October 29, 2004, 12:54:15 PM »
I don't give a *&^% about all this nonsense.

All I know is, according to MENSA (and to every test I've taken that MENSA lists), I'm a genius.  This is all I care about. Who's with me?  GRE, LSAT, SAT, MAT.  I'm a f-in' genius, bitches.  And this confirms my actual IQ test (143).  Genius!

If you don't like my post, you must not be a genius.