Look. The correlation between the LSAT and IQ tests is very high, on the order of .8 or .9. It's not perfect, but if you know statistics, you'll know that a .8 or .9 correlation is *huge*. The old SAT, which was a de facto IQ test and was designed as such, had a lower IQ correlation than this. Many IQ tests *themselves* have a lower correlation with each other than this. The LSAT, for all intents and purposes, quite simply is an IQ test.

As long as two measures are correlated in any way at all, it's possible to derive a formula that "converts" between them. This does not mean that you can plug in your LSAT score and out pops your IQ, accurate to within four significant figures. It just means that the formula is able to predict scores better than any other formula. If there were no correlation, this wouldn't be possible. The higher the correlation, the more accurate the predictions. With a .8 correlation, the predictions should be pretty damn accurate for a lot of people.

Thus, if a formula doesn't predict your score, or even if it's *way* off, that *does not mean* there is no correlation to be found between LSAT and IQ or LSAT and SAT. In any statistical sampling, there will be outliers. You may be one of them. I just don't understand how supposedly intelligent people, bound for law school and some even in MENSA (gasp!), can fail to grasp this. Anecdotal evidence in the form of single data points that don't fit the curve prove nothing. It's that sort of thinking that causes someone to bomb the LSAT in the first place.