If so, then why do individuals have divergent scores on different tests? Standardized tests each test a different set of skills. If people are so concerned about intelligence then take a legitimate IQ test (perhaps one given by MENSA), and I think most will find they are simply average. No need to let your ego rest on the fact that you can get an analogy question correct, or do some logic game. If you can score in the 99th percentile on a MENSA or some other legitimate IQ test, only then will I grant that that person possesses some special mental acuity.
I really find it funny how individuals, when they first take a practice LSAT and get a 144, then take a prep course and get a 168, suddenly believe they've achieved something remarkable, and are intelligent.
I agree that studies have shown if you do well on the LSAT your are more likely to succeed in your first year of law school. But would expect anything else? I would hope it at least does, but I have a better solution. If people are so confident that LSAT predicts success, then people should take the LSAT blind w/o any practice. Certainly your innate intelligence would be sufficient, and you should perform adequately well. This would really separate individuals. I really find it funny how individuals, when they first take a practice LSAT and get a 144, then take a prep course and get a 168, suddenly believe they've achieved something remarkable, and are intelligent. I CHALLENGE Law Schools during the next admissions cycle to re-orient the LSAT so that it is prepartion proof, then I think people would have a change of heart.