Law School Discussion

LSAT 163 = IQ 132

dta

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #20 on: April 17, 2004, 10:18:49 PM »
While IQ may not be an incredibly important asset for a president I think being articulate enough to make requests more complicated than "I want another Pop-Tart" would be helpful. Surrounding oneself w/ smart people is useful only if one is at least smart enough to querry these people with something resembling thoughtfulness. Without this minimum low-bar of thoughtfulness we run the risk of having a president who is, basically, told what to do by his advisors. e.g. - "Mr. President, what you really want to do is invade Iraq because Saddam is a bad man and you remember how we talked yesterday about how you don't like bad men.".

zpops

  • ****
  • 773
  • Going to NYU in the fall! 3.99/175
    • AOL Instant Messenger - zp0ps
    • View Profile
    • The Digital Rant
    • Email
Re: Bush Battles Functional Illiteracy
« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2004, 10:20:54 PM »
Everyday I would see Georgie toil away at the Prescott Walker Bush Memorial Wing at Yale in preparation for his college boards.


LOL!  That was my favorite line, because it rings very true. . .

Here's another JOKE
« Reply #22 on: April 17, 2004, 10:26:35 PM »
Before the inauguration, George W. was invited to a 'get acquainted' tour of the White House.
 
After drinking several glasses of iced tea, he asked President Clinton if he could use his personal bathroom. He was astonished to see that the President had a solid gold urinal!

That afternoon, George W. told his wife, Laura, about the urinal. "Just think," he said, "when I am President, I'll have my own personal gold urinal!"

Later, when Laura had lunch with Hillary at her tour of the White House, she told Hillary how impressed George had been with his discovery of the fact that, in the President's private  bathroom, the President had a gold urinal.
 
That evening, Bill and Hillary were getting ready for bed. Hillary turned to Bill and said, "Well, I found out who peed in your saxophone."
 
 
 

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #23 on: April 19, 2004, 12:26:23 AM »
To "suvadopsis": Thanks for posting the article written by SALT on LSAT

http://www.saltlaw.org/StatementLSATBrochure.pdf

It was very informative and enlightening.

blizzard of ozz

  • ****
  • 188
  • 3.66/163
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #24 on: April 19, 2004, 08:43:57 PM »
Well, we're certainly going off topic here, but I'll throw in the embarrassing fact that Bush failed to gain attendance to ANY law school, inspite of his parent's DEEP ties to Yale.  His ancestors include members of Skull and Bones, and members of the executive board of the university for god's sake!  And I believe he predominantly scored the "gentleman's C" in both undergrad and grad school, which essentially shows that he was in class and did nothing to deeply offend his professors. 

Gore also pulled his fair share of C's in Harvard UG, than managed to flunk out of Vandy divinity (a task so colossally difficult as to be unthinkable), than took a leave of absence from Vandy Law. Gore only got into Vandy Law because of the half dozen or so alumni in his family and his father (a Tennessee senator's) strong pull in Tennessee. He pulled pretty awful grades in LS before taking a leave of absence to run for office.

Remember, Al Gore is the same moron who claimed to have invented the internet. Let's be fair here. I hate Bush, but it's not like all the Dems are rocket scientists.

Bradley, despite being a Rhodes Scholar, pulled an SAT score of less than 1000, which should make him functionally retarded.

zpops

  • ****
  • 773
  • Going to NYU in the fall! 3.99/175
    • AOL Instant Messenger - zp0ps
    • View Profile
    • The Digital Rant
    • Email
Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #25 on: April 19, 2004, 09:08:37 PM »

Gore also pulled his fair share of C's in Harvard UG, than managed to flunk out of Vandy divinity (a task so colossally difficult as to be unthinkable), than took a leave of absence from Vandy Law. Gore only got into Vandy Law because of the half dozen or so alumni in his family and his father (a Tennessee senator's) strong pull in Tennessee. He pulled pretty awful grades in LS before taking a leave of absence to run for office.

Remember, Al Gore is the same moron who claimed to have invented the internet. Let's be fair here. I hate Bush, but it's not like all the Dems are rocket scientists.

Bradley, despite being a Rhodes Scholar, pulled an SAT score of less than 1000, which should make him functionally retarded.

No disagreement here.  But Bush is really a spectacular example of blowing a sure thing.  It's simply stunning that a man with such great ties to a school couldn't get in.

jas9999

  • ****
  • 726
  • Actual Law Student
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #26 on: April 20, 2004, 11:19:31 AM »
Remember, Al Gore is the same moron who claimed to have invented the internet.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm

M2

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #27 on: April 20, 2004, 12:49:25 PM »
back on to the main topic...

I think that getting a naturally (first time) high score on the LSAT does probably imply high IQ...but not the other way around...

First time high LSAT -> High IQ...lol

I have had my IQ tested 3 separate times , and I have scored higher than 132 every time, but I have never scored a 163 or higher  on the LSAT... So i guess the inverse isn't necessarily true...

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #28 on: April 21, 2004, 05:30:50 PM »
Quote
I think that getting a naturally (first time) high score on the LSAT does probably imply high IQ...but not the other way around...

First time high LSAT -> High IQ

Exactly! Virgin LSAT is a much better way to test intelligence than IQ tests are! Anyway, I don't score that high on IQ tests, so I guess I will do pretty well on LSAT! lol

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #29 on: April 21, 2004, 05:36:41 PM »
Okay, getting serious now, when I was reading this thread I thought the comments on LSAT were just some observations made by "suvadopsis", but later when I saw that that was a researched study undertaken by SALT, I became really suspicious of this test and its effectiveness in assassing law school applicants' skills. I don't know, now when I practice on LSAT, I have an ironic smile on my face!