Law School Discussion

LSAT Preparation => Studying for the LSAT => Topic started by: candice on April 17, 2004, 12:41:07 AM

Title: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: candice on April 17, 2004, 12:41:07 AM
From the MENSA's website it looks like it is so ... does anyone though know whether there are studies correlating the two tests?

http://www.us.mensa.org/join_mensa/testscores.php3
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: baseballjones on April 17, 2004, 01:19:24 AM
I don't think they are equivilent, but MENSA will allow you to use your LSAT score to qualify for membership.

So everyone w/ a 163 and higher can join MENSA.

Cool.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: candice on April 17, 2004, 01:49:00 AM
Quote
So everyone w/ a 163 and higher can join MENSA

Obviously. I would also add that the first LSAT-type test in 1947 was based upon the original IQ test and data collected by the Army to test recruits in World War I. Such data had also been used to prove that Eastern European immigrants and African Americans were less intelligent than Northern and Western Europeans. The original LSAT had historical roots in efforts to substantiate racial inequality and nativism.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: cashy on April 17, 2004, 02:53:14 AM
I just don't get this; why do you begin to post "equivalencies" like this one and trying to make it look like these tests actually measure someone's intelligence; if this last term has some well-defined meaning, of course! LSAT, GMAT, GRE and the like are just some tests schools use to facilitate their work -- wrongly so -- when choosing candidates to be accepted. They are not really useful in determining a person's intelligence or the likelihood of success in law/graduate school.

It's complete bull. My friend has an IQ cert. by MENSA last year at 137, and his pre-test at the testing prep was horrible. Granted, he went late and only had about 10 minutes to complete the first section, but it was still really bad. Hopefully, the next test will be a better judgement of the real test. He plan to be there early just in case. Nevertheless, after law school and in life in general, the LSAT means jack

In short, all the testing industry, inlcluding our dear LSAT, is bullsh*t.
 
 
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: kaftex on April 17, 2004, 03:04:44 AM
It's no secret that in the past few years Mensa has
suffered from horrible leadership and has been
hemorrhaging members like crazy. I'm unsurprised
that in their rush to recruit they're taking LSAT
and ASVAB scores.
Title: SALT on LSAT
Post by: suvadopsis on April 17, 2004, 03:07:12 AM
Well,

An applicant’s Law School Admission Test (LSAT) score has become the most determinative factor in the admission process. The LSAT is now widely used as a predictor of success throughout law school and on the bar exam, purposes neither contemplated nor advocated by the test-makers themselves. Most disturbingly, over-reliance on the LSAT serves as a significant barrier to achieving excellence and diversity in law schools.

THE IMPROPER USE OF THIS TEST SHOULD BE ABANDONED.

Notwithstanding the protestations of the LSAC and its psychometricians, who merely sought to design a test that accurately measures limited skills, test scores continue to be accepted today as a gross measure of intelligence and/or of the test taker's general knowledge and academic competence. LSAT measures aptitude, not achievement – a much-contested intention itself. The resulting test score is said to predict whether an applicant will successfully complete the first year of law school. Yet even this limited claim is contested. One study finds that the test explains only 16% of the variance in grades among students enrolled at ABA accredited law schools (while the LSAT combined with GPA explains 25% of the variance). Even more problematic is the variation in the correlation between LSAT scores and first-year grades from school to school. Further, race and gender continue to be negatively correlated with such test scores.

Despite the test-makers' modest goals and warnings from the LSAC against overreliance on LSAT scores, many deans, faculties and law school admission officers continue to treat the test as a nearly-definitive measure of aptitude and merit. Notwithstanding the claims in glossy law school catalogues that admissions is a "personalized", "holistic" process, 70-80% of all admissions are determined strictly on the numbers. The LSAC has emphasized that modest differences in test scores do not matter.

Even as much as 10 points under the current scoring system is inconsequential in predicting the relative success of students in law school.

Yet, despite these cautionary words and the availability of "banded scores", law schools continue to use the LSAT as a blunt instrument to determine the fate of applicants whose scores may be within 2-3 points of each other and to set absolute lines of demarcation for admission. In addition, over-reliance on the LSAT as a valid predictor of first-year grades ignores a large body of scholarship suggesting that law students of color and non-traditional students confront an unfamiliar and often hostile learning environment which may compromise their ability to do well during the first year despite subsequent success in the second and third years and in the profession.

Although the LSAT was never designed to predict overall performance in law school or professional competence in the practice of law, even employers have been known to ask candidates for their LSAT scores in job interviews with firms in the private sector, government agencies, courts and even in legal education. The LSAT does not measure motivation, perseverance, character, interpersonal skills, problem-solving skills, oral communication, empathy for clients, commitment to public service or the likelihood that the applicant will work with underserved communities. Law schools, by neglecting these important qualities, do a disservice to the legal profession and its clients, and they limit the legal profession’s ability to provide meaningful access to legal services to all segments of society.

Admission professionals at law schools across our nation are under tremendous pressure to secure the admission of students with high test scores. This pressure is the result of three forces: A) popular magazine "rankings" and their appeal, in our status-driven culture, to all of us in the academic food chain – applicants, enrolled students, faculty members, administrators, alumni/ae, employers and benefactors; B) the cost-saving aspects of a number-based admission process, which reduces much of the need for human intervention; and C) diversity opponents and others who argue that less reliance on test scores and greater attention to other qualifications will compromise America’s traditional "meritocracy."

- "U.S. News & World Report" Rankings
Ostensibly, "U.S. News & World Report" ranks law schools for the benefit of consumers, namely potential law students and their parents. While this ranking has been condemned by the AALS and the ABA for its methodological errors as well as for its incompleteness, rankings are closely followed by faculty members and administrators, as well as by prospective applicants. In this race to improve or at least maintain their rankings, schools fear a fall down the pecking order and hail a rise as proof of significant institutional improvement. Deans regularly refer to improved rankings and high median LSAT scores in fundraising campaigns and in developing alumni/ae relations. U.S. News relies heavily on the mean LSAT of the enrolled law school class, and a difference of 1 point may separate a "first tier" from a "second tier" school. Consequently, many admission officers, under increasing pressure from deans and professors to better market their school in the popular press, pay inordinate attention to LSAT scores. The process has become a numbers game, with admission officers calculating how many students with certain scores have to be admitted before they can begin to admit candidates with lower scores but with greater over-all merit.

SOME LAW SCHOOLS, CONCERNED ABOUT THE EFFECT OF THE RANKINGS ON THEIR ABILITY TO COMPETE FOR STUDENTS, HAVE ADOPTED QUICK-FIX METHODS TO RAISE lsat SCORES IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN/IMPROVE THEIR RANKINGS IN "u.s NEWS"

Former AALS president Dale Whitman has warned about the incentives for unethical behavior: "The desire for high rankings seems increasingly to induce us to behave in ways that we would not otherwise choose and to distort our educational judgments and priorities." The questionable behaviors he reports include everything from the commonplace distortion of the selection process in order to maintain an LSAT median that preserves or improves a school’s ranking to soliciting the transfer of minority students enrolled in neighboring institutions in their second year when their LSAT scores will not affect the ranking of the school.

The belief that LSAT scores measure the quality of the incoming class and the need to maintain a high median LSAT for ranking purposes has also affected the distribution of financial aid. Schools now "buy" high LSAT scores without regard to need. Given the prohibitive cost of legal education, the enormous debt burden facing so many students, and the limited availability of loan forgiveness programs for students who pursue public interest employment, the practice of using LSAT scores in awarding financial aid is disturbing. The LSAT was not designed to measure the relative worth of law schools. Educational quality can be measured by numerous indicators, including, dare we say, the quality of classroom teaching, as well as the quality and variety of clinical offerings, faculty scholarship, faculty standing in the legal community, the richness and diversity of the student body, the quality of services provided to students, the level of student satisfaction, the success of its graduates, and much more. Unfortunately, the LSAT has been accorded a significance and carries a weight far beyond its original, intended purpose.

Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: suvadopsis on April 17, 2004, 03:07:44 AM
- Cost-Saving
By and large, law schools have progressed from a system where faculty committees set admission standards, reviewed all the files and made the hard decisions; to hiring admission professionals to help faculty with the process; and now, to turning over the task almost exclusively to the admission office. Admission professionals bring valuable training and expertise to the process, yet the sheer volume of their work can be overwhelming, and, most significantly, they are under increasing pressure from deans and faculty members to raise median LSAT scores. Inevitably, over-reliance on the LSAT has become widespread, and individual assessments have become increasingly cursory.

With the "presumptive deny" and "presumptive admit" systems, it has been reported that admission officers at nearly 50% of our nation’s law schools read less than 30% of the files; at 75% of the schools, they read less than 50% of the files; and at only 10% of the schools do they read more than 70% of the files.

Over-reliance on the LSAT offers an inexpensive, simplified way to make admission decisions. The process is streamlined, efficient and predictable, but it fosters a misguided sense of certainty about the performance of admittees and unfairly results in the rejection of deserving students. Nor is it likely to identify and select the most capable future lawyers best suited to serve all segments of society. Not surprisingly, it also serves to perpetuate an overwhelmingly white legal profession. Because faculty members at so many law schools have abdicated their role of thoroughly reviewing applicant files, they remain largely unaware of the dominant role that the LSAT plays at the expense of other criteria. In short, we have turned a human enterprise into a numbers game which compromises other genuine efforts to achieve an excellent and diverse bar. The LSAT has become an enormously popular labor-saving device which, conveniently but undeservingly, has been accorded the career-defining attributes of a crystal ball.

- Today's Anti-Diversity Forces & Racialized Legacy of Standardized Testing
Although the LSAC maintains that its test "is fair to all takers regardless of racial, ethnic, gender, regional, or national background," test results vary significantly along race, gender and class lines. While there are many theories but no definitive explanation for these differences in performance, an understanding of the history of standardized testing may provide some valuable insights.

FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, STANDARDIZED TESTS WERE USED TO "PROVE" THE SUPERIORITY OF NORTHERN EUROPEAN WHITES, THE INFERIORITY OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS, JEWS AND SOUTHERN EUROPEAN IMMIGRANTS AND AS EVIDENCE OF THE NEED FOR RESTRICTIONS ON IMMIGRATION.

Indeed, Carl Brigham, who devised the first standardized test for use in college entrance exams and who subsequently headed the Educational Testing Service, had once been a major proponent of immigration restrictions and eugenics. The pioneers of ability testing developed their tests as part of a call for "standards" in the professions, often a euphemism for racial, ethnic and income-status exclusions. The elite law schools began using aptitude tests in the early twentieth century. Contemporary discourse insists on correlating test scores with intelligence and merit. Today, the Educational Testing Service (ETS) and the LSAC are working hard to eradicate any risk that the LSAT itself operates to unfairly disadvantage minority groups, yet the racialized history of standardized testing fuels current debates about the significance of racial, class and gender differentials in performance. The belief that test scores are a measure of cognitive ability leads inevitably to discussions of racial inferiority/superiority and the privileges that should belong exclusively to those who are superior. Despite attempts by the LSAC to clarify the purpose and the meaning of test scores, public discourse and even some judicial decisions continue to conflate test scores, intelligence and merit. Conservative legal scholars and others opposed to affirmative action all make the same argument: merit is best measured by UGPAand LSAT scores, and, thus, racial and ethnic minorities are, as a group, less meritorious – that is, less qualified – than whites.

Given the prevalence of racially-based attitudes in American society generally and our culture's abiding faith in the ability of science to devise some standard by which human capabilities can be measured, standardized tests have enormous appeal. Tests are potent symbols, especially when the aggregate difference in performance between whites and certain minority groups is invoked by those who wish to "prove" that the quality of higher education has been impaired by the admission of "unqualified" minorities. In this argument, we hear the echo of the past, the notion that Western culture is at risk unless those who do not belong, those who are inferior, are kept at bay. Recently, the Supreme Court, in Grutter v. Bollinger, recognized that law schools can legitimately seek to devise a race-conscious admission process designed to create a challenging and diverse learning environment and, ultimately, to graduate better qualified legal professionals. Over-reliance on the LSAT impedes the attainment of these objectives.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: wolfman1977 on April 17, 2004, 07:29:13 AM
First, in response to candice, I have read somewhere that there is a correlation of .81 between the LSAT and an unspecified IQ test, which is an overwhelming correlation.  Again, I don't know what the IQ test was, so I take that with a grain of salt.

Many law schools send the LSAT's and GPA's of their first year students, along with their 1st year grades, to LSAC and LSAC comes up with a formula that attempts to predict law school success based on that data.  This turns out to be the admissions index at many schools.  Many schools, especially state schools like UNC and UT, weight the GPA very heavily despite the fact that the LSAT is a better indicator of first year performance in law school and bar exam success than GPA is.  Obviously, the best indicator is a mix of the two (but the LSAT is weighted more than the GPA).  Most law school libraries have quite a few LSAT validity studies, and without having seen them, I know what the gist of the are.  The U.S. News rankings have, IMO, caused many schools to value a marginally better LSAT score (like a 167 over 165) when that score discrepancy doesn't really carry any predictive value. No doubt law schools focus too much on numbes, but a good alternative is hard to find.  But with that said, I don't think anyone doubts that people with a 170 will in general outperform people with a 140.  I think the same is true for people with scores of 160 and those with 150.

There are of course many exceptions to this model.  I too know very smart people who have had trouble with the LSAT.  But the overwelming number of smart people I know did not, and the overwhelming number of stupid people I know did.  As far as racial bias in standardized testing goes:

Whether someone was active in the eugenics field doesn't mean the test he devised was faulty.  In fact, you could make the case that a person who genuinely believe in eugencis would strive to create a color-blind test to the best of his/her ability since he/she would be confident of the outcome.  A lot of people were big on that stuff in the 40's.  Whether someone wished to restrict immigration is even less relevant.  That applies to most of the country today.  Peopel have cried racism for years on SAT questions and the like (how racially biased math questions rear their ugly heads is any one's guess).  One race doing better/worse on a test than another is not even close to proof of racial bias.  If that were the case, there must be something in those questions that favors Asians over whites.  Perhaps one reason why some minorities do worse on some standardized tests is the fact that a disproportionate # of students who attend crappy schools are minorities. 

As far as the Bollinger case, just because the Supreme Court says diversity somehow makes up for lower test scores doesn't make it so.  Michigan's case that diversity increases learning depends largely on Patricia Gurin's psycho-babble study.  Finally, the conservative scholars you mention are the ones who don't care about what a student body looks like so long as it selected on merit- if you could assemble a class that was 90% black based on test scores and GPA, I don't think they'd give a damn.  They certainly wouldn't decry the fact that Western Civ is being destroyed or dumbed-down.  While you may object to their conception of merit or the weight that is assessed to it, at least their's has some statistical value and is not based on school administrators' and academics' political views or feelings of guilt.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: zpops on April 17, 2004, 09:43:24 AM
I thought that an IQ test was meant to provide a score which does not vary signifigantly over time.  If this is true, then the LSAT is a HORRIBLE IQ test substitute, considering how much of the test is learned, and how much improvment one can experience with practice.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: wolfman1977 on April 17, 2004, 12:15:48 PM
Again, I don't know the exxact conditions of the testing that led to the claim I mentioned.  Perhaps it was restricted to first-time LSAT takers only. 
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: simbad on April 17, 2004, 04:46:06 PM
Quote
I thought that an IQ test was meant to provide a score which does not vary signifigantly over time.  If this is true, then the LSAT is a HORRIBLE IQ test substitute, considering how much of the test is learned, and how much improvment one can experience with practice.

Maybe those MENSA smart heads who consider LSAT 163 to be the equivalent of an IQ of 132 did study a little bit before they actually scored 163+ on LSAT and decided that you can get admitted to MENSA with an LSAT of 163! lol (MENSA surely presumes you have done your best before actually taking the LSAT that would serve as the basis of admission, so I guess there's no point in talking about "first-time LSAT takers only")

On another, more positive note, the fact is that if you practice long enough with IQ tests too you can raise your score on average by 5-10 points. lol

Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: zpops on April 17, 2004, 05:13:10 PM
On another, more positive note, the fact is that if you practice long enough with IQ tests too you can raise your score on average by 5-10 points. lol

I never thought about that, but it certainly makes sense.  LOL, now I'm just picturing someone who's so stuck up and conceited that he'd actually study for an IQ test, just to show off his high score.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: simbad on April 17, 2004, 05:18:19 PM
That was not what I meant zpops, the point I am trying to make is that these tests measure nothing.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: simbad on April 17, 2004, 05:18:56 PM
Intelligence and aptitude tests measure no trait or ability that can be said to be predictive of success in real life.

LSAT questions are very easy for just about everyone to solve if he would have enough time to do it. The whole "merit" of the test taker is supposed to be the SPEED with which he solves these problems. He*l, do not lawyers have enough spare time to sit back in their offices and think the issues through? Lawyers are not supposed to be Bonds 007 who need to make life/death decisions off-hand! Things being as they are, I have no problem at this point figuring out why so many law students and lawyers speed themselves up to be speedy enough from the beginning and throughout their careers! On the other hand, is it not ironic that the writing sample that demonstrates to a certain degree the writing, analyzing, and problem-tackling ability of the candidate is not scored at all?

The bottom line is that the current political penchant and craze for testing comes at the cost of genuine learning and sustained achievement. There should come as no surprise then that the law schools are petrified in their old procedures of pure theory and pure abstraction. There is no teaching by observation and experience today in American law schools. It has always been believed that from law school will emerge the social elite who will become the governing class. What emerges, to the contrary, are youthful materialists, knowing nothing about everything, but versed in all tricks needed to embrangle a litigation and employed to perpetrate the injustices of daily life.

Title: Really, IQs do not matter!
Post by: lejla100 on April 17, 2004, 08:00:54 PM
It's not about ideology or character; it's a question of cognitive capacity.

In terms of brute brainpower, the "smartest" postwar presidents were Richard Nixon, a Duke Law School graduate with a reported IQ of 143; Jimmy Carter, who graduated in the top 10 percent of his Naval Academy class; and Rhodes scholar Bill Clinton, a graduate of Georgetown University and Yale Law School. Deeply flawed presidencies all, despite their potential. In contrast, take high school graduate Harry Truman — railroad worker, clerk, bookkeeper, farmer, road inspector and small-town postmaster — or Ronald Reagan, sports announcer and B-list actor with mediocre college credentials. Despite their intellectual limitations, both achieved substantial political success as president. And, to press home the point, there is Franklin D. Roosevelt, a top-tier president in rankings of historical greatness, whom the late Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes branded "a second-rate intellect but a first-class temperament."

To put it bluntly, the president need not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but he does need a full deck of cards. He must be comfortable in his own skin, free of emotional demons, and surround himself with competent people. With apologies to Saturday Night Live's Stuart Smalley, the successful president need not be a towering giant, he just needs to be good enough, smart enough — and, doggone-it, people must like him. Now consider the discussion, "Is George W. Bush smart enough to be president?" Unlike John F. Kennedy, who obtained an IQ score of 119, or Al Gore, who achieved scores of 133 and 134 on intelligence tests taken at the beginning of his high school freshman and senior years, no IQ data are available for George W. Bush. But we do know that the young Bush registered a score of 1206 on the SAT, the most widely used test of college aptitude. (The more cerebral Al Gore obtained 1355.) Statistically, Bush's test performance places him in the top 16% of prospective college students — hardly the mark of a dimwit. Of course, the SAT is not designed as an IQ test. But it is highly correlated with general intelligence, to the tune of .80. In plain language, the SAT is two parts a measure of general intelligence and one part a measure of specific scholastic reasoning skills and abilities. If Bush could score in the top 16% of college applicants on the SAT, he would almost certainly rank higher on tests of general intelligence, which are normed with reference to the general population. But even if his rank remained constant at the 84th-percentile level of his SAT score, it would translate to an IQ score of 115.

It's tempting to employ Al Gore's IQ:SAT ratio of 134:1355 as a formula for estimating Bush's probable intelligence quotient — an exercise in fuzzy statistics that predicts a score of 119. If the number sounds familiar, it's precisely the IQ score attributed to Kennedy, whom Princeton political scientist Fred Greenstein, in "The Presidential Difference," commended as "a quick study, whose wit was an indication of a subtle mind." As a final clue to Bush's cognitive capacity, consider data from Joseph Matarazzo's leading text on intelligence and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: The average IQ is about 105 for high school graduates, 115 for college graduates and 125 for people with advanced professional degrees. With his MBA from Harvard Business School, it's not unreasonable to assume that Bush's IQ surpasses the 115 of the average bachelor's-degree-only college graduate. George W. Bush has often been underestimated. Almost certainly, he's received a bad rap on the count of cognitive capacity. Indications are that, in the arena of mental ability, Bush is in the same league as John F. Kennedy, who graduated 65th in his high-school class of 110 and, in the words of one biographer, "stumbled through Latin, French, mathematics, and English but made respectable marks in physics and history." The feisty, sometimes-irreverent Bush's mental acuity may lack a little of the sharpness of his tongue, but plainly it is sharp enough. The real test for the president-elect will be whether he possesses the emotional intelligence — the triumph of reason over rigidity and restraint over impulse — to steer the course.

Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: zpops on April 17, 2004, 08:07:40 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. 
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: wafrica22 on April 17, 2004, 08:21:41 PM
As to President Bush: The military and intelligence apparatus has taken over the reigns of foreign policy in close consultation with Wall Street, the Texas oil conglomerates and the military industrial complex. With key decisions taken behind closed doors at the CIA and the Pentagon, civilian political institutions including the President and the US Congress increasingly play the role of a façade.

In other words, US foreign policy does not emanate from the institutions of civilian government (i.e. the Legislature and Executive). It exists because the US military-intelligence apparatus -- and the various powers behind it -- tend to override the institutions of civilian government in setting both the military and diplomatic agenda. In this process, which has reached a new stage during the G. W. Bush administration, the Commander-in-Chief, largely responds to the instructions of key advisers. While the illusion of a functioning democracy prevails in the eyes of public opinion, the US president has become a mere public relations figurehead, visibly with little understanding of key foreign policy issues.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: opaltopaz000 on April 17, 2004, 08:36:58 PM
I understand what you are trying to say, wafrica, given the actual situation with Iraq, but I do  not agree that the President of the United States is a mere public relations figure. The President of the U.S. is the most powerful man on earth. He may not be on the bright side of the IQ scale, but after all IQs do not matter, as you all said here.
Title: Bush Battles Functional Illiteracy
Post by: memme7 on April 17, 2004, 09:14:40 PM
When George W. Bush was elected governor of Texas back in '94, his friends began to notice a very curious character trait. 'We were out to dinner - the entire staff of the governors,' explained an unnamed source, 'And the bill came, and Governor Bush offered to pay. I noticed that he very guardedly took the bill and very deliberately signed the bill. Before the waitress took her copy, I looked down, and noticed that he signed in the place for his name a big X.' Weeks later, it became apparent to the Texas Legislature that the Governor Bush might be functionally illiterate. The little sister of the unnamed source said, 'The Texas legislator had presented to him a bill that would that would open up oil exploration off of Padre Island near a sanctuary for endangered sea turtles. He signed the bill - after sharpening his green crayon from his big box of Crayola - with an X.' 'My seven-year-old son, who was with me that day at work, noticed that he signed with an X, and began to laugh. Later that day, I took my son aside and said, 'That man - our governor is a functional illiterate. Do you know what that means' He isn't as lucky as you and me. He can't read. We can't make fun of people like that - it's not right.''

Now that the rumor of George Bush's functional illiteracy has surfaced in the press, Karl Rowe the head of the Bush campaign has denied it vehemently. 'Governor Bush is an avid reader.' To support this assertion, Governor Bush's campaign offered a press release that Governor Bush has been slogging his way through the following books: 'Blues Clues' - a sort of whodunit, 'Harry Potter,' 'Keith Hernandez's: Who's on first'' and the entire Paddington Bear series. But upon a closer examination of Bush's academic record, it appears evident that he did struggle in the area of reading. Initially George W. Bush was put into a slow reading group that met in a basement classroom, and a specially-trained teacher was brought in to help with their reading skills. In his second-year at Yale, he was moved out of this slow reading group and entered the regular English classes. By his third year, he became such an enthusiast for English that he decided to major in phonics.'

The Bush family has taken personally this attack on W. Bush's so-called functional illiteracy problem.
'It's a bunch of nonsense,' declared Barbara Bush, 'He went to Yale undergrad., and Harvard for graduate school. How could someone get through these fine institutions without learning how to read''
'It's not like he was some inner city kid who went there on a basketball or football scholarship, and the teachers just gave him passing grades to get him through,' former President Bush added. 'He had to work hard, he's a fine boy.'
In fact, a classmate of his from Exeter and Yale said that he really had to work hard in order to get into Yale. Everyday I would see Georgie toil away at the Prescott Walker Bush Memorial Wing at Yale in preparation for his college boards.


On the Today show with Katie Couric, George Bush was asked yet again about his battle with functional illiteracy and again he claimed that he was an avid reader.
'You've claimed to have read the entire Paddington Bear series''
'Yeah.'
'If that's the case, can you tell me where Paddington Bear is from: A) China B) Iceland C) Peru D) Norway''
'I'm not gonna play this type of gotcha journalism-'
'- would you like to use one of your life lines''
'I'll use my 50-50.'
'Okay remove the two wrong answers, your left with B)Iceland C) Peru''
'It's Iceland, right''
'Is that your final answer''
'Yeah.'
'It's Peru. Governor Bush, be honest with the American people. You've never read the Paddington Bear series. If you're prepared to lie to the American people on this issue, how can we trust you on anything else.'


Nevertheless it is apparent the Governor Bush has made great strides in overcoming adult functional illiteracy. At the Republican convention, it was evident that he gave one of his best speeches, though he did need to use his index finger to follow the teleprompter. Perhaps one of the most dramatic moments of his speech came when he made this promise. When I put my hand on the Cliff note's version of the Bible and swear to uphold the dignity of the office, the Republicans felt convinced that the integrity which he exhibited in this statement would overshadow the fact that he can only read at a third grade level.

http://jokezine.com/politics/bush.html
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: memme7 on April 17, 2004, 09:18:10 PM
Here's a joke now

While visiting England, George W. Bush is invited to tea with the Queen. He asks her what her leadership philosophy is. She says that it is to surround herself with intelligent people. He asks how she knows if they're intelligent.

"I do so by asking them the right questions," says the Queen. "Allow me to demonstrate."

She phones Tony Blair and says, "Mr. Prime Minister. Please answer this question: Your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or sister. Who is it?"

Tony Blair responds, "It's me, ma'am."

"Correct. Thank you and good-bye, sir," says the Queen. She hangs up and says, "Did you get that, Mr. Bush?"

"Yes ma'am. Thanks a lot. I'll definitely be using that!"

Upon returning to Washington, he decides he'd better put the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the test. He summons Jesse Helms to the White House and says, "Senator Helms, I wonder if you can answer a question for me."

"Why, of course, sir. What's on your mind?"

"Uh, your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or your sister. Who is it?"

Helms hems and haws and finally asks, "Can I think about it and get back to you?" Bush agrees, and Helms leaves. He immediately calls a meeting of other senior senators, and they puzzle over the question for several hours, but nobody can come up with an answer. Finally, in desperation, Helms calls Colin Powell at the State Department and explains his problem.

"Now look here Colin Powell, your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother, or your sister. Who is it?" Powell answers immediately, "It's me, of course, you dumb ass."

Much relieved, Helms rushes back to the White House and exclaims, "I know the answer, sir! I know who it is! It's Colin Powell!" And Bush replies in disgust, "Wrong, you dumb ass, It's Tony Blair!"

Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: dta on April 17, 2004, 09:18:49 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.".
Title: Re: Bush Battles Functional Illiteracy
Post by: zpops on April 17, 2004, 09:20:54 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. . .
Title: Here's another JOKE
Post by: kela777 on April 17, 2004, 09:26:35 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."
 
 
 
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: neplusultra on April 18, 2004, 11:26:23 PM
To "suvadopsis": Thanks for posting the article written by SALT on LSAT

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

It was very informative and enlightening.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: blizzard of ozz on April 19, 2004, 07:43:57 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.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: zpops on April 19, 2004, 08:08:37 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.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: jas9999 on April 20, 2004, 10:19:31 AM
Remember, Al Gore is the same moron who claimed to have invented the internet.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: M2 on April 20, 2004, 11:49:25 AM
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...
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: lollys on April 21, 2004, 04:30:50 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
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: lollys on April 21, 2004, 04:36:41 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!
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: mirabiledictu on April 21, 2004, 06:04:50 PM
Quote
[...] 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

there's a typo in here, lolly :)

In regard to the conservatives and liberals' discussion ... too much fuss here about conservatives' inadequacies and faults ... well, you know what, I don't like liberals either!

In fact, the Left does not disagree with the Right intellectually ... with few exceptions, they are virtually incapable of intellectual disagreement. The Left disagrees *emotionally*. Really, this is a psychological and not ideological phenomenon: it is a mass neurosis of sorts. When millions of people cling to worldviews which have failed for the last 80 years, something is wrong. When people celebrate degeneration in defense of freedom of speech, there is something wrong. When people elevate the murder of innocent unborn children to a "right" but simultaneously fight against the application of capital punishment for heinous crimes, something is wrong. Liberalism is so full of logical and factual contradictions that one wonders how a rational person can subscribe to such a worldview. The mind of the liberal is literally shut off to logic and facts.

Liberalism (or what it has come to connote), is really the result of decades of emotional conditioning which has left those conditioned without the faculty of critical thought.  Certainly those emotions are there to begin with. Humans are animals. It is the taming of our base animalistic impulses that makes civilization possible. When those taming influences are supplanted by devices that condition and reinforce the animalistic impulses, civilization crumbles. This is why morality and social structure are so important (stating the obvious in this age is iconoclastic..lol) The point here is that what has happened over the last 40 years is that our consumption of entertainment -- television primarily, movies secondarily, and in some cases novels -- has had the negative effect of conditioning either by design or inadvertently, emotions and worldviews inconsistent with reality. These condititioned fantasy and utopian worldviews can result in societal collapse. Cognitive dissonance is but one vehicle in the war of the mind.

Cults can easily be explained in terms of cognitive dissonance. All inconsistent cognitions are dealt with by violence. In a cult, inconsistent cognitions are dealt with by shunning, by starving, by confinement, etc... Liberalism does the same thing! Political Correctness, the illegitimate step-child of liberalism, is cult-like in its establishment of correct speech. This is what cults do ... they prohibit certain words and discussion of certain topics. 

The Left are essentially a "cult of cognitive dissonance."
 
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: whatelz on April 21, 2004, 09:48:28 PM
mirabile, given the fact that you're neither a Republican nor a Democrat, can I ask what are you, a Socialist, Anarchist, maybe?
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: notabene on April 23, 2004, 05:32:09 PM
Quote
mirabile, given the fact that you're neither a Republican nor a Democrat, can I ask what are you, a Socialist, Anarchist, maybe?

Isn't it that an anarchist is individualist to the extreme and a socialist someone who is completely against individualism and the like? I guess the two of them do not go together ...
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: SUFIS on April 24, 2004, 04:43:49 PM
You could be a socialist as far as the economic structure of the society you envision is concerned, and a libertarian anarchist as far as individual rights of the citizens are concerned (governement role reduced as much as possible, probably down to zero.) 
Title: Artificial selection: LSAT bias affects us all
Post by: abmdmdj on April 28, 2004, 02:43:46 AM
It's easy for students here to believe they are the product of a Darwinian selection process that culminates in their anointment as the best and brightest, as future leaders of America. The Law School reifies its choices by praising its incoming 1Ls, who "deserve" to be here. In analyzing this claim, we would like to unpack the most critical (and, in some cases, sole) admissions criterion: the LSAT. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the LSAT is a biased exam that disadvantages women and minorities, yet law schools continue to rely on the LSAT score to differentiate between applicants. While some may argue that affirmative action balances the LSAT bias, this is contradicted by the facts. As researcher William C. Kidder has noted, "Even when diversity is a factor in admission decisions, the negative impact of the LSAT is so severe that among applicants with approximately the same GPAs, whites consistently have the greatest chance of being accepted into ABA law schools." Further, the differences in LSAT scores along racial and gender lines cannot be explained as matters of qualitative "deficiency" because, according to at least one study, racial and ethnic gaps on the LSAT are found to be larger than differences in undergraduate grades, law school grades or measures of subsequent success in the legal profession.

If qualitative differences do not account for differentiation in LSAT scores along race and gender lines, then, how can we explain that differentiation? It's actually quite simple:

EVERY QUESTION ON THE EXAM IS PRE-TESTED TO ENSURE THAT MINORITIES AND WOMEN DO NOT HAVE A STATISTICAL ADVANTAGE. 

Doubtful? In his expert report submitted on behalf of intervening defendants in Grutter v. Bollinger, Jay Rosner, Executive Director of the Princeton Review Foundation explained: "The actual task that Law Services performs, year-in and year-out, is accumulating a test full of individually chosen LSAT questions with foreseeable cumulative effects, which are that, on average: whites will score higher than blacks, men will score higher than women, and wealthy students will score higher than poor students. This occurs not by chance; on the contrary, it arises from the fact that virtually all of the individual questions chosen to appear on the LSAT have, in pre-testing, favored whites and men and the wealthy."

Rosner explains that, in addition to question selection, another reason for LSAT score bias is the expensive preparatory classes that generally advantage wealthy and non-minority students. By training students to take the LSAT, these classes provide essential test-taking strategies to those students who can afford it. Rosner concludes that "all (or nearly all) of the individual pre-tested questions selected for use on the LSAT favor whites over African Americans. Disparate results occur not by happenstance, but by design." Law school administrators have been aware of the LSAT's discriminatory effects for years, but they continue to report the high scores of their students in an effort to maintain their ranks. This discriminatory exam injects its poison into the law school admissions procedure, perverting the outcome so that the "merit" it creates embodies preexisting privilege rather than a more substantively accurate assessment of the ability to excel in law school. Unfortunately, there are significant social consequences to the use of these purposefully discriminatory test results as the primary criterion in law school admissions. "Research shows a negative correlation between social activism and performance on the LSAT for the national pool of test takers," Kidder has explained. Students with high LSAT scores, who are more likely to be accepted at elite schools, are less likely to use their influence, knowledge and connections to contribute to social causes. Take a moment, then, to consider HLS. The effect of "elite" admissions criteria is the explicit selection against diversity and social activism, which means that members of certain groups are effectively prevented from using legal power to benefit their communities. It is our solemn responsibility, as beneficiaries of this regressive diagnostic tool, to consider its effects upon our discourse and refuse to submit to the reflexive self-worship and praise of alma mater.
Title: A Link
Post by: abmdmdj on April 28, 2004, 02:45:20 AM
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/LegalEd/Legaled08.htm
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: zpops on April 28, 2004, 08:08:37 AM
Care to tell us who shot Kennedy?  How about where area 51 is, or how the government is using fluoride in the drinking water to control out minds?  This article smacks of ridiculous and baseless conspiracy theory.  It is a fact that certain minorities and women perform poorly on standardized tests, such as the LSAT or SAT, and while I'm in no position to explain why this is so, the charge that LSAC chooses questions specifically to favor wealthy whites is just absurd.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: jas9999 on April 28, 2004, 10:10:41 AM
I've always believed, for undergrad and law/grad schools, that your testing prep methods should be disclosed on applications. If you took Kaplan three times, you should have to write that on your application, so that score can be compared accurately with someone who self-prepared (or didn't prepare) and got the same numerical score. That would help reduce the family income bias, which is the largest predictor of score (moreso than race), at least for the SAT.

I read one book and did ten practice exams, over a 2-3 month period, and scored a 168. Why should that be considered the same as someone who got a 168 after fifty practice exams, private tutoring and one or more prep classes spanning a year?
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: papist on April 28, 2004, 10:26:45 AM
If the LSAT is such a wretched measure of success in law school, why do the schools continue to use it?  If it were so conclusively proven that the LSAT is nonpredictive, wouldn’t the schools de-emphasize it as a factor?  The SALT article cites one study to show that LSAT and law school success show no correlation; I’m just a liberal arts major, but I’m not going to believe something as being completely true simply because a single study said it to be so.  If people admitted to Harvard on their numbers alone make up the bottom of the class, the admissions office would take it into account.

Also, how can people say that the LSAT is intended to be racist and that law schools rely to heavily on them?  The University of Texas weights LSAT three times as heavily as GPA, yet the school is fighting the governor to be able to use affirmative action a year sooner than the law currently allows.  UT cannot be both eager to help minorities with AA while at the same time measuring its applicants almost totally by an intentionally racist test.

Law school requires more than hard work and studying.  Law school requires that you be able to read a complicated statute precisely, that you have the ability to use reasoning to resolve a problem and that you be able to articulate your finding in a coherent argument while anticipating and deconstructing opposing arguments.  Wait, isn’t that what the LSAT tests you on?
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: M2 on April 28, 2004, 10:42:37 AM
The point is that the LSAT is learnable...(i know some will disagree...but if its not learnable then why are u practicing?)

So those with access to classes and the ability to take off from work to study are at an advantage.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: papist on April 28, 2004, 10:51:50 AM
The point is that the LSAT is learnable...(i know some will disagree...but if its not learnable then why are u practicing?)

So those with access to classes and the ability to take off from work to study are at an advantage.


The problem there is that most things can be improved by not having work obligations.  Someone who doesn't have to work can study more and get a better GPA, can join more interesting organizations, assume leadership roles on campus, study abroad or do resume padding volunteer work.  I do agree with you that being able to afford an LSAT class puts wealthier people at an advantage: I borrowed an old review CD from a friend, I could barely afford to take the LSAT, let alone buy prep materials.  My point is that people will have an unfair advantage no matter what standards are used; I think people should take that into account when they rant against the LSAT.

As to the original topic, I scored a 159 on the LSAT, and I'm in MENSA.
Title: Outraged!!!
Post by: blackwoman on April 28, 2004, 05:08:02 PM
Quote
EVERY QUESTION ON THE EXAM IS PRE-TESTED TO ENSURE THAT MINORITIES AND WOMEN DO NOT HAVE A STATISTICAL ADVANTAGE.

This thread makes my blood boil -- I suspected that there was racial bias built into the structure of LSAT, but now that I see there are actually studies confirming this I have no doubt that the LSAC is nothing else than a bunch of white supremacist Nazis!!! I am not saying such people deserve to be shot right in their foreheads, but if not that, what am I supposed to say?!
Title: Re: Outraged!!!
Post by: nathanielmark on April 28, 2004, 05:15:40 PM
do you believe everything you read on a messageboard?  If so i have a pair of powerbriefs you might be interested in.


Quote
EVERY QUESTION ON THE EXAM IS PRE-TESTED TO ENSURE THAT MINORITIES AND WOMEN DO NOT HAVE A STATISTICAL ADVANTAGE.

This thread makes my blood boil -- I suspected that there was racial bias built into the structure of LSAT, but now that I see there are actually studies confirming this I have no doubt that the LSAC is nothing else than a bunch of Nazi white supremacists!!! I am not saying such people deserve to be shot right in their foreheads, but if not that, what am I supposed to say?!
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: blackwoman on April 28, 2004, 05:19:50 PM
I have no doubt that that is true! These white muthafuckas should learn a good lesson!
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: zpops on April 28, 2004, 05:24:20 PM
Come on nathan!  Don't get sucked in by such obvious flamebait.  Just ignore "her" and she'll go away.  I mean, her name is "blackwoman" and her avatar is a black panther for god's sake!   ;)
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: nathanielmark on April 28, 2004, 05:25:54 PM

YOu are right of course.  but you must admit the black panther was a nice touch.

Come on nathan!  Don't get sucked in by such obvious flamebait.  Just ignore "her" and she'll go away.  I mean, her name is "blackwoman" and her avatar is a black panther for god's sake!   ;)
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: werdma on April 28, 2004, 05:34:16 PM
zpops, what the "black panther" is supposed to signify? I find this thread troubling! I mean, we all know racism is here to stay with us, but I could have never ever imagined that they would go that far as to make racism and sexism built into the test structure! That is surely troubling!

... Although now that I carefully read the article I see the President of Princeton Review has actually testified on that before the Supreme Court! So, I guess, it's definitely not some kind of rumor; I mean, there has to have to been some kind of serious study on their part to confirm such, so that it would serve as evidence and testimony before the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: zpops on April 28, 2004, 05:50:07 PM
zpops, what the "black panther" is supposed to signify?

Against my better judgement (since this is your first post), I'll answer the question.  The black panthers are an black militant activist group, and are classified by the CIA as a hate group like the kkk or neo-nazis.  It would be stereotypical for a member to make remarks like "blackwoman"'s.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: mandala119 on April 28, 2004, 06:32:30 PM
Conflict, war and death have never made things better. Please refrain from hate-inducing messages. We should at least still make ourselves believe that reconciliation of the oppressors and the oppressed is yet possible within the actual system established.
Title: Celebrate The Advantage Or Denounce It?
Post by: myss571 on May 01, 2004, 01:37:35 AM
Quote
It is our solemn responsibility, as beneficiaries of this regressive diagnostic tool, [...] and refuse to submit to the reflexive self-worship and praise of alma mater.

I see where the article posted by "abmdmdj" is coming from,

http://www.hlrecord.org/news/2002/09/19/Opinion/Artificial.Selection.Lsat.Bias.Affects.Us.All-281888.shtml

I see clearly the point of the white Jay Rosner as well when testifying on the issue ... The people at the top of the system should always be careful not to lose their humanity and individuality. After all, power and authority corrupt those who exercise them as much as those who are compelled to submit to them. Power operates destructively, even on those who have it, reducing their individuality as it renders them stupid and brutal, even when they were originally endowed with the best of talents. One who is constantly striving to force everything into a mechanical order at last becomes a machine himself and loses all human feeling.

By treating others as less than yourself, restricting their growth, you lose all the potential insights and abilities these individuals have, so impoverishing your own life and restricting your own growth. Unfortunately in these days material wealth (a particularly narrow form of "self-interest") has replaced concern for developing the whole person and leading a fulfilling and creative life (a broad self-interest, which places the individual within society, one that recognises that relationships with others shape and develop all individuals). In a hierarchical, class-stratified society everyone loses to some degree, even those at the "top."
Title: Has Given Presentations on Other Standardized Tests As Well
Post by: ssasiflow on May 01, 2004, 02:26:39 AM
A noted test expert, Mr. Rosner has discussed his research on the process by which SAT items are pretested. In brief, Mr. Rosner has discovered that pretest questions answered correctly more by whites than students of color are the ones then chosen for inclusion on the SAT exam.

(http://www.ml4t.org/v2/images/mba_ev2.jpg)

Short Bio: Jay Rosner

Jay Rosner, the Executive Director of The Princeton Review Foundation, is a lawyer and an admission test expert, with a specialization in assisting historically excluded students on tests such as the SAT, GRE, MCAT and LSAT. In 2001 he testified as an expert witness on testing in the University of Michigan Law School affirmative action trial in Detroit. He is a consultant to KIPP schools and to Bob Moses' Algebra Project. He is based in the San Francisco bay area, but his work is national in scope. The Foundation he heads currently runs programs jointly with such national organizations as the Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund, the NAACP, and the Tavis Smiley Foundation and local organizations like the Asian Pacific Fund and Aspira of New York City. Jay holds a BA from the University of Pennsylvania, and a JD from Widener University. Prior to attending law school, Jay was a public high school math teacher for two years. He is the father of two daughters: one a recent college graduate, the other a college senior.


An excerpt from one of his latest articles is pasted below.

Preferences? On the SAT, They Happen to be White
_____________________________ ___________________

I've been a critic of the SAT for over 20 years, particularly regarding its impact on African American, Latino and Native American students. Recently, the president of a well-known northeastern university e-mailed me this question: "What do you say to people when they ask about the quantitative section of the SAT I? Surely there is no racial preference when it comes to this subject." In response, I just show folks two SAT questions and a bit of additional data. I don't need to do anything overly technical. The only concepts I use here are percentages and subtraction.

Educational Testing Service (ETS) is the company that puts together the SAT (and the GRE, GMAT, etc.). Below are two SAT math questions that ETS pretested. ETS pretests every potential SAT question by putting it into an unscored section of the SAT so that ETS can try it out. In other words, ETS wants to see ahead of time how tens of thousands of students do on it before the question is considered for later use on a scored SAT section. Thus, ETS finds out in pretesting the overall percentage of students answering the question correctly, along with the percentage of whites, blacks, Latinos, men, women, etc., answering correctly.

---------------------------------------------------------
Question #1:

If v2x is an integer, which of the following must be an integer?

a) vx
b) x
c) 4x
d) x
e) 2x

Is there a racial preference in this question? It happens that 7% more BLACKS that whites answered this question correctly. I'm an SAT expert, and I don't know why.

----------------------------------------------------------
Question #2:

If the area of a square is 4x, what is the length of a side?

a) x
b) 2x
c) 4x
d) x
e) 2x

Is there a racial preference in this question? It happens that 11% more WHITES than blacks answered this question correctly. Again, I don't know why.
------------------------------------------------------------

If you had the above statistics from pretesting (which ETS had) and needed to choose one of these questions to use on the SAT, which onewould you choose? ETS selected and used the second question, and rejected the first question. My testimony in the University of Michigan Law School case documented how ETS systematically rejects for use virtually every pretested question that favors blacks, and selects for use many pretested SAT questions that favor whites by 20% or more. Question #2 above, with an 11% difference, is slightly less than the average white/black difference of 15% on the SAT math questions that I researched. And, note that 4 of the 5 answer choices are identical. The white/black test score gap is a cumulative result of the individual questions that are chosen. I have data on 240 math questions used on 4 real SATs - exactly 1 question "favored" blacks (by 3%), and all the other 239 "favored" whites (by an average of 15%). Does this sound fair to you? Someone saying, "Surely, there is no racial preference (on the math section)," is certainly expressing what is commonly accepted wisdom. It's just wrong. There is no obvious bias, no bias that I can show you in the content of these or virtually any other SAT question. But there is a massive, unconscionable white preference created through question selection. I believe that this is not done by ETS with a racist motive, but it is a consistent, reliable, predictable and foreseeable pattern on the SAT.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The answer to Question #1 is c. To get the correct answer, you must substitute 1/2 for x. The answer to Question #2 is b. Squaring a side of length 2x produces the correct answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: SAT + ETS = $$$: The Big Test: A Secret History of the American Meritocracy
Post by: ssasiflow on May 01, 2004, 02:53:24 AM

The Educational Testing Service is located on a 376-acre estate outside of Princeton, NJ. One reporter has described it as "part corporate headquarters, part college campus, and part state park." The names on the buildings suggest something like Ivy League Inc.: Conant Hall, Brigham Library, and the Chauncey Conference Center pay homage to the Harvard and Princeton men who helped build the standardized testing movement. Even more memorable than ETS's buildings is its financial portfolio. Contrary to popular belief, ETS is a non-profit corporation - although it has exhibited behavior more like a company traded on Wall Street. Since its inception 51 years ago it has grown into an organization with a $456 million budget. According to the IRS it has real estate valued at $133.4 million and holds $34.8 million in cash and $132 million in stock. More than 2,100 people work for ETS. The current president of ETS earned $467,481 plus $49,664 in deferred compensation in 1998.

After a portfolio like this, one has to be reminded that "ETS World" is supposed to be about education. More accurately, it is about the business of manufacturing standardized tests, nearly 13 million of them every year. It administers the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), the Law School Aptitude Test (LSAT) [not any more] the Medical College Aptitude Test (MCAT), and the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). But the jewel in its crown is the SAT. This exam, along with the PSAT, is given to more than 5 million teenagers every year. The story of how ETS and its progeny, the SAT, came to play such a dominating role in American educational life is the subject of Nicholas Lemann's sprawling narrative The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy. Lemann has written an important book. It makes a contributi onto our understanding of the history of standardized testing in the United States. He has uncovered new information on the origins of ETS that forces us to seriously question why we allow a private testing industry to wield such an enormous influence in our public life. Furthermore, Lemann skillfully brings the reader into this subject matter through personal stories that illustrate larger social and educational issues.

[...]

HENRY CHAUNCEY'S ROLE
Much of the first part of the book is built around the life and times of Henry Chauncey, the first president of ETS from 1948-1972. Lemann draws upon ETS's archival papers and personal interviews with Chauncey to give an insightful and textured treatment of a man who wanted to test just about anything that moved. Lemann chronicles Chauncey's life from his Puritan family lineage, through his modest upbringing as the son of an Episcopal minister, to his student days at the Groton School, then on to Harvard, and eventually to what looked like the pinnacle of his career within the Yankee establishment, assistant dean of Harvard College. Lemann paints a picture of a man at one with the clubby rituals and tweed-suit world of prep schools and Ivy League colleges. However, even then Chauncey thought this rarefied world smacked a bit too much of privilege. While many Harvard students today come from wealthy backgrounds, back in the 1920s it was truly a closed world. Harvard was almost exclusively a place for rich, young, white men hailing from established families and well-heeled boarding schools. Academic merit was secondary to social standing. When Chauncey became an assistant dean in 1933, he was much taken by James Conant, the new president of Harvard College, and his desire to "reform" this system of privilege. Conant wanted to make Harvard and the other Ivy League schools places for a deservinge lite, where academic merit counted more than bloodline or checkbook.

As Lemann writes, it was a vision that hearkened back to the Jeffersonian ideal of "natural aristocrats," worthy scholars plucked from the masses to lead American democracy to greatness. True, no women or poor immigrants, much less African Americans, Asians, or Latinos fit into this notion of equal opportunity. Nonetheless, Chauncey convinced Conant that he had found the right selective tool to ensure academic merit. Enter the IQ test. Standardized testing was in full swing long before Chauncey fell in love with tests. By the 1930s, IQ tests had become a mainstay in American schools. They were being used to rank, sort, and track millions of students based on single number scores. Men like Lewis Terman, Edward Thorndike, and Carl Brigham had made careers out of claiming these tests proved the eugenic superiority and inferiority of different groups of people.

To learn from one of the masters, in 1933 Chauncey visited Carl Brigham, then a professor of psychology at Princeton. Brigham had already authored the influential A Study in American Intelligence (1923), where he had written, "The decline of American intelligence will be more rapid ... owing to the presence here of the Negro." Brigham still believed these ideas when he founded the original SAT in 1926. However, as Lemann notes, by the time Chauncey visited him in the 1930s Brigham had moved away from his racist ideology. In fact, he was doubtful that Chauncey and Conant could really construct a bias-free intelligence test. And he was not keen on the idea of creating a national agency that would administer all sorts of standardized tests that purported to measure natural ability. In 1938 Brigham wrote a letter to Conant stating,

Quote
"The very creation of powerful machinery to do more widely those things that are now being done badly will stifle research, discourage new developments, and establish existing methods, and even existing tests as the correct ones."

"If the unhappy day ever comes when teachers point their students toward these newer examinations, and the present weak and restricted procedures get a grip on education, then we may look for the inevitable distortion of education in terms of tests."

This is from the man who did so much to justify racial immigration quotas and tracking based on standardized test scores. It is a wonderful piece of research by Lemann and surely one of the most ironic and prophetic messages in the history of educational testing. (One wonders which Brigham ETS honored when they named their library after him.) Despite Brigham's misgivings there was nothing stopping Henry Chauncey. He was a man on a mission. Lemann describes how Chauncey was able to leverage a contract with the College Board to administer the SAT in 1948. We read about how Chauncey led the charge to move the SAT out of the Ivy League and help make it become the entrance test of choice for most colleges. This all came about at a time when American public education was expanding at all levels in the wake of the post-war baby boom.


Title: II
Post by: ssasiflow on May 01, 2004, 02:53:56 AM
TESTS AND INTELLIGENCE
Lemann gives us plenty of detail about the private world of lunch deals and endless meetings, where the ideas for a national testing industry get hatched. This is valuable up to a point. What is not put forward is an examination of any of the theories of intelligence in the 1930s and '40s. At this time intelligence was still seen by most educators as something fixed, finite, and easily measurable by single number scores. However, there were more progressive theories about student learning. These ideas would cast doubt on the efficacy of testing for natural aptitude, suggesting instead that understanding intelligence is a complicated endeavor and scores on standardized IQ tests have a lot to do with economic class and social caste. Lemann chooses not to discuss the work of Horace Mann Bond, Otto Kleinberg, Margaret Mead or others who questioned the dominant paradigms about intelligence.

Lemann also does not analyze the effect tests were having on schools. What was life like for students who were streamed out of the college bound classes? How did the tracking by tests in schools reflect the larger social and economic inequality in society? These questions are not explored. It is too bad because taking time to explain how ETS has been in part an outgrowth of the dominant views of intelligence and schooling would have led him down a different path in the second half of the book. The last two parts of The Big Test are also structured around personal lives. Lemann attempts to chart the rise of ETS through several central and minor characters. This results in some of the same strengths and shortcomings evident in the first part. We learn about the hopes and dreams of some students who score well and go on to Harvard and Yale. Their backgrounds vary but they all have in common high scores on the SAT. While telling their stories, Lemann provides an interesting account of how the California higher education system is formed and the role Clark Kerr plays in using SAT scores in the early 1960s to make Berkeley the designated, elite public university in the country.

Of particular interest in this section are a few examples that are extremely relevant to high-stakes testing today. Lemann rightly points out that despite ETS claims to the contrary, its packaged tests are coachable and measure something else besides "aptitude." His review of the Stanley Kaplan and Princeton Review test prep companies is fascinating. Since the 1950s and '60s these companies have charged fees to help boost test scores for those clients who could afford them. John Katzman, the founder of Princeton Review and a person who has made his fortune prepping students for the SAT, has his own brutal assessment of the test. Lemann writes that Katzman believed the "SATs were pernicious, meaningless bull foisted upon America's youth by a greedy corporation." More than a few people would agree with Katzman.

Lemann also discusses the criticisms that began to mount in the 1970s. These complaints focused on the class and racial bias reflected in SATs scores. One of ETS's own researchers became a would-be whistleblower. Winston Manning tried to persuade his bosses at ETS that they needed to revise the SAT. Manning drew upon statistical evidence that correlated parental income and education to the actual SAT scores of their children. He wanted to have these factors counted so SAT scores could be revised upward for many students who did not have some of the privileges higher scoring students had. He even questioned, God forbid, the notion that there was one primary kind of intelligence that could be measured on a sit-down, timed exam. As Lemann points out, ETS would have none of this. They had too much of a good thing going. Manning's critique ended up in ETS's dustbin, and Manning soon retired.

Theseexamples could have been an opportunity for Lemann to examine what he only touches upon when he writes,

Quote
The SAT and the other ETS tests had worked their way deeply into the fabric not just of higher education but of the whole life of the upper middle class, which was substantially oriented around trying to ensure that its children got high SAT scores and therefore berths in better colleges ... Much of the curriculum in American elementary and secondary education had been reverse-engineered to raise SAT scores.


GOING OFF TRACK
Lemann whets our appetite. We want to read how these tests reinforce class-stratification and distort curriculum and instruction. We want to see how the SAT contributes to tracking in American schools. These discussions would have been a natural segue into how most states today are using high-stakes tests to evaluate student mastery in academic subject areas. Unfortunately, Lemann does not do this.

Instead, Lemann chooses to venture into areas that take the book off track. He cites the origins of affirmative action and the dilemma around using test scores to achieve racial diversity in school and workplace. He then spends the last third of the book describing Proposition 209, the California ballot initiative to roll back affirmative action in the state. This is principally covered through the life of Molly Unger, one of the people Lemann designated as an example of the modern meritocratic elite. Affirmative action and Proposition 209 are all worthy topics to examine, but Lemann should have made them into magazine essays or another book. These issues get lost in the almost-a-soap-opera melodrama of Unger's unsuccessful efforts to stop Proposition 209. The episode just dangles out there, shedding no light on what is happening in schools. This time Lemann does not succeed in using personal portrait and local story to unify a larger social narrative.

This is all too bad, because Lemann does succeed in prying open some of the secrets of the testing industry, an industry that has only gotten bigger since he first began writing this book. He does not go the next step. Without some review of alternative assessments and best practices that work in schools today, his recommendations for change seem naïve and disjointed. On the one hand Lemann believes that the "chief aim of school should be not to sort out but to teach as many people as well as possible. ..." Yet, the way he thinks we can get there is by establishing "greater national authority over education. High schools should prepare their students for admission to college by teaching them a nationally agreed-upon curriculum. Tests for admission to college should be on the mastery of this curriculum."

This is no antidote to the SAT. If Lemann had spent less time describing the life stories of the elite and more time interviewing teachers and students in classrooms, he might have discovered that externally prescribed curricula and tests are wreaking havoc in our schools. Top-down, packaged tests and curricula have never ushered in an era of substantive improvement for most students. Lemann avoids the more difficult question of how our educational system can achieve excellence and equity for all students in away that makes schools an interesting place to learn. Nicholas Lemann shows us how Henry Chauncey and his successor sat ETS made a lot of money creating a testing juggernaut that served a meritocratic elite. He just never shows us how we could change "ETS World" into an educational system that would work for all students.


http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/14_03/sat143.shtml

Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: wolfman1977 on May 01, 2004, 03:39:36 AM
I haven't done a math problem in ages, so bear with me if I sound like an idiot.  Shouldn't the answer to #2 (the one about the sqare whose area is 4x) be "2 times the square root of x"?  Squaring that number would give you an area of 4x.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: dirtyviolin on May 27, 2004, 06:32:37 PM
Quote
This has been my impression of the LSAT, and other standardized tests, since I was first introduced to them. 
Historically upper and middle class white males were the majority (faculty and students) in institutions of higher education (undergraduate as well as graduate and professional programs).  This created an academic and social culture that catered to individuals well versed in the customs, mores, values of this social group.  When standardized tests were first developed for the academic community, primarily by white upper and middle class males, the questions were inherently biased in favor of this community.  As a result, individuals from this community have historically performed well on these tests.  As the tests have evolved, questions that a majority of the high performing test takers get wrong have been eliminated.  These, oftentimes, are the same questions that URMs get right.  It may represent a concerted effort, on the part of the test makers, to ensure adequate numbers of members from their community are able to matriculate into the most prestigious institutions (high scores serve as justification).  I believe, however, that it is a little more complex.  The test makers are trying to ensure that those with the skills they have determined best display the propensity for success in institutions of higher education score the highest.  Since the questions have always been culturally biased, due to the history of higher education and standardized tests, members of the dominant culture (and those well versed in the mores, values, etc. of the dominant culture) are at a distinct advantage since their "yardstick" is that by which all others are measured.

Then, what we are doing via these tests is perpetrating the "white class of professionals" while denying the minorities the opportunity to measure up even when the latter do have the ability to do so. Most people, though, find all this so "natural," that they may not even understand why one would scream so high about it -- that's the way it has always been for them and it's quite natural that minorities have been and continue to be discriminated against! After all, is it not the bias embedded in the test development process and built into the structure of these tests?! And while some of us may find this outrageous, they may simply add, "Well, that's why we have in place affirmative action programs!" Excuuuuuuuse meeeee, why don't you abolish these unconstitutional, racist and sexist tests altogether and let minorities compete freely with their fellow students, so that the former would not have to rely at all on piecemeal shitluck "affirmative action admissions"?

Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: panashi on May 27, 2004, 08:36:02 PM
The point is that the LSAT is learnable...(i know some will disagree...but if its not learnable then why are u practicing?)

So those with access to classes and the ability to take off from work to study are at an advantage.


The LSAT is learnable like reading is learnable.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: mellissa on May 28, 2004, 04:49:10 PM
DEATH TO THE MOTHERFUCKING NAZI AMERICA!
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: M2 on May 28, 2004, 04:57:20 PM
The point is that the LSAT is learnable...(i know some will disagree...but if its not learnable then why are u practicing?)

So those with access to classes and the ability to take off from work to study are at an advantage.


The LSAT is learnable like reading is learnable.

good analogy. I really like that.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: mellissa2 on May 28, 2004, 05:19:59 PM
DEATH TO THE MOTHERFUCKING NAZI AMERICA!
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: Ginatio on May 28, 2004, 11:13:41 PM
I didn't realize it was so easy to get into mensa... i always thought they were the 1%ile, uptight intellectual elitists... they seem like a joke to me now.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: usura on June 04, 2004, 05:01:26 PM
Okay.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: usura on June 04, 2004, 05:02:04 PM
My last post was directed to "mellisa", not to "ginato". Just a clarification.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: Skittles on June 04, 2004, 05:25:55 PM
I'm kinda shocked that you only have to have an IQ of 132 to join.  That's kinda lame.  Half my med school had IQs that high.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: Skittles on June 04, 2004, 05:36:29 PM
The point is that the LSAT is learnable...(i know some will disagree...but if its not learnable then why are u practicing?)

So those with access to classes and the ability to take off from work to study are at an advantage.


The LSAT is learnable like reading is learnable.

good analogy. I really like that.


That's only a true to the extent that if two people with about the same IQ plan to take the LSAT and one studies and one doesn't, the one who studies will do better.  But someone with an IQ of 80 just won't be able to score as high as someone with an IQ of 150 no matter how much he/she studies.  There's no matterial on the LSAT, so the only thing you can "learn" is what to expect and the stradegies that work best for answering questions.

I think intelligence is like any other talent, you can develope it with practice, but everyone is born starting off at a different level.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: ornament on June 04, 2004, 05:50:24 PM
Skittles, intelligence counts! That is why medical and law schools attract so many high IQ people.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: Skittles on June 04, 2004, 10:30:23 PM
Skittles, intelligence counts! That is why medical and law schools attract so many high IQ people.

yeah... that's what I'm saying. These tests (the MCAT and the LSAT) do to at least some extent measure intelligence. In fact, all pre-meds know that the verbal section of the MCAT is weighted the most by med schools (because that's the section that tests intelligence more than any of the other sections).  Of course, you have to well in all the sections, but if you bomb verbal you're skrewed... if you bomb physical sciences or bio, that's forgivable.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: nathanielmark on June 05, 2004, 07:13:16 AM
i wonder if they broke up LSAT reports like that for law schools which sections would be most highly valued by law schools.  i tend to think games would be the least valid.  that may be a little self-serving to say since that is my weakest section.  but i think that other then the few people that are truly strong at games, most people will see large fluctuations in games scores, thus making it a more highly variable, and less precise measure of ability.

what do you guys think?
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: Skittles on June 05, 2004, 07:46:17 AM
i wonder if they broke up LSAT reports like that for law schools which sections would be most highly valued by law schools.  i tend to think games would be the least valid.  that may be a little self-serving to say since that is my weakest section.  but i think that other then the few people that are truly strong at games, most people will see large fluctuations in games scores, thus making it a more highly variable, and less precise measure of ability.

what do you guys think?

I would have said the games up until I read here that many people think the games are easy but that arguments and reading comp. are hard.  So many that's why they don't break it up.  There's no one section that really separates people in terms of talent/intelligence because in a way each section tests a slightly different kind of intelligence.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: dex on June 05, 2004, 10:47:20 PM
Quote
i tend to think games would be the least valid.  that may be a little self-serving to say since that is my weakest section.

Maybe they consider the thinking process involved in aswering to games necessary for the investigative type of situations you may be faced with when, e.g., trying to construct an alibi as to why your client could not have slayed the victim because he was with his "lover" in NYC when the victim was killed in Wisconson and that the second best candidate for the big house lives only 1 hour away from the place where the murder happened? you get the point ..
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: shalom11 on June 11, 2004, 03:07:38 AM
Quote
Maybe they consider the thinking process involved in aswering to games necessary for the investigative type of situations you may be faced with when, e.g., trying to construct an alibi as to why your client could not have slayed the victim because he was with his "lover" in NYC when the victim was killed in Wisconson and that the second best candidate for the big house lives only 1 hour away from the place where the murder happened? you get the point ..

They consider their motherfucking thinking processes that are so f-ing screwed up ... they do not say in vain "Lawyers cant think straight" so what they are doing via these tests and the law school *&^% is @#!* your brain! Okay, fuckees? 
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: arsmagna on June 11, 2004, 07:11:55 PM
Quote
[...] they do not say in vain "Lawyers cant think straight" so what they are doing via these tests and the law school *&^% is @#!* your brain!

All this is done so that you become a "pathological liar". In fact, the best lawyers are those who can't really tell the difference between the truth and a lie.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: Jacobin on November 10, 2004, 10:31:46 PM
Quote
Then, what we are doing via these tests is perpetrating the "white class of professionals" while denying the minorities the opportunity to measure up even when the latter do have the ability to do so. Most people, though, find all this so "natural," that they may not even understand why one would scream so high about it -- that's the way it has always been for them and it's quite natural that minorities have been and continue to be discriminated against! After all, is it not the bias embedded in the test development process and built into the structure of these tests?! And while some of us may find this outrageous, they may simply add, "Well, that's why we have in place affirmative action programs!" Excuuuuuuuse meeeee, why don't you abolish these unconstitutional, racist and sexist tests altogether and let minorities compete freely with their fellow students, so that the former would not have to rely at all on piecemeal shitluck "affirmative action admissions"?

Here it is the LSAC response to all this:

Quote
Much has been written lately about the impact of standardized testing on the opportunities for minority students in higher education. Many critics point out that these tests are culturally biased and therefore penalize students from racial minorities. The rise in anti-affirmative action litigation leaves some admission offices relying unrealistically on standardized testing in admissions. In the face of this criticism, you need to become knowledgeable about what standardized testing is and how you need to prepare to do well on such tests. Not only can you expect to face standardized tests in the law school admissions process, but also when you apply for bar admission and for a host of other professional certifications.

http://www.lsac.org/LSAC.asp?url=/lsac/minorities-in-legal-education-selected-articles.asp


Seriously, LSAC is literally out of its @ # ! * i n g mind! But what I am talking about? Is it not all this country @ # ! * e d out of its mind when repeatedly elects to the office morons like Bush?!
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: shiveringjenny on November 10, 2004, 10:42:28 PM
I said this on xoxohth, and i'll say it again here: if you were truly smart, you wouldn't join mensa. it's a ridiculous waste of money on the order of who's who in american high school students.
i speak from experience.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: long_gone on November 10, 2004, 10:46:05 PM
I said this on xoxohth, and i'll say it again here: if you were truly smart, you wouldn't join mensa. it's a ridiculous waste of money on the order of who's who in american high school students.
i speak from experience.

180
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: zxcvbnm on November 11, 2004, 10:05:54 AM
I said this on xoxohth, and i'll say it again here: if you were truly smart, you wouldn't join mensa. it's a ridiculous waste of money on the order of who's who in american high school students.
i speak from experience.

The students at any selective college will have an IQ at about the Mensa level. If you end up in a field like law or medicine, a lot of your colleagues will too. Smart and successful people naturally find themselves in groups of other smart people.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: long_gone on November 11, 2004, 12:33:39 PM
I said this on xoxohth, and i'll say it again here: if you were truly smart, you wouldn't join mensa. it's a ridiculous waste of money on the order of who's who in american high school students.
i speak from experience.

The students at any selective college will have an IQ at about the Mensa level. If you end up in a field like law or medicine, a lot of your colleagues will too. Smart and successful people naturally find themselves in groups of other smart people.

I wish people stopped thinking their high IQ made them 'smart.'  It makes them sound very stupid, actually.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: zeroaffinity on November 11, 2004, 01:11:21 PM
I wish people stopped thinking their high IQ made them 'smart.'  It makes them sound very stupid, actually.

IQ, Mensa, and similar are all just qualifications and clubs. A means to some cliquish popularity. And here's what ol' John Tyler had to say about popularity:

"Popularity, I have always thought, may aptly be compared to a coquette - the more you woo her, the more apt is she to elude your embrace."

So you're right. It would be better if the I'm-so-awesome crowd would stop, or at least limit their preaching to the choir, so to speak.

Then again, I'm not in Mensa and my IQ probably isn't extraordinary.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: zxcvbnm on November 11, 2004, 02:12:07 PM
I said this on xoxohth, and i'll say it again here: if you were truly smart, you wouldn't join mensa. it's a ridiculous waste of money on the order of who's who in american high school students.
i speak from experience.

The students at any selective college will have an IQ at about the Mensa level. If you end up in a field like law or medicine, a lot of your colleagues will too. Smart and successful people naturally find themselves in groups of other smart people.

I wish people stopped thinking their high IQ made them 'smart.'  It makes them sound very stupid, actually.

IQ predicts performance on a huge range of mental tasks, from vocabulary to tone recognition to short term memory to reaction time. In fact, there isn't a single component of our everyday notion of "smartness" with which it doesn't correlate strongly. There are reams of studies that attest to its relevance, and virtually none that support the popular but naive notion that "IQ is meaningless." It's simply not the case that there are lots of high IQ people who are otherwise "stupid," or low IQ people who are manifestly "smart." A high IQ doesn't make someone smart -- a high IQ essentially *is* being smart.

I'd love it if people, for once, could explain just what they mean when they say stuff like "IQ is meaningless." Unless you also think intelligence itself is meaningless, it's a very facile thing to say. It flies in the face of all available research to date on the subject, and shows that you care less about factual correctness than about political correctness.

Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: long_gone on November 11, 2004, 03:38:32 PM
I said this on xoxohth, and i'll say it again here: if you were truly smart, you wouldn't join mensa. it's a ridiculous waste of money on the order of who's who in american high school students.
i speak from experience.

The students at any selective college will have an IQ at about the Mensa level. If you end up in a field like law or medicine, a lot of your colleagues will too. Smart and successful people naturally find themselves in groups of other smart people.

I wish people stopped thinking their high IQ made them 'smart.'  It makes them sound very stupid, actually.

IQ predicts performance on a huge range of mental tasks, from vocabulary to tone recognition to short term memory to reaction time. In fact, there isn't a single component of our everyday notion of "smartness" with which it doesn't correlate strongly. There are reams of studies that attest to its relevance, and virtually none that support the popular but naive notion that "IQ is meaningless." It's simply not the case that there are lots of high IQ people who are otherwise "stupid," or low IQ people who are manifestly "smart." A high IQ doesn't make someone smart -- a high IQ essentially *is* being smart.

I'd love it if people, for once, could explain just what they mean when they say stuff like "IQ is meaningless." Unless you also think intelligence itself is meaningless, it's a very facile thing to say. It flies in the face of all available research to date on the subject, and shows that you care less about factual correctness than about political correctness.



Let's say I go out and take you into the woods with no advanced equipment.  You starve and you die with your 150 IQ-whatever.  A hunter gatherer is on the other hand fine, but would probably score as a mental reject on an IQ test.  The testing of what qualifies as 'smart' is perfectly arbitrary and if you really ever took a psychology class, even a 101, you really should know better.  Certainly, it seems widely accepted now that you may test intelligence on 6 or 7 widely different levels.  Me, my arbitrary definition is creativity as the best analysis of intelligence. 

I call your presumptuous post bullsh*t.     
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: zxcvbnm on November 11, 2004, 03:53:17 PM
I said this on xoxohth, and i'll say it again here: if you were truly smart, you wouldn't join mensa. it's a ridiculous waste of money on the order of who's who in american high school students.
i speak from experience.

The students at any selective college will have an IQ at about the Mensa level. If you end up in a field like law or medicine, a lot of your colleagues will too. Smart and successful people naturally find themselves in groups of other smart people.

I wish people stopped thinking their high IQ made them 'smart.'  It makes them sound very stupid, actually.

IQ predicts performance on a huge range of mental tasks, from vocabulary to tone recognition to short term memory to reaction time. In fact, there isn't a single component of our everyday notion of "smartness" with which it doesn't correlate strongly. There are reams of studies that attest to its relevance, and virtually none that support the popular but naive notion that "IQ is meaningless." It's simply not the case that there are lots of high IQ people who are otherwise "stupid," or low IQ people who are manifestly "smart." A high IQ doesn't make someone smart -- a high IQ essentially *is* being smart.

I'd love it if people, for once, could explain just what they mean when they say stuff like "IQ is meaningless." Unless you also think intelligence itself is meaningless, it's a very facile thing to say. It flies in the face of all available research to date on the subject, and shows that you care less about factual correctness than about political correctness.



Let's say I go out and take you into the woods with no advanced equipment.  You starve and you die with your 150 IQ-whatever.  A hunter gatherer is on the other hand fine, but would probably score as a mental reject on an IQ test.  The testing of what qualifies as 'smart' is perfectly arbitrary and if you really ever took a psychology class, even a 101, you really should know better.  Certainly, it seems widely accepted now that you may test intelligence on 6 or 7 widely different levels.  Me, my arbitrary definition is creativity as the best analysis of intelligence. 

I call your presumptuous post bullsh*t.     

Big f-ing deal. IQ indicates one's ability to learn, not one's ability to be thrown into any random situation and outperform someone whose skills are highly adapted to that very task. You couldn't take the average astrophysicist and expect him to fix a toilet better than an experienced plumber. Nobody but the biggest idiot would use that as evidence that the plumber is smarter than the astrophysicist though. Same principle. Take the 150 IQ person and the hunter-gatherer and put them on a level playing field and see which one adapts the fastest and consequently thrives in the new environment. Is there really any question about it?

You say creativity is the best measure of intelligence. How many creative geniuses have there been who were morons in all other areas? Not many. Leonardo da Vinci would've tested as a strotospheric genius. And Shakespeare? He would've destroyed an IQ test. Nobody who's studied any of the great creative geniuses of history would seriously try to claim that they weren't also exceptional in the traditional "IQ intelligence."
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: long_gone on November 11, 2004, 03:59:28 PM
Big f-ing deal. IQ indicates one's ability to learn, not one's ability to be thrown into any random situation and outperform someone whose skills are highly adapted to that very task.

You managed to 100% miss my point, but I can't say I'm surprised.  After all, I bet my IQ is higher.

You say creativity is the best measure of intelligence. How many creative geniuses have there been who were morons in all other areas? Not many. Leonardo da Vinci would've tested as a strotospheric genius. And Shakespeare? He would've destroyed an IQ test.

More idiotic presumption.  How the hell do you know?  Please tell me?  Because I see Shakespeare's estimated IQ once in a while?  Oh, pahleeze.  Creativity and IQ don't go hand in hand.  You're just being silly.

Nobody who's studied any of the great creative geniuses of history would seriously try to claim that they weren't also exceptional in the traditional "IQ intelligence."

No this never happens, especially in the arts, for example (note the sarcasm).  First I was annoyed with you, but now I'm amused and entertained.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: zxcvbnm on November 11, 2004, 04:36:48 PM
Quote
You managed to 100% miss my point, but I can't say I'm surprised.

Come on, don't flatter yourself. Your point wasn't a complicated one, it was just a bad one. If intelligence is the ability to learn and assimilate new information, then pointing out that a hunter-gatherer would do better in the wild than a college professor doesn't really say much about how smart they are, now does it? There is not an "in the woods" intelligence and an "in the lab" intelligence. It's a general trait, and there's really nothing arbitrary about it.

Quote
After all, I bet my IQ is higher.

Your mediocre LSAT score would suggest otherwise.

Quote
More idiotic presumption.  How the hell do you know?  Please tell me?  Because I see Shakespeare's estimated IQ once in a while?  Oh, pahleeze.  Creativity and IQ don't go hand in hand.  You're just being silly.

Yes, they do. Intelligence does not imply creativity, but creativity certainly implies intelligence. One of the highest correlates w/ intelligence is the sheer size of one's vocabulary. If for this reason alone and no other, I'd bet a huge sum of money on Shakespeare's IQ.

Quote
No this never happens, especially in the arts, for example (note the sarcasm).

You're evidencing your lack of any deep understanding of either intelligence or the arts. Cut it out.

Quote
First I was annoyed with you, but now I'm amused and entertained.

Good. Hopefully you're learning something in addition to being entertained.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: stinkyfoot on November 12, 2004, 06:34:17 PM
caecilius, your not responding any more reminds me that proverb

"Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!"

Good for ya and us all!
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: BAFF213 on November 12, 2004, 07:57:08 PM
interesting argument...
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: zxcvbnm on November 12, 2004, 10:34:18 PM
caecilius, your not responding any more reminds me that proverb

"Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!"

Good for ya and us all!

Ah, Confucius say! Pithy but weak. Wanna articulate why I'm an idiot?
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: nightrider on November 17, 2004, 11:48:20 PM
Indeed today's "high IQ" alpha males may strike posterity as more akin to idiot savants than intellectual giants. IQ tests, and all conventional scholastic examinations, neglect creative and practical intelligence. They simply ignore social cognition. Social intelligence, and its cognate notion of "emotional IQ", isn't some second-rate substitute for people who can't do IQ tests. On the contrary, according to the Machiavellian ape hypothesis(!), the evolution of human intelligence has been driven by our superior "mind-reading" skills. Higher-order intentionality [i.e. "you believe that I hope that she thinks that I want..." etc] is central to the lives of advanced social beings. The unique development of human mind is an adaptation to social problem-solving and the selective advantages it brings. Emotional literacy is certainly harder to quantify scientifically than mathematical puzzle-solving ability or performance in verbal memory-tests. But to misquote Robert McNamara, we need to stop making what is measurable important, and find ways to make the important measurable.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: BAFF213 on November 19, 2004, 08:45:07 PM
If I understand it correctly, a 132 IQ would put you in the top 2% of the population.  I think we can safely say that qualifies as "intellectual elite".

The point is that the LSAT is learnable...(i know some will disagree...but if its not learnable then why are u practicing?)

So those with access to classes and the ability to take off from work to study are at an advantage.


The LSAT is learnable like reading is learnable.

good analogy. I really like that.


That's only a true to the extent that if two people with about the same IQ plan to take the LSAT and one studies and one doesn't, the one who studies will do better.  But someone with an IQ of 80 just won't be able to score as high as someone with an IQ of 150 no matter how much he/she studies.  There's no matterial on the LSAT, so the only thing you can "learn" is what to expect and the stradegies that work best for answering questions.

I think intelligence is like any other talent, you can develope it with practice, but everyone is born starting off at a different level.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: tarantella on November 29, 2004, 07:32:30 PM
Well, if I get this right (and I'm sure I do l) IQ tests, LSAT and and the like are solely designed to discriminate against people, not to measure some kind of intellectual ability, as psychometricians who create these tests are, understandably, fully aware of.

It is really a shame!
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: brooklynman on November 30, 2004, 07:00:24 AM
zx - I am sorry to break it to you but you are as ignorant as can be. A very simple example can demonstrate this successfully. If a child prodigy from the Phillipines had to take the LSAT what would he score? There is a large likelihood that he would have to resort to guessing the English section at random. So based on your analysis this person is an imbecile with such a low score. What you fail to understand is that 75 percent of the test is based on Eurocentric texts and methods of argumentation. The ad hominem, ad hoc, etc.. fallacies and methods of reasoning were developed in the European tradition and are considered foreign elements in some other cultures. I have an Israeli friend who is literally an engineering whiz - he would probably score less than a 150 on the LSAT because of his language skills. The same would happen if white middle class kids would take a test that is steeped in the written tradition of other cultures.
Anybody who posts "I'd bet a huge some of money on Shakespear's IQ" as if this whole topic can be reduced to gambling is not someone who can be taken seriously. Any person with a perfunctory knowledge of psychology knows that there are numerous categories of intelligence.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: brooklynman on November 30, 2004, 07:41:06 AM
The funniest thing is that zx has another post on this board asking for help on an LR question. Not only is the question relatively easy (if he can't get that one I find it VERY hard to believe he is in the 160's) but also it indicates that he has not taken the LSAT yet and is already ridiculing the scores of other posters. I think this is ample evidence that he is a hoax.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: queergoverna on November 30, 2004, 05:51:12 PM
Quote
Well, if I get this right (and I'm sure I do l) IQ tests, LSAT and and the like are solely designed to discriminate against people, not to measure some kind of intellectual ability, as psychometricians who create these tests are, understandably, fully aware of.

It is really a shame!

What's wrong with discriminating against people, tarantella? That's the way things have always been for thousands of years!
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: laframboise on February 17, 2005, 03:45:19 PM
To Jim McGreevey (LOL): your point is well taken!
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: Emolee on February 17, 2005, 03:48:20 PM
if my IQ in in the 150s, why the F can't I get a 180??
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: stelee on February 17, 2005, 03:51:03 PM
You're all blabbering idiots.  :)
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: Hu on February 17, 2005, 04:46:15 PM
caecilius, your not responding any more reminds me that proverb

"Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!"

Good for ya and us all!

Ah, Confucius say! Pithy but weak. Wanna articulate why I'm an idiot?

'Cause your parents are idiots too? :D
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: twarga on February 17, 2005, 04:54:06 PM
Well, I guess my IQ went up last summer when I studied my a*ss off for the LSAT, because I started with a 150 on my first practice test and got a 166 on the real thing.  I think the two have very little to do with each other.  I believe the purpose of the LSAT is to see how effectively someone can prepare for an intellectual challenge.  I'm sure a high IQ helps, but preparation for intellectual challenges is what lawyers do, and the LSAT is a good measure of that ability. 

... or not.  Who knows?   ;)
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: lawbuddy on February 17, 2005, 09:47:08 PM
Seriously, I don't know what it is about all of these guys (yes, it's usually us men) who want to be attorneys always flapping their LSAT scores, GPA, and IQ in the wind like it's some massive phallic symbol, but honest to God guys, you've gotta get a life.  Grow up and stop overcompensating, because only fourteen year old girls will ever think that kinda crap is even remotely attractive.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: gingernfred on February 20, 2005, 04:38:31 PM
Quote
Seriously, I don't know what it is about all of these guys (yes, it's usually us men) who want to be attorneys always flapping their LSAT scores, GPA, and IQ in the wind like it's some massive phallic symbol, but honest to God guys, you've gotta get a life.

LOL LOL LOL The thing that matters most is the phallus you're mentioning, bud, and I sure am proud of this 9" club of mine!

LONG LIVE BIG-DICKED MEN!
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: lawbuddy on February 20, 2005, 06:24:10 PM
LOL LOL LOL The thing that matters most is the phallus you're mentioning, bud, and I sure am proud of this 9" club of mine!

LONG LIVE BIG-DICKED MEN!

You sir, are a cad
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: Emolee on February 21, 2005, 05:58:42 PM
If one's education has been sub-standard due to socio-economic disatvantage or other factors beyond one's control, then I think that the LSAT score should be looked at in bias of the student (i.e. lower score is OK); however, race should not play into this, as race LOOKED AT ALONE, has nothing to do with the LSAT score.  In using this system, will a higher percentage of African Americans and Hispanics be given an advantage?  Yes, due to their disproportionate numbers among the economically and educationally disadvantaged; however, this advantage will not be due to race but will be do to disadvantage in society (correlation not causation).  Just because someone is a racial minority does not mean that they grew up poor or disadvantaged.  I went to a prestigious private school for years, which was very diverse.  My PR prep course was also very diverse.  So, should a minority student who has had equal or even better educational opportunities than I have be given a biased look at the LSAT score?  I don't think so.  However, the debate of underrepresented minorities in the legal profession is a separate debate, and could be used to counter me here.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: passim on March 01, 2005, 11:54:08 AM
Quote
LOL LOL LOL The thing that matters most is the phallus you're mentioning, bud, and I sure am proud of this 9" club of mine!

LONG LIVE BIG-DICKED MEN!

You sure should request that in addition to the GPA and LSAT they take into account this third criterion, the penis size. You'd get far in advance of most other guys.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: williamwallace50 on March 01, 2005, 11:58:34 AM
If one's education has been sub-standard due to socio-economic disatvantage or other factors beyond one's control, then I think that the LSAT score should be looked at in bias of the student (i.e. lower score is OK); however, race should not play into this, as race LOOKED AT ALONE, has nothing to do with the LSAT score.  In using this system, will a higher percentage of African Americans and Hispanics be given an advantage?  Yes, due to their disproportionate numbers among the economically and educationally disadvantaged; however, this advantage will not be due to race but will be do to disadvantage in society (correlation not causation).  Just because someone is a racial minority does not mean that they grew up poor or disadvantaged.  I went to a prestigious private school for years, which was very diverse.  My PR prep course was also very diverse.  So, should a minority student who has had equal or even better educational opportunities than I have be given a biased look at the LSAT score?  I don't think so.  However, the debate of underrepresented minorities in the legal profession is a separate debate, and could be used to counter me here.
I agree, it should be based on socio/economic status, not the color of your skin. That would certainly help those of us in East Tennessee.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: answerability on April 07, 2005, 05:53:45 PM
Quote
LOL LOL LOL The thing that matters most is the phallus you're mentioning, bud, and I sure am proud of this 9" club of mine!

LONG LIVE BIG-DICKED MEN!

[...] You'd get far in advance of most other guys.

Depends on the factor that they would multiply the third criterion by! You can not be sure how much they will make it to count for!
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: Amanda H. on April 08, 2005, 06:22:20 AM
Quote
So everyone w/ a 163 and higher can join MENSA

Obviously. I would also add that the first LSAT-type test in 1947 was based upon the original IQ test and data collected by the Army to test recruits in World War I. Such data had also been used to prove that Eastern European immigrants and African Americans were less intelligent than Northern and Western Europeans. The original LSAT had historical roots in efforts to substantiate racial inequality and nativism.


This has already probably been noted, but:

Even if such tests have in fact been used in attempts to "prove" certain things about certain groups (which, of course, is extremely debatable in the absence of equal opportunity), that doesn't mean this is why the tests were created, or prove their invalidity. 

In fact, there is no question that Jews do better on such tests than most "native" europeans.  Therefore, whatever the use (or misuse) of such exams, there is apparently also something objective and useful involved.  If they were really designed to keep minorities like Jews, Eastern Europeans, and Asians down, they're doing a pretty bad job.

Electricity has been used to torture and kill people.  That doesn't mean electricity is inherently bad, or not useful.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: Amanda H. on April 08, 2005, 06:26:30 AM
If one's education has been sub-standard due to socio-economic disatvantage or other factors beyond one's control, then I think that the LSAT score should be looked at in bias of the student (i.e. lower score is OK); however, race should not play into this, as race LOOKED AT ALONE, has nothing to do with the LSAT score.  In using this system, will a higher percentage of African Americans and Hispanics be given an advantage?  Yes, due to their disproportionate numbers among the economically and educationally disadvantaged; however, this advantage will not be due to race but will be do to disadvantage in society (correlation not causation).  Just because someone is a racial minority does not mean that they grew up poor or disadvantaged.  I went to a prestigious private school for years, which was very diverse.  My PR prep course was also very diverse.  So, should a minority student who has had equal or even better educational opportunities than I have be given a biased look at the LSAT score?  I don't think so.  However, the debate of underrepresented minorities in the legal profession is a separate debate, and could be used to counter me here.


I agree.

I would even disagree with your last point.  If Asians, for example, are underrepresented in the legal profession (largely for cultural reasons), I feel that's up to them to remedy.  Even with traditional URM's, as long as disadvantage is accounted for, I'm not sure why we should have additional bonuses built in simply because of underrepresentation -- especially when those bonuses perpetuate stereotypes of inferiority.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: Amanda H. on April 08, 2005, 06:36:16 AM
zx - I am sorry to break it to you but you are as ignorant as can be. A very simple example can demonstrate this successfully. If a child prodigy from the Phillipines had to take the LSAT what would he score? There is a large likelihood that he would have to resort to guessing the English section at random. So based on your analysis this person is an imbecile with such a low score. What you fail to understand is that 75 percent of the test is based on Eurocentric texts and methods of argumentation. The ad hominem, ad hoc, etc.. fallacies and methods of reasoning were developed in the European tradition and are considered foreign elements in some other cultures. I have an Israeli friend who is literally an engineering whiz - he would probably score less than a 150 on the LSAT because of his language skills. The same would happen if white middle class kids would take a test that is steeped in the written tradition of other cultures.
Anybody who posts "I'd bet a huge some of money on Shakespear's IQ" as if this whole topic can be reduced to gambling is not someone who can be taken seriously. Any person with a perfunctory knowledge of psychology knows that there are numerous categories of intelligence.


I think there are numerous categories of intelligence, and I don't think the LSAT magically uncovers all kinds. 

I think someone who can excel on the LSAT is clearly bright.  On the other hand, someone who does not may be bright in other ways. 

What is relevant is that the person who excels on the LSAT is bright in a way that will be helpful in law, and someone who does not is probably less likely to be.  Doesn't mean that they can't be a genius in other respects, and it doesn't even necessarily mean they can't be a great attorney.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: Amanda H. on April 08, 2005, 06:42:09 AM
Quote
Well, if I get this right (and I'm sure I do l) IQ tests, LSAT and and the like are solely designed to discriminate against people, not to measure some kind of intellectual ability, as psychometricians who create these tests are, understandably, fully aware of.

It is really a shame!

What's wrong with discriminating against people, tarantella? That's the way things have always been for thousands of years!


One or both of these comments appear to be sarcasm, but, just to note:

There is nothing inherently wrong with "discriminating" on the basis of objective indicia of ability.  Presumably, any employer, including the government, wants people who can do the job best, and schools generally want people who can best learn and understand the material.  Clearly, medical schools want people who will make the best doctors, and law schools presumably want people who will make the best lawyers.  In this vein, it makes sense to discriminate on the basis of grades, test scores, writing awards, awards in other competitions, etc. 

What is wrong, presumably (and under our law) is to discriminate on the basis of unrelated factors, like ethnicity, gender, and religion. 
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: Amanda H. on April 08, 2005, 06:47:38 AM
Indeed today's "high IQ" alpha males may strike posterity as more akin to idiot savants than intellectual giants. IQ tests, and all conventional scholastic examinations, neglect creative and practical intelligence. They simply ignore social cognition. Social intelligence, and its cognate notion of "emotional IQ", isn't some second-rate substitute for people who can't do IQ tests. On the contrary, according to the Machiavellian ape hypothesis(!), the evolution of human intelligence has been driven by our superior "mind-reading" skills. Higher-order intentionality [i.e. "you believe that I hope that she thinks that I want..." etc] is central to the lives of advanced social beings. The unique development of human mind is an adaptation to social problem-solving and the selective advantages it brings. Emotional literacy is certainly harder to quantify scientifically than mathematical puzzle-solving ability or performance in verbal memory-tests. But to misquote Robert McNamara, we need to stop making what is measurable important, and find ways to make the important measurable.

I don't know.  Seems to me that the entire concept of "emotional intelligence" is simply a construct created by those unhappy with the idea of intellectual intelligence.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: Amanda H. on April 08, 2005, 07:00:05 AM
I will also add, though that there are many other traits, including the ability to schmooze people, that are important in having a successful and happy life. 

Doing well on a test may or may not indicate how bright you are in a certain areas.  (Even people who have the abilities and skills may just have trouble displaying them.) 

But it certainly won't dictate your value as a human being, how much people will like you, how attractive you are, how much action you'll get, or even how much money you'll make.  This stuff is largely determined by other factors. 

In reality, one reason it would be unfair to get rid of testing is because people who do really well on these exams are often lacking in other areas.  Given that this kind of ability is one relevant factor (though hardly the only one), it would be unfair to us studious geeks to stop factoring it in. 
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: anton on April 08, 2005, 07:27:56 AM
You say creativity is the best measure of intelligence. How many creative geniuses have there been who were morons in all other areas? Not many. Leonardo da Vinci would've tested as a strotospheric genius. And Shakespeare? He would've destroyed an IQ test. Nobody who's studied any of the great creative geniuses of history would seriously try to claim that they weren't also exceptional in the traditional "IQ intelligence."

While I can't think of any creative genuises who were "morons in all other areas", there have been scores of brilliant mathematicians who were decidedly lacking in social skills and demonstrated no particular excellence with words.  You can try to claim that they weren't "creative genuises", but that's contrary to reality.

Frankly, I think both sides of this debate are mistaken.  There are different cognitive abilities, neither entirely independent nor measurable by a single number.  I'll crush any of you on a test of doing LSAT-style logic puzzles at high speed, but all of you would grind me into the dust in a test of trivia (keep in mind that the ability to collect and retain trivia is an intellectual ability) or ability to make small talk at a party.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: williamwallace50 on April 08, 2005, 11:05:31 AM
You say creativity is the best measure of intelligence. How many creative geniuses have there been who were morons in all other areas? Not many. Leonardo da Vinci would've tested as a strotospheric genius. And Shakespeare? He would've destroyed an IQ test. Nobody who's studied any of the great creative geniuses of history would seriously try to claim that they weren't also exceptional in the traditional "IQ intelligence."

While I can't think of any creative genuises who were "morons in all other areas", there have been scores of brilliant mathematicians who were decidedly lacking in social skills and demonstrated no particular excellence with words.  You can try to claim that they weren't "creative genuises", but that's contrary to reality.

Frankly, I think both sides of this debate are mistaken.  There are different cognitive abilities, neither entirely independent nor measurable by a single number.  I'll crush any of you on a test of doing LSAT-style logic puzzles at high speed, but all of you would grind me into the dust in a test of trivia (keep in mind that the ability to collect and retain trivia is an intellectual ability) or ability to make small talk at a party.
you're a geek.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: anton on April 08, 2005, 11:33:12 AM
You say creativity is the best measure of intelligence. How many creative geniuses have there been who were morons in all other areas? Not many. Leonardo da Vinci would've tested as a strotospheric genius. And Shakespeare? He would've destroyed an IQ test. Nobody who's studied any of the great creative geniuses of history would seriously try to claim that they weren't also exceptional in the traditional "IQ intelligence."

While I can't think of any creative genuises who were "morons in all other areas", there have been scores of brilliant mathematicians who were decidedly lacking in social skills and demonstrated no particular excellence with words.  You can try to claim that they weren't "creative genuises", but that's contrary to reality.

Frankly, I think both sides of this debate are mistaken.  There are different cognitive abilities, neither entirely independent nor measurable by a single number.  I'll crush any of you on a test of doing LSAT-style logic puzzles at high speed, but all of you would grind me into the dust in a test of trivia (keep in mind that the ability to collect and retain trivia is an intellectual ability) or ability to make small talk at a party.
you're a geek.

Go me!
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: BenGibson on April 08, 2005, 09:41:24 PM

You managed to 100% miss my point, but I can't say I'm surprised.  After all, I bet my IQ is higher.>>>>>>>>>

What's interesting is that you ASSUMED the high-IQ person would starve, and then called the prior poster presumptuous.

>>>>>>>More idiotic presumption.  How the hell do you know?  Please tell me?  Because I see Shakespeare's estimated IQ once in a while?  Oh, pahleeze.  Creativity and IQ don't go hand in hand.  You're just being silly.>>>>>

Actually, in just about everything except for the visual arts--high IQ is a necessary but not sufficient condition for high creativity.

>>>>>>>>>Quote from: zxcvbnm on November 11, 2004, 06:53:17 PM
Nobody who's studied any of the great creative geniuses of history would seriously try to claim that they weren't also exceptional in the traditional "IQ intelligence."

No this never happens, especially in the arts, for example (note the sarcasm).  First I was annoyed with you, but now I'm amused and entertained.>>>>>>

It's also quite obvious you've never really studied anything of value about intelligence and are talking out of your a*s.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Ben
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: unyomutha on April 08, 2005, 10:35:31 PM
I would tend to believe "candice" by means of the sarcastic equivalency and equivalenting is pulling your legs guys, look at the funny image she's used as her avatar LOL

(http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php?action=dlattach;id=40;type=avatar)
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: XYZZY on April 09, 2005, 09:50:16 AM
You say creativity is the best measure of intelligence. How many creative geniuses have there been who were morons in all other areas? Not many. Leonardo da Vinci would've tested as a strotospheric genius. And Shakespeare? He would've destroyed an IQ test. Nobody who's studied any of the great creative geniuses of history would seriously try to claim that they weren't also exceptional in the traditional "IQ intelligence."

While I can't think of any creative genuises who were "morons in all other areas", there have been scores of brilliant mathematicians who were decidedly lacking in social skills and demonstrated no particular excellence with words.  You can try to claim that they weren't "creative genuises", but that's contrary to reality.

Frankly, I think both sides of this debate are mistaken.  There are different cognitive abilities, neither entirely independent nor measurable by a single number.  I'll crush any of you on a test of doing LSAT-style logic puzzles at high speed, but all of you would grind me into the dust in a test of trivia (keep in mind that the ability to collect and retain trivia is an intellectual ability) or ability to make small talk at a party.


according to Umberto Eco, there are idiots, morons, and retards.  Most morons are pretty creative and they often get the right answer for the wrong reasons.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: harmfultoclient on April 12, 2005, 02:02:22 PM
Quote
I would tend to believe "candice" by means of the sarcastic equivalency and equivalenting is pulling your legs guys, look at the funny image she's used as her avatar LOL

Why would she pulling our legs? Even if LSAT is a wretched indicator of fitness for law school, as it is being said on this thread, the equivalency is accurate.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: Merc on April 12, 2005, 02:10:53 PM
If one's education has been sub-standard due to socio-economic disatvantage or other factors beyond one's control, then I think that the LSAT score should be looked at in bias of the student (i.e. lower score is OK); however, race should not play into this, as race LOOKED AT ALONE, has nothing to do with the LSAT score.  In using this system, will a higher percentage of African Americans and Hispanics be given an advantage?  Yes, due to their disproportionate numbers among the economically and educationally disadvantaged; however, this advantage will not be due to race but will be do to disadvantage in society (correlation not causation).  Just because someone is a racial minority does not mean that they grew up poor or disadvantaged.  I went to a prestigious private school for years, which was very diverse.  My PR prep course was also very diverse.  So, should a minority student who has had equal or even better educational opportunities than I have be given a biased look at the LSAT score?  I don't think so.  However, the debate of underrepresented minorities in the legal profession is a separate debate, and could be used to counter me here.
I agree, it should be based on socio/economic status, not the color of your skin. That would certainly help those of us in East Tennessee.

Hell, I got you beat.

I'm from ARKANSAS!!
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: V00Jeff on April 12, 2005, 03:28:03 PM
Interesting post.  I'd like to reply to the discussion of presidential IQ's and success, but for now, I want someone to do this for me:

Find one LSAT question that is biased against minorities, and explain why it's biased.

Title: Re: Bush Battles Functional Illiteracy
Post by: Sister Funkhaus on April 13, 2005, 08:33:52 AM
Now that the rumor of George Bush's functional illiteracy has surfaced in the press, Karl Rowe the head of the Bush campaign has denied it vehemently.

It's almost ironic that someone would write about Bush being illiterate, yet they can't get a key political figure's name correct. It's Karl Rove. The V is no where near the W on the keyboard, so I don't understand that mistake.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: mambo no. 5 on April 27, 2005, 01:47:04 PM
Quote
Seriously, I don't know what it is about all of these guys (yes, it's usually us men) who want to be attorneys always flapping their LSAT scores, GPA, and IQ in the wind like it's some massive phallic symbol, but honest to God guys, you've gotta get a life.

LOL LOL LOL The thing that matters most is the phallus you're mentioning, bud, and I sure am proud of this 9" club of mine!

LONG LIVE BIG-DICKED MEN!

LOL ginger!  ;)
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: HippieLawChick on April 27, 2005, 01:52:23 PM
It's no secret that in the past few years Mensa has
suffered from horrible leadership and has been
hemorrhaging members like crazy. I'm unsurprised
that in their rush to recruit they're taking LSAT
and ASVAB scores.

Doesn't the site say specifically that they don't take ASVAB scores?  That would be ridiculous as that test is so easy even I got a 99th percentile on it!
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: kok on April 28, 2005, 11:13:13 AM
So, are you guys pro-discriminating or against? I nearly can't tell!
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: jkang2 on April 28, 2005, 05:31:38 PM
From the MENSA's website it looks like it is so ... does anyone though know whether there are studies correlating the two tests?

http://www.us.mensa.org/join_mensa/testscores.php3

Sounds true.  I got 167 on DEC 04. I never scored higher than 139 on any IQ tests. Since then I thought I became smarter so I tackled the IQ tests thinking that I would score in the 140's.  Bad judgement.  I scored 138.  So your 163~132 seems some what valid (?) no (?)
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: undividedattention on May 20, 2005, 06:42:38 PM
Quote
So, are you guys pro-discriminating or against?

Both, kok, both, I guess
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: Ms.Crawford on May 31, 2005, 03:40:27 AM
undividedattention, is that you on that avatar?
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: lisa on June 02, 2005, 07:32:47 PM
Quote
Seriously, I don't know what it is about all of these guys (yes, it's usually us men) who want to be attorneys always flapping their LSAT scores, GPA, and IQ in the wind like it's some massive phallic symbol, but honest to God guys, you've gotta get a life.

LOL LOL LOL The thing that matters most is the phallus you're mentioning, bud, and I sure am proud of this 9" club of mine!

LONG LIVE BIG-DICKED MEN!

Granted you have a big cock, but you have to understand that there are people with bigger cocks!
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: mj on June 09, 2005, 03:16:25 AM
10" are random, I agree, lisa!
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: kermit on June 09, 2005, 12:26:13 PM
Quote
[...] 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

there's a typo in here, lolly :)

In regard to the conservatives and liberals' discussion ... too much fuss here about conservatives' inadequacies and faults ... well, you know what, I don't like liberals either!

In fact, the Left does not disagree with the Right intellectually ... with few exceptions, they are virtually incapable of intellectual disagreement. The Left disagrees *emotionally*. Really, this is a psychological and not ideological phenomenon: it is a mass neurosis of sorts. When millions of people cling to worldviews which have failed for the last 80 years, something is wrong. When people celebrate degeneration in defense of freedom of speech, there is something wrong. When people elevate the murder of innocent unborn children to a "right" but simultaneously fight against the application of capital punishment for heinous crimes, something is wrong. Liberalism is so full of logical and factual contradictions that one wonders how a rational person can subscribe to such a worldview. The mind of the liberal is literally shut off to logic and facts.

Liberalism (or what it has come to connote), is really the result of decades of emotional conditioning which has left those conditioned without the faculty of critical thought.  Certainly those emotions are there to begin with. Humans are animals. It is the taming of our base animalistic impulses that makes civilization possible. When those taming influences are supplanted by devices that condition and reinforce the animalistic impulses, civilization crumbles. This is why morality and social structure are so important (stating the obvious in this age is iconoclastic..lol) The point here is that what has happened over the last 40 years is that our consumption of entertainment -- television primarily, movies secondarily, and in some cases novels -- has had the negative effect of conditioning either by design or inadvertently, emotions and worldviews inconsistent with reality. These condititioned fantasy and utopian worldviews can result in societal collapse. Cognitive dissonance is but one vehicle in the war of the mind.

Cults can easily be explained in terms of cognitive dissonance. All inconsistent cognitions are dealt with by violence. In a cult, inconsistent cognitions are dealt with by shunning, by starving, by confinement, etc... Liberalism does the same thing! Political Correctness, the illegitimate step-child of liberalism, is cult-like in its establishment of correct speech. This is what cults do ... they prohibit certain words and discussion of certain topics. 

The Left are essentially a "cult of cognitive dissonance."
 

In fact, the Right does not disagree with the Left intellectually ... with few exceptions, they are virtually incapable of intellectual disagreement. The Right disagrees *emotionally*. Really, this is a psychological and not ideological phenomenon: it is a mass neurosis of sorts. When millions of people cling to worldviews which have failed for the last 80 years, something is wrong. When people celebrate degeneration in defense of civil liberties, there is something wrong. When people elevate the abortion of fetuses to murder but simultaneously support capital punishment (that's right, the killing of sentient adults), the killing of thousands of US troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis (in defense of the Iraqis' freedom!), and turn a blind eye to mass genocide something is wrong. Conservatism is so full of logical and factual contradictions that one wonders how a rational person can subscribe to such a worldview. The mind of the conservative is literally shut off to logic and facts.

Conservatism(or what it has come to connote), is really the result of decades of emotional conditioning which has left those conditioned without the faculty of critical thought.  Certainly those emotions are there to begin with. Humans are animals. It is the taming of our base animalistic impulses that makes civilization possible. This is why cultivating rationality, free thought, and an empirical investigation of the universe is so important. The point here is that what has happened over the last several thousand years is that our consumption of religious doctrine has had the negative effect of conditioning either by design or inadvertently, emotions and worldviews inconsistent with reality. These condititioned fantasy and utopian worldviews can result in societal collapse. Cognitive dissonance is but one vehicle in the war of the mind.

Cults can easily be explained in terms of cognitive dissonance. All inconsistent cognitions are dealt with by violence. In a cult, inconsistent cognitions are dealt with by shunning, by starving, by confinement, etc... Conservatism does the same thing! Accusations that those who dissent are unpatriotic, the favorite new tool of conservatism, is cult-like in its adherence to only one possible valid worldview. This is what cults do ... they prohibit certain words and discussion of certain topics. 

The Right are essentially a "cult of cognitive dissonance."





Now, I myself would never write this about conservatives because I think it is far too simplistic an assessment of what is a highly heterogenous political grouping (although granted, one particular segment of that grouping is the current dominant voice).  The OP's post displays the kind of unthinking fundamentalism characteristic of both those on the far right and the far left that makes my blood absolutely boil.

On the issue of abortion/death penalty/war. . .the contradictions are glaring.  clearly BOTH the right and the left have failed to come up with a principled and internally consistent platform.

i have no idea how this thread started talking about this on page 1, and i am sorry to bring it back up if the thread has evolved long beyond that, but i had to respond.
Title: Scientific racism!
Post by: on curve on June 09, 2005, 07:20:00 PM
It is, as you already know, scientific work which has forgone the ideals of objectivity in science and been "distorted" by an ideology of racism. A number of controversial works from the present period have been accused of being "scientific racism" and pseudoscience.

In the early 20th century intelligence testing came out. Study after study appeared to confirm that "Negros", as well as Eastern Europeans and Jews, were physically and mentally "inferior" to whites from Northern Europe. In the United States, eugenicists such as Harry H. Laughlin and Madison Grant sought to justify policies such as compulsory sterilization and immigration restriction by using "scientific research" to show that certain populations of people were physically inadequate to reproduce or enter the country.

Much of the actual "science" used in these projects has been presently discarded as highly flawed, usually from methodological standpoints. The early IQ tests used during intelligence testing of soldiers during World War I, for example, were found later to have measured acculturation to the USA more than they did any latent intelligence. Multiple-choice questions included such highly context-based questions as: "Crisco is a: patent medicine, disinfectant, toothpaste, food product" and "Christy Mathewson is famous as a: writer, artist, baseball player, comedian." Not surprisingly, recent immigrants to the USA did poorly on such questions, and the "intelligence" scores correlated most significantly with the number of years spent immersed in American culture.

Until the 1920s, however, such work was not regarded as being anything other than a form of science. It was criticisms and new work by the anthropologist Franz Boas that began, slowly, to point out methodological errors and to allege that political and ideological bias was affecting the conclusions more so than the observations made. Through the 1920s and 1930s, the Boasian school of cultural anthropology began to replace the eugenic school of physical anthropology, in a bitter institutional battle.

In the early 1930s, the government of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler utilized highly racialized "scientific" rhetoric for pushing its restrictive and discriminatory social policies. When World War II broke out, the Nazi approach to race became a propaganda piece for the United States, and Boasians such as Ruth Benedict were able to consolidate their institutional power. In the years after the war, the discovery of the Holocaust and the Nazi abuses of scientific research (such as the ethical violations of Josef Mengele and other war crimes which were revealed at the Nuremberg Trials) led to a widespread repudiation of the use of science to support racist causes within the scientific community.

Title: Stephen Jay Gould
Post by: on curve on June 09, 2005, 07:21:09 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Stephen_Jay_Gould.png)

Gould is the author of The Mismeasure of Man, a study of the history of psychometrics and intelligence testing as a form of scientific racism; the most recent edition includes an attempted refutation of the arguments of The Bell Curve.

* * *

The book, originally written in 1981, describes Gould's objections to:

"[...] the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity, its location within the brain, its quantification as one number for each individual, and the use of these numbers to rank people in a single series of worthiness, invariably to find that oppressed and disadvantaged groups—races, classes, or sexes—are innately inferior and deserve their status" (pp. 24-25).

Gould later revised and expanded the book in reply to arguments from The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, also a controversial book.

Most of his arguments have to do with the value of statistical correlations. Many arguments around IQ center on the issue of correlation—the claim that the test measures psychometric g requires that the kinds of answers to various questions will correlate highly; the claim that g is inherited requires that the scores of respondents who are closely related will correlate significantly higher than results of those distantly related. First, he points out that correlation is not the same as cause. As he puts it, measures of the changes, over time, in "my age, the population of Mexico, the price of Swiss cheese, my pet turtle's weight, and the average distance between galaxies" will have a high positive correlation—but that does not mean that Stephen Jay Gould's age goes up because the population of Mexico goes up. Second, and more specifically, a high positive correlation between parent and child IQ can be taken as either evidence that IQ is genetically inherited or that IQ is inherited through social and environmental factors. Since the same data can be used to argue either side of the case, the data in and of itself is not useful.

Furthermore, Gould argues that even if it were demonstrated that IQ is highly genetically heritable within a group, this tells nothing about the causes of IQ differences between groups or whether those differences can be changed by environment. Gould gives the example of height, which is known to be determined mostly through genes within socioeconomic groups, but group differences in height may be due to nutrition as well as genes. Richard Lewontin, a colleague of Gould's, is well-known for emphasizing this argument as it pertains to IQ testing.

According to Gould, a good example of the confusion of heritability is found in the statement of international scholars published in the Wall Street Journal (see web-link above): "If all environments were to become equal for everyone, heritability would rise to 100% because all remaining differences in IQ would necessarily be genetic in origin." He says that this claim is at best misleading and at worst, false. First, it is very hard to conceive of a world in which everyone grows up in the exact same environment; the very fact that people are spatially and temporally dispersed means that no one can be in exactly the same environment (a simple example will illustrate how complex social environments are: a husband and wife may share a house, but they do not live in identical environments because each is married to a different person). Second, even if people grew up in exactly the same environment, not all differences would be genetic in origin. This is because embryonic development involves chance molecular events and random cellular movements that alter the effects of genes.

Gould argues that heritability is not a measure of phenotypic differences between groups, but rather differences between genotype and phenotype within a population. Even within a group, if all members of the group grow up in exactly the same environment, it does not mean that heritability is 100%. All Americans (or New Yorkers, or upper-class New Yorkers – one may define the population in question as narrowly as one likes) may eat exactly the same food, but their adult height will still be a result of both genetics and nutrition. In short, heritability is almost never 100%, and heritability tells us nothing about genetic differences between groups. This is true for height, which has a high degree of heritability; it is all the more true for intelligence. This is true for other reasons besides ones involving "heritability", as Gould goes on to discuss.

Gould's most profound criticism is his rejection of the very thing that IQ is meant to measure, "general intelligence" (or g). IQ tests, he points out, ask many different kinds of questions. Responses to different kinds of questions tend to form clusters. In other words, different kinds of questions can be given different scores – which suggests that an IQ test is really a combination of a number of different tests that test a number of different things. Gould claims that proponents of IQ tests assume that there is such a thing as general intelligence, and analyze the data so as to produce one number, which they then claim is a measure of general intelligence. Gould argues that this one number (and therefore, the implication that there is a real thing called "general intelligence" that this number measures) is in fact an artifact of the statistical operations psychologists apply to the raw data. He argues that one can analyze the same data more effectively and end up with a number of different scores (but valid, meaning they measure something) rather than one score.

Finally, Gould points out that he is not opposed to the notion of "biological variability" which is the premise that heredity influences intelligence. He does criticize the notion of "biological determinism" which is the idea that genes determine destiny and there is nothing we can or should do about this. Many people who study race intelligence hold that Gould is not representing their views correctly, and is effectively engaging in straw-man attacks on their work.


Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: landauer2 on June 11, 2005, 06:03:59 PM
Quote
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Stephen_Jay_Gould.png)

I remember I've read that Gould had a long-running feud with Richard Dawkins and other evolutionary biologists over sociobiology and its descendant evolutionary psychology, which Gould opposed but Dawkins, Dennett, Pinker and others strongly advocated, and over the importance of gene selection in evolution: Dawkins argued that all evolution is ultimately caused by gene competition, while Gould advocated the importance of higher level competition including, controversially, species selection. Many evolutionary biologists believe that Gould misunderstood Dawkins' claims, and that he ended up attacking a point of view that Dawkins had not held. Strong criticism of Gould can be found particularly in Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker and Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea"; Dennett's criticism has tended to be harsher while Dawkins actually praises Gould in evolutionary topics other than those of contention. Gould, Lewontin and other opponents of evolutionary psychology are accused by Pinker (2002) of being "radical scientists", whose stance on human nature is influenced by politics rather than science. In turn, Gould claims that evolutionary theorists are heavily influenced by their beliefs and interests.
Title: Memes
Post by: monsieur on June 14, 2005, 03:19:34 AM
Quote
Dawkins argued that all evolution is ultimately caused by gene competition, while Gould advocated the importance of higher level competition including, controversially, species selection. Many evolutionary biologists believe that Gould misunderstood Dawkins' claims [...]

I, on the other hand, remember Dawkins from his book "The Selfish Gene" coining the meaning of "meme":
 
"I think that a new kind of replicator has recently emerged on this very planet. It is staring us in the face. It is still in its infancy, still drfiting clumsily about in its primeval soup, but already it is achieving evolutionary change at a rate which leaves the old gene panting far behind."

"The new soup is the soup of human culture. We need a name for the new replicator, a noun which conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmisision, or a unit of imitation. 'Mimeme' comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like 'gene'. I hope my classcist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate mimeme to meme. If it is any consolation, it could alternatively be thought of as being related to 'memory', or to the French word même. It should be pronounced to rhyme with 'cream'

"Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperm or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation. If a scientist hears, or reads about, a good idea, he passes it on to his colleagues and students. He mentions it in his articles and his lectures. If the idea catches on, it can be said to propagate itself, spreading from brain to brain. As my colleague N. K. Humphrey neatly summed up an earlier draft of this chapter: '... memes should be regarded as living structures, not just metaphorically but technically. When you plant a fertile meme in my mind you literally parasitize my brain, turning it into a vehicle for the meme's propagation in just the way that a virus may parasitize the genetic mechanism of a host cell. And this isn't just a way of talking -- the meme for, say, "belief in life after death" is actually realized physically, millions of times over, as a structure in the nervous systems of individual men the world over.'"

That is to say, a meme is an idea, which mutates and is inherited like a gene and spreads like a virus. (Dawkins has in fact written an essay on "Viruses of the Mind," which has now infected the Web.) Such ideas are not original with Dawkins -- as he himself says, "the analogy between cultural and genetic evolution has frequently been pointed out" -- but they really took off after his book. One can think of various reasons -- Dawkin's clear and compelling case; the (foolish) controversy over his book; general concern about biological and computer viruses; the millenarian notions of computer groupies, who want to see themselves as preparing for the next stage in evolution. Of course, there is also Dawkin's enthusiastic use of the idea as a stick with which to beat religion over the head, which none of his predecessors attempted:

"Consider the idea of God. We do not know how it arose in the meme pool. Probably it originated many times by independent 'mutation'. In any case, it is very old indeed. How does it replicate itself? By the spoken and written word, aided by great music and great art. Why does it have such high survival value? Remember that 'survival value' here does not mean value for a gene in a gene pool, but value for a meme in a meme pool. The question really means: What is it about the idea of a god which gives it its stability and penetrance in the cultural environment? The survival value of the god meme in the meme pool results from its great psychological appeal. It provides a superficially plausible answer to deep and troubling questions about existence. It suggests that injustices in this world may be rectified in the next. The 'everlasting arms' hold out a cushion against our own inadequacies, which, like a doctor's placebo, is none the less effective for being imaginary. These are some of the reasons why the idea of God is copied so readily by successive generations of individual brains. God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture."
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: renvoi on June 14, 2005, 07:21:16 PM
monsieur, please stick to the topic!
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: brilliont on June 15, 2005, 07:37:47 PM
Quote
Gould is the author of The Mismeasure of Man, a study of the history of psychometrics and intelligence testing as a form of scientific racism; the most recent edition includes an attempted refutation of the arguments of The Bell Curve.

Here it is the book:

(http://www.skeptic.com/prods/pimagesb/1036.jpg)
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: dashes out on June 18, 2005, 02:16:25 AM
Quote
I see clearly the point of the white Jay Rosner as well when testifying on the issue ... The people at the top of the system should always be careful not to lose their humanity and individuality. After all, power and authority corrupt those who exercise them as much as those who are compelled to submit to them.

Usually the leadership group is made up of men and women who in one way or another have belonged to the social strata of the dominators. At a certain point in their existential experience, under certain historical conditions, these leaders renounce the class to which they belong and join the oppressed, in an act of true solidarity (or so one would hope). Whether or not this adherence results from a scientific analysis or reality, it represents (when authentic) an act of love and true commitment.

Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: breckenridge on June 20, 2005, 12:40:36 AM
Quote
Whether or not this adherence results from a scientific analysis or reality, it represents (when authentic) an act of love and true commitment.

I can not think of any scientific analysis, no matter how rigorous and honest, to make such a person renounce the privileges his existing social class gives him (or her). I also find it difficult to believe it can be a true act of love!
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: carpenoctem on June 27, 2005, 06:40:51 PM
Quote
Gould is the author of The Mismeasure of Man, a study of the history of psychometrics and intelligence testing as a form of scientific racism; the most recent edition includes an attempted refutation of the arguments of The Bell Curve.

Here it is the book:

(http://www.skeptic.com/prods/pimagesb/1036.jpg)

I've read this book twice. It's an annotated history of the incorrigible human need to feel superior to others on group rather than individual grounds, especially heritable intelligence. It boggles the mind to learn how much brainpower, education, patience, hard work, and ingenuity have been turned to the question of "proving" that social distinctions are scientifically valid and immutable. One of the most salutary themes of the book is a reminder that almost every group has been "proven" intellectually or morally inferior at some point: Italians, Slavs, Irish, English, Germans, Hispanics, Blacks, Jews, Asians, Indians, Arabs, Native Americans, women, and even the white American male himself! Americans tend to be obsessed with race, while Europeans have devoted more time to issues of class and religion -- but everyone wants to believe they're smarter than the next guy.

Gould plays fair by choosing to take on the best theories of group intelligence, the fruit of celebrated minds such as Louis Agassiz, Paul Broca, Cesare Lombroso, Alfred Binet, and R.M. Yerkes. He also shoulders the unbelievably tedious task of replicating these scientists' results and/or checking their research methods. It's quite difficult to argue with his factual conclusions without revealing oneself as a poseur; and his critiques of their methodologies are equally difficult to deny. Gould also points out that many of the scientific racists/classists themselves came to recant their own ideas as they got older and presumably wiser.

The book gains relevance as it goes on. Much of the first half is devoted to "scientific" theories that no one could now take seriously, based on experimental methods like filling skulls with mustard seed, weighing the brains of famous men, measuring the spaces between the toes of criminals, and even simply claiming that beauty equals intelligence QED. The best part of the book is its examination of mass intelligence testing, and of the misuse of factor analysis. Gould's simple explanation of factor analysis goes a long way toward dispelling the urge to be cowed by statistical conjuring. Finally, in the 1996 edition Gould takes on the newest incarnation of mismeasurement, The Bell Curve.

Gould mostly refrains from speculating on the motives of his subjects, chalking it all up to the social construction of science or even allowing for benevolent intentions. He also avoids mention of the worst effects of scientific racism, such as the Nazi genocides. While I can understand why he took this low-key, professional approach, I wonder if his arguments are often too subtle for their intended audience. My experience has been that these types of theories are most appealing to precisely the demographic group least likely to be swayed by implicit historical arguments of the "Since these ideas are ridiculous, perhaps more recent but similar ideas are also ridiculous" type. This group seems to me to consist of people with high intelligence and strong faith in the purity of scientific truth, but low life experience, depth of knowledge, and critical acuity -- in other words, privileged undergraduates. Luckily, most people eventually realize that theories of biological determinism, no matter how emptily flattering to themselves, are an intellectual dead end and no substitute for individual achievement.
Title: Karl Rove = Weasel
Post by: a la per on July 30, 2005, 03:39:37 PM
Quote
Now that the rumor of George Bush's functional illiteracy has surfaced in the press, Karl Rowe the head of the Bush campaign has denied it vehemently. 'Governor Bush is an avid reader.'

(http://adbusters.org/blogs/images/stories/news/RoveWeasel_378x198.jpg)

Unfortunately for Karl Rove, even if he dodges the CIA-leak bullet, he’ll never dodge the fact that he’s a chickenshit little weasel. Bush said that he would fire any White House staffer who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame — of course, now that his right-hand man is implicated, the goalposts have shifted. It’s no surprise that the Bush administration is more interested in deflecting controversy than accepting responsibility. What is surprising is that any self-respecting public figure — even a back-room player like Rove — would rather lurk in the shadows like Rasputin than step forward to clear up the mess. But maybe that's exactly what chickenshit little weasels do.

http://adbusters.org/blogs/Karl_Rove__Weasel.html
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: tothepointof on September 24, 2005, 04:34:47 PM
I believe few people in the White House should know such confidential information as the names of undercover CIA agents.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: thnxgvng on October 07, 2005, 03:00:21 PM
Is Boy George included in that list of persons you'd devise, tothepointof?
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: schoen on October 11, 2005, 08:53:10 AM
tag
Title: Will Karl Rove Be Indicted?
Post by: DIFF on October 16, 2005, 04:09:54 PM
Quote
Now that the rumor of George Bush's functional illiteracy has surfaced in the press, Karl Rowe the head of the Bush campaign has denied it vehemently. 'Governor Bush is an avid reader.'

(http://adbusters.org/blogs/images/stories/news/RoveWeasel_378x198.jpg)

Unfortunately for Karl Rove, even if he dodges the CIA-leak bullet, he’ll never dodge the fact that he’s a chickenshit little weasel. Bush said that he would fire any White House staffer who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame — of course, now that his right-hand man is implicated, the goalposts have shifted. It’s no surprise that the Bush administration is more interested in deflecting controversy than accepting responsibility. What is surprising is that any self-respecting public figure — even a back-room player like Rove — would rather lurk in the shadows like Rasputin than step forward to clear up the mess. But maybe that's exactly what chickenshit little weasels do.

http://adbusters.org/blogs/Karl_Rove__Weasel.html

Caught in a Perjury Trap

By JOSHUA FRANK

Occasionally I get emails from Washington folks who work on the Hill claiming to possess juicy insider digs on our public servants and their corporate paymasters. I usually delete said emails, as I don't want to be responsible for propagating dirty rumors or false information that can't be corroborated. I'd rather let Judith Miller and the New York Times do that. Nonetheless, in the past 24 hours I have been contacted by three separate Congressional Democrats in Washington, and a Justice Department official, first by email and later phone, who all say the same thing: Karl Rove is about to be indicted.

All this comes on the heels of events that transpired over the weekend, as two different individuals, journalist Michael Isikoff and political commentator Lawrence O'Donnell, both claimed that Karl Rove might have been responsible for leaking the identity of an undercover CIA officer's identity to Matthew Cooper of Time magazine. Isikoff claims that Cooper talked to Rove during the period that Plame's identity was leaked, but there is still no proof that Rove was the culprit. As Isikoff of Newsweek wrote on July 3:

"The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House. Cooper and a Time spokeswoman declined to comment. But in an interview with Newsweek, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for the article."

If it turns out that Rove did leak Plame to Cooper, it still does not necessarily mean that he was also Robert Novak's inside guy, although it surely raises suspicion. The indictment, as I am told, will most likely be of felony weight. In fact, Karl Rove may be accused of perjury, as Bush's top strategist told a Grand Jury that he was not responsible for leaking Plame's identity to Time magazine.

So the charge may not be for leaking top-secret information to the press, but for perjuring himself.

Sources also all say that this indictment is likely to come down either late this week or early next week. Of course Rove's lawyer denies that his client ever "knowingly" handed over classified information to the media, or is the "target" of any investigation. Perhaps Rove "unknowingly" did, and he's the "subject" rather than a "target" of an investigation. Time will tell.

Apparently I'm not the only one who has been leaked this information either. Over at Redstate, a right-wing Internet blog, one member who calls himself "Ohsure," also claims "[four] Great sources confirmed" the matter, and later added:

"I not only don't do this, I have never done this.

But here it is;

'Karl Rove will be indicted late this, or early next week.'

I'm trusting a source. So either I am made a into an overzealous horses a**, or..., I have good sources and may be more trusted to get these things right."

Over to you Mr. Fitzgerald.


Joshua Frank is the author of the brand new book, Left Out!: How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, which has just been published by Common Courage Press. You can order a copy at a discounted rate at www.brickburner.org. Joshua can be reached at [email protected]


http://www.counterpunch.org/frank07062005.html
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: ohmy on October 22, 2005, 12:53:08 PM
Is Boy George included in that list of persons you'd devise, tothepointof?

Seriously I believe it's not unusual for the president to be kept in the dark regarding many issues
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: orno on December 22, 2005, 11:03:22 PM
And that's what's really interesting! :)
Title: Re: Celebrate The Advantage Or Denounce It?
Post by: state and washington on December 26, 2005, 07:21:40 PM
Quote
It is our solemn responsibility, as beneficiaries of this regressive diagnostic tool, [...] and refuse to submit to the reflexive self-worship and praise of alma mater.

I see where the article posted by "abmdmdj" is coming from,

http://www.hlrecord.org/news/2002/09/19/Opinion/Artificial.Selection.Lsat.Bias.Affects.Us.All-281888.shtml

I see clearly the point of the white Jay Rosner as well when testifying on the issue ... The people at the top of the system should always be careful not to lose their humanity and individuality. After all, power and authority corrupt those who exercise them as much as those who are compelled to submit to them. Power operates destructively, even on those who have it, reducing their individuality as it renders them stupid and brutal, even when they were originally endowed with the best of talents. One who is constantly striving to force everything into a mechanical order at last becomes a machine himself and loses all human feeling.

By treating others as less than yourself, restricting their growth, you lose all the potential insights and abilities these individuals have, so impoverishing your own life and restricting your own growth. Unfortunately in these days material wealth (a particularly narrow form of "self-interest") has replaced concern for developing the whole person and leading a fulfilling and creative life (a broad self-interest, which places the individual within society, one that recognises that relationships with others shape and develop all individuals). In a hierarchical, class-stratified society everyone loses to some degree, even those at the "top."


Definitely! In essence, race is class!
Title: Re: Celebrate The Advantage Or Denounce It?
Post by: gisel on February 26, 2006, 06:00:45 PM
Quote
It is our solemn responsibility, as beneficiaries of this regressive diagnostic tool, [...] and refuse to submit to the reflexive self-worship and praise of alma mater.

I see where the article posted by "abmdmdj" is coming from,

http://www.hlrecord.org/news/2002/09/19/Opinion/Artificial.Selection.Lsat.Bias.Affects.Us.All-281888.shtml

I see clearly the point of the white Jay Rosner as well when testifying on the issue ... The people at the top of the system should always be careful not to lose their humanity and individuality. After all, power and authority corrupt those who exercise them as much as those who are compelled to submit to them. Power operates destructively, even on those who have it, reducing their individuality as it renders them stupid and brutal, even when they were originally endowed with the best of talents. One who is constantly striving to force everything into a mechanical order at last becomes a machine himself and loses all human feeling.

By treating others as less than yourself, restricting their growth, you lose all the potential insights and abilities these individuals have, so impoverishing your own life and restricting your own growth. Unfortunately in these days material wealth (a particularly narrow form of "self-interest") has replaced concern for developing the whole person and leading a fulfilling and creative life (a broad self-interest, which places the individual within society, one that recognises that relationships with others shape and develop all individuals). In a hierarchical, class-stratified society everyone loses to some degree, even those at the "top."


Definitely! In essence, race is class!

Rosner's role would point to the denunciation of the oppression, I'd say. However, I believe first of all it is necessary to transform radically the oppressed consciousness, as well as that of the oppressor in consequence. To do this, world has to be seen as a problem, instead of a given environment where one finds oneself in. The human being is a subject who acts upon and transforms the environment around oneself -- this is, in fact, his ontological vocation. People should develop critical awareness and not allow to be reduced to passive receptacles, "containers" to be filled with pre-composed narrations. For example, the bank-clerk teacher, exhibiting a paternalistic attitude, considers his students incapable of teaching anything to him. To say the truth, it could not be otherwise with a system like ours that fosters ignorance and lethargy, a culture of silence celebrating the very act of oppressing where both oppressors and the oppressed tacitly confirm each-other in their respective positions of power, without even daring to genuinely think about actualizing what they talk about -- a society of equal opportunities for all. To achieve praxis we should constantly aim for a more perfect and accomplished human being, one always in the process of becoming, rather than being.
Title: Bush Role alleged in leak of Iraq intelligence
Post by: harris on April 07, 2006, 05:18:19 AM
Quote
Now that the rumor of George Bush's functional illiteracy has surfaced in the press, Karl Rowe the head of the Bush campaign has denied it vehemently. 'Governor Bush is an avid reader.'

(http://adbusters.org/blogs/images/stories/news/RoveWeasel_378x198.jpg)

Unfortunately for Karl Rove, even if he dodges the CIA-leak bullet, he’ll never dodge the fact that he’s a chickenshit little weasel. Bush said that he would fire any White House staffer who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame — of course, now that his right-hand man is implicated, the goalposts have shifted. It’s no surprise that the Bush administration is more interested in deflecting controversy than accepting responsibility. What is surprising is that any self-respecting public figure — even a back-room player like Rove — would rather lurk in the shadows like Rasputin than step forward to clear up the mess. But maybe that's exactly what chickenshit little weasels do.

http://adbusters.org/blogs/Karl_Rove__Weasel.html

Detailed evidence has emerged for the first time suggesting that President Bush played a direct role in authorizing a selective, surreptitious leak of information from a highly classified national security document to rebut critics of the war in Iraq. Bush has long complained about inappropriate disclosures of sensitive intelligence information, and there is no suggestion that he broke the law, because experts say the president has the legal authority to declassify information. But critics said the disclosures, made public in a court filing in Washington related to the CIA leak case, appear to show Bush doing something he has repeatedly decried: trying to manipulate public opinion by quietly leaking information to the press behind a veil of anonymity.

According to the filing, Vice President male private part Cheney told a top aide that Bush had authorized the release of information supporting the administration's claim that Saddam Hussein had sought nuclear weapons materials in the African nation of Niger. "I served for 13 years on the House Intelligence Committee, and I know intelligence must never be classified or declassified for political purposes," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco. "One of the constants in the Bush administration's miserable record on Iraq has been the manipulation of intelligence precisely for political purposes. That has caused our intelligence -- which used to be accepted without question around the world -- to be viewed with skepticism by the international community."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that if the assertions in the filing are accurate, they suggest a deliberate attempt to shore up support for the war not through open public debate, but by clever manipulation of opinion. "It is deeply disturbing to learn that President Bush may have authorized the selective disclosure of our most sensitive intelligence information to the media to help justify a war and discredit critics," Feinstein said in a statement.

"We're not commenting on an ongoing legal proceeding," Scott McClellan, Bush's press secretary, said Thursday. Bush has repeatedly denounced the leaks that are a trademark of inside-the-Beltway politics. In September 2003, for example, he said: "There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch, there's leaks in the legislative branch, there's just too many leaks. I want -- and if there's a leak out of the administration, I want to know who it is. And if a person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

Steven Aftergood, head of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, which monitors issues related to classified intelligence, said the court filing showed not that the Bush White House is different from its predecessors, but that it is the same -- in spite of occasional White House protests that leaks can threaten national security. "It highlights the arbitrary and self-serving character of classification policy," Aftergood said. "It can be used as an instrument of political advantage rather than for national security. Needless to say, it's hypocritical for an administration that frequently complains about leaks."

The disclosures were made in a 39-page motion filed late Wednesday night in Washington by Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the criminal case against Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff. Libby was indicted last year on five counts of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements in connection with the investigation into who leaked the identity of a CIA official, Valerie Wilson, in 2003. Wilson, who also has been referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, is the wife of Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who had been sent by the administration before the war to investigate reports that Iraq had been trying to purchase uranium ore from Niger to produce nuclear weapons. In his January 2003 State of the Union address, Bush had cited the reported efforts to purchase the ore as part of his justification for the war against Iraq, which started two months later.

In July 2003, Joseph Wilson went public with his findings that the claims about the Iraqi efforts appeared to be false, and he harshly criticized the administration's rationale for attacking Iraq: that Hussein supposedly had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Shortly afterward, columnist Robert Novak disclosed that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, citing unnamed "administration sources," a possible violation of the law because she had been a covert operative. The president, among others, condemned the disclosure of her identity. McClellan said in September 2003, "If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

Libby has acknowledged that he spoke with reporters from the New York Times, Time magazine and NBC. He said in his grand jury testimony that he discussed with some of them assertions in a highly classified 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that Iraq was trying to buy the uranium ore and build nuclear weapons, but that he did not disclose Valerie Wilson's identity. He said the reporters told him about her identity, not the other way around -- which Fitzgerald charged was a lie. Libby has also said he was not a source for Novak's column.

In the recent filing, Fitzgerald provides a more extensive explanation of why Libby allegedly made the disclosures, suggesting the White House, and especially Cheney, were deeply anxious about the allegations from Joseph Wilson and others that Bush had inflated the threat from Hussein. After Baghdad fell, the United States found no credible weapons programs in Iraq. Libby testified that Cheney instructed him to leak information to the press from the intelligence estimate about Iraq's attempts to buy uranium, in order to shore up the administration's credibility. Libby leaked the information to a reporter, the filing adds, "only after the vice president advised the defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information" from the National Intelligence Estimate.

The prosecutor's filing also says White House documents suggest that Libby's leaks to the press "could be characterized as reflecting a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson." The motion does not suggest that Bush played any role in the leak of Valerie Wilson's identity.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link to president

What happened: Court papers were filed that say Vice President male private part Cheney's former top aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence about Iraq.

What it means: Libby's testimony, if true, would put the president and vice president in the awkward position of hav- ing authorized leaks -- a practice both men have long said they abhor.

Reaction: Bush's political foes jumped to the attack.

Associated Press

E-mail James Sterngold at [email protected]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/04/07/MNGH6I5DID1.DTL
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: jdhu on November 25, 2006, 04:57:11 PM
I joined MENSA this year after taking the MENSA exam.  I think I passed fairly easily, although they don't disclose your score.  I only mention this because MENSA is supposedly for those with the highest 2% IQ's, but a 163 is something like top 10% depending on the test.

For what its worth, my LSAT was 164 and my IQ is 151.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: plagerize on January 15, 2007, 07:41:27 PM
Quote

From the MENSA's website it looks like it is so ... does anyone though know whether there are studies correlating the two tests?

http://www.us.mensa.org/join_mensa/testscores.php3


Quote

Quote

Quote


[...]

Incidentally, did you know that one only needs a 162 on the LSAT to qualify for MENSA?



Not anymore!

(http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/9775/untitleddo5.jpg)


Hahaha! Mensa is ridiculous!


http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,3847.msg47681.html#msg47681
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: hypo on January 16, 2007, 06:47:43 PM
(http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/9775/untitleddo5.jpg)

Posting the screenshot was definitely a good idea! When mensa changes the cut-off score again after a while all you have to do laughing your ass off is e-mail them this picture!
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132 - NOT, it is 171, do your research people!
Post by: jimfoolery on January 17, 2007, 08:14:39 PM
You are all wrong. An LSAT of 163 does not qualify you for MENSA.  I don't know if it is equivalent to a 132 IQ (but I doubt it).  I got the following quote directly from MENSA.org homepage:
"Candidates for membership in Mensa must achieve a score at or above the 98th percentile (a score that is greater than or equal to 98 percent of the general population taking the test) on a standard test of intelligence."
After three more clicks, I found this:
Qualifying LSAT scores 6/91 through 5/31/03  170.  Effective 6/03 171.

So no, it is not 163, it is 171.
 

It is always amazing that people will post a question, and others will spout off nonsense, when any of them could have found the answer a mouse click away.  For shame, you lazy future lawyers!


Or you could have found this information in the post directly above yours.  That's zero clicks. 

Incidentally, the subject of this thread, which seems to have you awfully riled up, is from mid-2004.  Congrats, then, on putting candice of almost 3 years ago in her place. 
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: manlaw on March 31, 2007, 09:57:22 PM
Candice was right back then. That's what the MENSA's website said at that time: LSAT 163 qualified you for MENSA. Her only fault is that she did not post a screenshot of the MENSA's webpage back then (as hypo did with the current "Qualifying Scores" webpage of MENSA).
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: proxyways on March 31, 2007, 10:18:25 PM

Candice was right back then. That's what the MENSA's website said at that time: LSAT 163 qualified you for MENSA. Her only fault is that she did not post a screenshot of the MENSA's webpage back then (as hypo did with the current "Qualifying Scores" webpage of MENSA).


Well, that does not make MENSA a cheap-ass whore or anything like that! Bear in mind that LSAT is not an adaptive test (CAT). I mean, soon it will be -- the current "paper and pencil" version of LSAT will soon be a relic of the past, but it is not right now, and it was not back in 2004. But it will soon be administered on computer in the form of a CAT. The LSAT CAT will contain both multiple-choice and non-multiple-choice types and there will be entirely new question types including the possibility of a "listening comprehension" test.

So now what difference does it make that LSAT will be administered in CAT format as to justify the new standards applied retroactively by MENSA?

Well, the CAT's adaptive feature enables a more accurate measurement of your cognitive abilities relative to other test-takers than a paper-based test, even with fewer questions. The primary advantage -- in terms of fairness -- of adaptive testing over non-adaptive testing, whether computer-based or paper-based, has to do with distribution of scores. Assume two LSAT test-takers X and Y. Suppose that X has great difficulty with every question type at even low difficulty levels, while Y can handle any question type at even the highest difficulty level. Because the LSAT CAT will adapt to individual ability, and will reward fewer points for correct responses to easy questions than difficult ones, the difference between LSAT scores for X and Y might be far greater than if they had taken the same bank of questions. In other words, a non-adaptive test does not allow for as wide a distribution of scores.

To the extent that the CAT creates a broader distribution of scores, it is a better means of comparing the cognitive abilities of test-takers. This is a statistics concept that's really pretty easy to understand on a non-technical level. Scores for multiple test-takers that all cluster closely together are less reliable for the purpose of comparing ability levels than more widely distributed scores are.

CAT scoring adjusts the level of difficulty until one gets approximately 50% right and 50% wrong, so that your score is in the middle of the bell curve. That's one difference between that and the paper-based test, where you are always measured against the 151 group. That would be more noticeable in the score bands, for example, where the paper-based LSAT has about a 12% error at the 95% and the LSAT CAT will probably be closer to 5%. Also, the earlier questions are more critical in the adjustment process with the CAT format. 
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: jimfoolery on March 31, 2007, 11:13:13 PM

Candice was right back then. That's what the MENSA's website said at that time: LSAT 163 qualified you for MENSA. Her only fault is that she did not post a screenshot of the MENSA's webpage back then (as hypo did with the current "Qualifying Scores" webpage of MENSA).


Well, that does not make MENSA a cheap-ass whore or anything like that! Bear in mind that LSAT is not an adaptive test (CAT). I mean, soon it will be -- the current "paper and pencil" version of LSAT will soon be a relic of the past, but it is not right now, and it was not back in 2004. But it will soon be administered on computer in the form of a CAT. The LSAT CAT will contain both multiple-choice and non-multiple-choice types and there will be entirely new question types including the possibility of a "listening comprehension" test.

So now what difference does it make that LSAT will be administered in CAT format as to justify the new standards applied retroactively by MENSA?

Well, the CAT's adaptive feature enables a more accurate measurement of your cognitive abilities relative to other test-takers than a paper-based test, even with fewer questions. The primary advantage -- in terms of fairness -- of adaptive testing over non-adaptive testing, whether computer-based or paper-based, has to do with distribution of scores. Assume two LSAT test-takers X and Y. Suppose that X has great difficulty with every question type at even low difficulty levels, while Y can handle any question type at even the highest difficulty level. Because the LSAT CAT will adapt to individual ability, and will reward fewer points for correct responses to easy questions than difficult ones, the difference between LSAT scores for X and Y might be far greater than if they had taken the same bank of questions. In other words, a non-adaptive test does not allow for as wide a distribution of scores.

To the extent that the CAT creates a broader distribution of scores, it is a better means of comparing the cognitive abilities of test-takers. This is a statistics concept that's really pretty easy to understand on a non-technical level. Scores for multiple test-takers that all cluster closely together are less reliable for the purpose of comparing ability levels than more widely distributed scores are.

CAT scoring adjusts the level of difficulty until one gets approximately 50% right and 50% wrong, so that your score is in the middle of the bell curve. That's one difference between that and the paper-based test, where you are always measured against the 151 group. That would be more noticeable in the score bands, for example, where the paper-based LSAT has about a 12% error at the 95% and the LSAT CAT will probably be closer to 5%. Also, the earlier questions are more critical in the adjustment process with the CAT format. 

What an odd post.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: Hank Rearden on March 31, 2007, 11:26:58 PM
lol, tag. 
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: LizPendens™ on April 03, 2007, 11:02:47 AM
oh for god's sake, not this thread again...

::)

this isalmost as bad as the "do you find the LSAT easy?" thread.
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: Hank Rearden on April 03, 2007, 11:53:11 AM
oh for god's sake, not this thread again...

::)

this isalmost as bad as the "do you find the LSAT easy?" thread.

What is your answer, Liz?
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: LizPendens™ on April 03, 2007, 11:57:29 AM
oh for god's sake, not this thread again...

::)

this isalmost as bad as the "do you find the LSAT easy?" thread.

What is your answer, Liz?


hell NO!
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: n/a on April 03, 2007, 11:57:39 AM
oh for god's sake, not this thread again...

::)

this isalmost as bad as the "do you find the LSAT easy?" thread.

What is your answer, Liz?

Haha, I believe that one is quite obvious
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: LizPendens™ on April 03, 2007, 02:08:47 PM
oh for god's sake, not this thread again...

::)

this isalmost as bad as the "do you find the LSAT easy?" thread.

What is your answer, Liz?

Haha, I believe that one is quite obvious


yeah, i toyed with replying with, "duh!" but thought better of it.

:D
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: jimfoolery on April 03, 2007, 10:06:45 PM
This thread is the textual equivalent of random neurons firing in sleep. 
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: jimfoolery on April 03, 2007, 10:09:25 PM
Way to strike while the iron's hot, Lindbergh.


ITT I'm standing on the stage of my old high school auditorium in my underwear, strumming my guitar with a block of sharp cheddar cheese.
Title: Re: Karl Rove = Weasel
Post by: annab on April 03, 2007, 10:12:39 PM
Quote
Now that the rumor of George Bush's functional illiteracy has surfaced in the press, Karl Rowe the head of the Bush campaign has denied it vehemently. 'Governor Bush is an avid reader.'

(http://adbusters.org/blogs/images/stories/news/RoveWeasel_378x198.jpg)

Unfortunately for Karl Rove, even if he dodges the CIA-leak bullet, he’ll never dodge the fact that he’s a chickenshit little weasel. Bush said that he would fire any White House staffer who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame — of course, now that his right-hand man is implicated, the goalposts have shifted. It’s no surprise that the Bush administration is more interested in deflecting controversy than accepting responsibility. What is surprising is that any self-respecting public figure — even a back-room player like Rove — would rather lurk in the shadows like Rasputin than step forward to clear up the mess. But maybe that's exactly what chickenshit little weasels do.

http://adbusters.org/blogs/Karl_Rove__Weasel.html


Except, of course, that there's no evidence that Rove ever "leaked" this information to anyone.  Not that CIA "agents" who hate their country don't toe the Bush administration line and attempt to subvert necessary operations determine the facts are really any use to anyone.

However, it's certainly great to see that in an era where moronic religious fanatics and deranged foreign dictators are seeking to destroy our citizenry, we're consistently fixated on complete non-issues at the domestic level.

Actually, I think they're somewhat useful.  However, I totally agree with you about moronic religious fanatics being a problem.  :)
Title: Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
Post by: Hank Rearden on April 03, 2007, 10:39:43 PM



The real problem today is not the need for people to feel superior -- it's the unwillingness of some people to admit they are less intelligent or capable than others.  In other words, the classic sin of envy.  This leads, in extreme cases, to the homocidal levelling of Marist socities, and, in more moderate cases, to the mediocrity of European and American liberal politics.

What Gould and others ignore about the LSAT, IQ, etc., is that these tests are in fact objective, and allow for individuals of all races and classes to succeed (or fail) on their individual merits.  It's true, of course, that people from more affluent backgrounds tend to do better, as they have better educations and are therefore better developed mentally, on average.  Just as importantly, if not more so, more affluent parents in a general meritocracy like the U.S. will usually be genetically more intelligent,and will pass on that intelligence to their offspring.  There is, of course, nothing "unjust", or "unfair" about this, unless we want to hate nature for creating inherent inequalities in individuals. 

The bottom line is that some people are in fact more intelligent and capable than others, just as some are better athletes than others.  We can try to account for the effects of educational privilege by taking economic background and educational opportunity into account when weighing test scores.  However, to attempt to ignore these differences entirely is incredibly stupid, and will have incredibly negative societal results that would harm everyone.

P.S. The quasi-marxist rhetoric on this website is not only ridiculously naive and ignorant, it is quite frankly astounding after the abject failure and demonstrated intellectual bankruptcy of such ideologies everywhere they have been followed.

I agree with everything you said, but I'm still a little confused with how you think my LSAT translates to IQ.  172=??