Law School Discussion

LSAT 163 = IQ 132

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #60 on: June 04, 2004, 05:01:26 PM »
Okay.

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #61 on: June 04, 2004, 05:02:04 PM »
My last post was directed to "mellisa", not to "ginato". Just a clarification.

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #62 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.

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #63 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.

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #64 on: June 04, 2004, 05:50:24 PM »
Skittles, intelligence counts! That is why medical and law schools attract so many high IQ people.

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #65 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.

nathanielmark

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #66 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?

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #67 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.

dex

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #68 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 ..

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #69 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?