Requisite IQ for a 170+ LSAT Score? Forum

[RZ5646]

i think, if everyone could score above a 170, everyone would go home, sit in their mother's basement and pound out the LSAT until you got a 200k offer for your 170+.

???

You seriously think everyone would have the work ethic/motivation to do that? I think you're confusing ability with work ethic...most LSAT takers are not on TLS and worrying about their score every day of their lives

Yeah, for everybody but those geniuses who can get 170+ without studying (who probably exist, but are extremely rare), the LSAT tests work ethic and discipline in addition to raw intelligence. Not many people are both smart enough and diligent enough to get a top score.

[GFox345]

With all due respect, I find these stories hard to believe.

For one, unless you know how to do logic games and how the different games work, I don't see how you would just walk in and be able to do them. Yes, of course they can be learned, but it isn't as if we all walk around with the ability to do everything innately unless you perhaps majored in something that had those specific types of problems or very similar problems in your major.

Also, I don't think ANYONE could learn to do well on the LSAT even given unlimited time. I think the people who think this, perhaps, have gone to good schools or have a peer groups that are probably in the upper cohort of the bell curve. From my experience, I have worked with a wide array of people and I promise you, there are people I would bet thousands of dollars couldn't break a 160. Another thing to consider is help. I mean of course if you have a tutor that makes learning the test a lot easier than studying on your own, where you have to discern through the test and figure it out yourself.

i think, if everyone could score above a 170, everyone would go home, sit in their mother's basement and pound out the LSAT until you got a 200k offer for your 170+.

Statistically speaking, only like 1 or 2% (or whatever the exact figure is) of people score above a 170.

I agree with all parts of this post except for everyone working hard at the LSAT if they could score a 170.

It is absolutely absurd to suggest that anyone of average intelligence could score a 170 on the LSAT with enough preparation. I might even go so far as to say the same thing about a 160. TLS is very lopsided in that the vast majority of posters seem to test at least well into the high 160s and above, and this leads many TLSers to believe that testing so well is a commonplace (and easily attainable) phenomenon. I can assure you that it is not. The data shows this. While not everyone works very hard on their LSAT score, it is VERY common for students to spend a significant amount of time studying for it. If a 170 were attainable by everyone of average intelligence, I don't think everyone would give it their absolute all, but I do think that a 170 would be attained by a much larger portion of test takers than 2.5%. I mean, we are talking about 3 standard deviations above the median here. Do you really think the difference is almost entirely due to preparation and not natural ability? I certainly think that preparation is more important than natural ability, particularly when it comes to logic games, but natural ability plays what seems to me like an undeniable role in achieving a high score.

[smaug]

Maybe they just have shitty teachers. You'll have to do a lot of work to convince me T14 students are of above average intelligence.

[QuentonCassidy]

With all due respect, I find these stories hard to believe.

For one, unless you know how to do logic games and how the different games work, I don't see how you would just walk in and be able to do them. Yes, of course they can be learned, but it isn't as if we all walk around with the ability to do everything innately unless you perhaps majored in something that had those specific types of problems or very similar problems in your major...

No disrespect taken, I understand the skepticism. It is interesting to me that you mention logic games specifically because LG was always the section that I "just got". I remember walking out of that first practice LSAT thinking that I wished all the sections were like "that riddle section". In fact of the few other practice tests I took, LG was the only section that I never missed a question on.

I'm not saying that LG isn't learnable, in fact I agree that it is probably the most learnable section, but I don't think that means that it HAS to be learned either. I believe that for some people it just makes sense.

[GFox345]

Maybe they just have shitty teachers. You'll have to do a lot of work to convince me T14 students are of above average intelligence.

I am not saying that T-14 students are geniuses in any sense of the word, but the idea that they are above average intelligence seems to me to be entirely uncontroversial.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

With all due respect, I find these stories hard to believe.

For one, unless you know how to do logic games and how the different games work, I don't see how you would just walk in and be able to do them. Yes, of course they can be learned, but it isn't as if we all walk around with the ability to do everything innately unless you perhaps majored in something that had those specific types of problems or very similar problems in your major.

Also, I don't think ANYONE could learn to do well on the LSAT even given unlimited time. I think the people who think this, perhaps, have gone to good schools or have a peer groups that are probably in the upper cohort of the bell curve. From my experience, I have worked with a wide array of people and I promise you, there are people I would bet thousands of dollars couldn't break a 160. Another thing to consider is help. I mean of course if you have a tutor that makes learning the test a lot easier than studying on your own, where you have to discern through the test and figure it out yourself.

i think, if everyone could score above a 170, everyone would go home, sit in their mother's basement and pound out the LSAT until you got a 200k offer for your 170+.

Statistically speaking, only like 1 or 2% (or whatever the exact figure is) of people score above a 170.

I agree with all parts of this post except for everyone working hard at the LSAT if they could score a 170.

It is absolutely absurd to suggest that anyone of average intelligence could score a 170 on the LSAT with enough preparation. I might even go so far as to say the same thing about a 160. TLS is very lopsided in that the vast majority of posters seem to test at least well into the high 160s and above, and this leads many TLSers to believe that testing so well is a commonplace (and easily attainable) phenomenon. I can assure you that it is not. The data shows this. While not everyone works very hard on their LSAT score, it is VERY common for students to spend a significant amount of time studying for it. If a 170 were attainable by everyone of average intelligence, I don't think everyone would give it their absolute all, but I do think that a 170 would be attained by a much larger portion of test takers than 2.5%. I mean, we are talking about 3 standard deviations above the median here. Do you really think the difference is almost entirely due to preparation and not natural ability? I certainly think that preparation is more important than natural ability, particularly when it comes to logic games, but natural ability plays what seems to me like an undeniable role in achieving a high score.

Re-reading that post, I should replace WOULD go sit in their mom's house with SHOULD/ it would be in their best self-interest.

I think it is a combination of innate ability, prior rigorous academic experiences, motivation, and having the time to prep.

[GFox345]

With all due respect, I find these stories hard to believe.

For one, unless you know how to do logic games and how the different games work, I don't see how you would just walk in and be able to do them. Yes, of course they can be learned, but it isn't as if we all walk around with the ability to do everything innately unless you perhaps majored in something that had those specific types of problems or very similar problems in your major.

Also, I don't think ANYONE could learn to do well on the LSAT even given unlimited time. I think the people who think this, perhaps, have gone to good schools or have a peer groups that are probably in the upper cohort of the bell curve. From my experience, I have worked with a wide array of people and I promise you, there are people I would bet thousands of dollars couldn't break a 160. Another thing to consider is help. I mean of course if you have a tutor that makes learning the test a lot easier than studying on your own, where you have to discern through the test and figure it out yourself.

i think, if everyone could score above a 170, everyone would go home, sit in their mother's basement and pound out the LSAT until you got a 200k offer for your 170+.

Statistically speaking, only like 1 or 2% (or whatever the exact figure is) of people score above a 170.

I agree with all parts of this post except for everyone working hard at the LSAT if they could score a 170.

It is absolutely absurd to suggest that anyone of average intelligence could score a 170 on the LSAT with enough preparation. I might even go so far as to say the same thing about a 160. TLS is very lopsided in that the vast majority of posters seem to test at least well into the high 160s and above, and this leads many TLSers to believe that testing so well is a commonplace (and easily attainable) phenomenon. I can assure you that it is not. The data shows this. While not everyone works very hard on their LSAT score, it is VERY common for students to spend a significant amount of time studying for it. If a 170 were attainable by everyone of average intelligence, I don't think everyone would give it their absolute all, but I do think that a 170 would be attained by a much larger portion of test takers than 2.5%. I mean, we are talking about 3 standard deviations above the median here. Do you really think the difference is almost entirely due to preparation and not natural ability? I certainly think that preparation is more important than natural ability, particularly when it comes to logic games, but natural ability plays what seems to me like an undeniable role in achieving a high score.

Re-reading that post, I should replace WOULD go sit in their mom's house with SHOULD/ it would be in their best self-interest.

I think it is a combination of innate ability, prior rigorous academic experiences, motivation, and having the time to prep.

100% Agreed.

[smaug]

Maybe they just have shitty teachers. You'll have to do a lot of work to convince me T14 students are of above average intelligence.

I am not saying that T-14 students are geniuses in any sense of the word, but the idea that they are above average intelligence seems to me to be entirely uncontroversial.

they were dumb enough to go to law school ...

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Maybe they just have shitty teachers. You'll have to do a lot of work to convince me T14 students are of above average intelligence.

I am not saying that T-14 students are geniuses in any sense of the word, but the idea that they are above average intelligence seems to me to be entirely uncontroversial.

they were dumb enough to go to law school ...

Law school isn't a bad deal... if you land biglaw and if you don't have a ton of debt. I think it gets dicey when you are looking to borrow 150-200k to get into somewhere like Georgetown. Even if you graduate and are stuck doing doc review for 40-50k, you may have a better life than you otherwise would given all you have to do is study for law school tests. It depends on opportunity costs and, unfortunately as I came to find out, opportunity cost are no more guaranteed than getting Biglaw.

[GFox345]

Maybe they just have shitty teachers. You'll have to do a lot of work to convince me T14 students are of above average intelligence.

I am not saying that T-14 students are geniuses in any sense of the word, but the idea that they are above average intelligence seems to me to be entirely uncontroversial.

they were dumb enough to go to law school ...

Don't be so negative! I agree with Asd. The idea that it is dumb to go to Law School is a far more individual proposition. For some people it definitely is, and for some it definitely isn't, and there are a variety of different considerations that go into determining the dumbness or lack of dumbness is a given individual's decision. I would say that if you want to be a lawyer and don't take out so much debt that you have to hate your life for a significant period of time to service it, or even worse, find yourself unable to service it, then it is at the very least defensible to attend Law School.

[smaug]

You understand you're talking to a biglawyer who had a not-small scholarship, right?

You all are just proving my point here.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

You understand you're talking to a biglawyer who had a not-small scholarship, right?

You all are just proving my point here.

Right, but you only see one side of your decision. You don't see what you would have done otherwise and the problems that go along taking the other path. The thing is a lot of regular people deal with similar bullshi* that you have to deal with as well, it's just they are getting paid 30k or 40k or 50k rather than 100 or 150.

Everyone thinks there's some beautiful magical job that pays you 90k a year with no debt, where your boss is great, you work 40 hours a week, your clients are nice people, and IT never has problems.

That job doesn't exist.

Most people are living paycheck to paycheck and are one major bill from being financially ruined and people on here want to complain about the hours they work in biglaw and are making 150-200k. I understand the work must suck and the hours suck as well, but I still find it surreal. If I could be guaranteed biglaw right now with no debt, I'd do 5 years and get out.

[GFox345]

You understand you're talking to a biglawyer who had a not-small scholarship, right?

You all are just proving my point here.

You understand that the fact that you personally regret your decision to go to Law School does not make the general decision to attend Law School a bad one, right? In fact, it doesn't even necessarily mean that it was a bad decision for you, let alone for everyone who ever decides to go to law school ever. Financial considerations are very important, but there are other considerations (it sounds like these are particularly relevant in your case because of the not-small scholarship) that go into determining the viability of the decision.

[smaug]

I don't regret law school and have worked jobs at various income levels.

I just have a lot more perspective on this and know how bad of a decision it is for pretty much everyone.

[GFox345]

I don't regret law school and have worked jobs at various income levels.

I just have a lot more perspective on this and know how bad of a decision it is for pretty much everyone.

So you don't regret law school, but you think it is a dumb decision for pretty much everyone at T-14 schools? Why do you think this? Is it the hours, the culture, the work itself? I am interested to hear what you think. What do you think the average T-14 applicant would have in the way of career prospects that would be better decisions than attending a T-14 on a decent scholarship?

[smaug]

I don't regret law school and have worked jobs at various income levels.

I just have a lot more perspective on this and know how bad of a decision it is for pretty much everyone.

So you don't regret law school, but you think it is a dumb decision for pretty much everyone at T-14 schools? Why do you think this? Is it the hours, the culture, the work itself? I am interested to hear what you think. What do you think the average T-14 applicant would have in the way of career prospects that would be better decisions than attending a T-14 on a decent scholarship?

I think that for most people, most office drone jobs would be better, both in long-term options and in quality of life.

"Culture" is the wrong word. It's just that what's "normal" for biglaw isn't compatible with life for most people, and it's hard to plan for the job after biglaw and be very excited about it.

I think shitlaw probably gets a bad wrap and might provide a more interesting and entrepreneurial path than chasing the prestige, glory, and paycheck of biglaw.

[MyNameIsntJames]

I'm honestly skeptical if there is a hard IQ floor for a 170+ on the LSAT. In theory, if you sat someone down and had them work strictly on the LSAT & prep for a year straight, 8 hours a day and they had a 110 IQ, they could probably bang out a 170+. The test is learnable and so is logic. It would be different if the test had an entirely different setup every year.

Perhaps a better question would be to ask what the IQ floor is for someone to get a 170+ studying reasonably as hard as everyone else aiming for the same score. I'd take a whiff at a 140 IQ, but the concept, accuracy & definition of "IQ" is debatable as well.

I think studying & determination is much more important than raw IQ for this exam. Even if you're a genius, you're probably not gonna crack 170 without putting in some level of studying.

I disagree with both of the bolded statements. For the first, I don't think I disagree with your general message, but I just think the IQ to LSAT correlation (while it probably exists to some degree) is much too weak to say that one probably can't get a 170+ without much study unless they have an IQ of at least 140. I don't think I could put an IQ # on that at all, but under duress would throw out something 115-120.

As for the second part, I disagree simply because some people are just very naturally-gifted at standardized tests. Not saying that they are geniuses, but I would argue that there are definitely some "geniuses" who can get over a 170 with no study, and some people who probably aren't "geniuses" that could also do so.

True lol. I mean I'm sure someone somewhere on this planet might smack a 170 on the exam, but factoring in the nuance, time constraints and general unorthodox nature of the exam I think that it would be extraordinary for any one of any intelligence level to smack a 170+ on their first go.


In terms of the 140 for the 170+ I was just pulling numbers out of my ass lol. Who knows, maybe 100 is the mark. Maybe we all have IQs of 100-110 and we've grossly overestimated our abilities. My personal belief is that IQ is an iffy theory to begin with, so answering this question is somewhat difficult.

I would guess most people with 145+ IQs could break 170 on the LSAT without any study at all. I've known a handful of people who have done it, in fact. Not unreasonable to think someone at 140 could do it, but I wouldn't bet on the majority (but I think it would be close).

I wouldn't rule it out, but I'd just be very shocked if someone broke 170 on a TIMED exam the very first time with absolutely no prior preparation.

I mean, FWIW, I scored 174 the first time I ever tried an LSAT (given by my undergrad, simulating real test conditions, including experimental section). I had never seen an LSAT question before, nor did I know anything about the test beyond "it's like 4 hours long and required to get into law school." Obviously this is only one datapoint, and obviously you don't have to believe me, but I imagine that Hikikomorist is speaking from similar experience.

Hey if you said you did it then you did it. I have nothing to say about it other than you're an extraordinarily gifted genius lol.

[MyNameIsntJames]

I don't regret law school and have worked jobs at various income levels.

I just have a lot more perspective on this and know how bad of a decision it is for pretty much everyone.

Why? Especially if you don't regret law school? Is Big Law that bad? lol

[MyNameIsntJames]

I don't regret law school and have worked jobs at various income levels.

I just have a lot more perspective on this and know how bad of a decision it is for pretty much everyone.

So you don't regret law school, but you think it is a dumb decision for pretty much everyone at T-14 schools? Why do you think this? Is it the hours, the culture, the work itself? I am interested to hear what you think. What do you think the average T-14 applicant would have in the way of career prospects that would be better decisions than attending a T-14 on a decent scholarship?

I think that for most people, most office drone jobs would be better, both in long-term options and in quality of life.

"Culture" is the wrong word. It's just that what's "normal" for biglaw isn't compatible with life for most people, and it's hard to plan for the job after biglaw and be very excited about it.

I think shitlaw probably gets a bad wrap and might provide a more interesting and entrepreneurial path than chasing the prestige, glory, and paycheck of biglaw.

Would you say that some of this is personality based as well though? I'm sure folks at the partner level have to have some passion or love for the big law world.

[smaug]

You're never going to make partner so how they feel about it shouldn't sway you in any direction.

[smaug]

I don't regret law school and have worked jobs at various income levels.

I just have a lot more perspective on this and know how bad of a decision it is for pretty much everyone.

Why? Especially if you don't regret law school? Is Big Law that bad? lol

The modal outcomes just aren't worth the opportunity costs.

[GreenEggs]

this is a dumb and pointless thread

[20170322]

I think the question misses the point. Anyone asking this question is trying to justify a lack of studying on their end. But whether it's jumping from 150 to 160 or 160 to 170, every additional point on the LSAT is worth thousands of dollars. So why not put in every possible hour towards achieving a higher score?

[RZ5646]

I think the question misses the point. Anyone asking this question is trying to justify a lack of studying on their end. But whether it's jumping from 150 to 160 or 160 to 170, every additional point on the LSAT is worth thousands of dollars. So why not put in every possible hour towards achieving a higher score?

Because who wants to put in hard work when you can either

1) cling to that IQ score you got as an 8-year-old to prove you could be successful if you tried, you just don't want to

2) use your IQ score as an excuse: "obviously logic games are really a form of genome sequencing, and I wasn't born smart enough"

[MyNameIsntJames]

You're never going to make partner so how they feel about it shouldn't sway you in any direction.

Of course of course, but for the folks who even had it in them to stay long enough to be considered from such they would've had to have some love for the firm right? I mean tons of people walk away from big law everyday.

I always held it in my head that I was gonna work for 3-5 years and hop out and hopefully score a cushy in-house job somewhere for a humble $90-110k. Is this unreasonable? And is big law so unbearable that even 3-5 years too much?

Also, I'm someone who has worked 12 hours/day for like $8.25/hour doing bs manual labor with Mexicans (not to be racist but just giving you a gist of the type of work I was doing) and I felt I could survive that. I couldn't imagine there being anything in an office setting that could make me miserable if that didn't. Especially once you throw that $100k+ salary on top of it.

I was also reading another thread with people in other firms making $100-120k that claim to be working reasonable hours like 9-6:30 or something or even telecommuting.