conversion, IQ, LSAT
Here’s a thread where people listed their scores on both the LSAT and the ACT/SAT.
Because the SAT is constantly changing, I decided to focus on the LSAT-ACT correlation, ignoring the SAT.
The correlation between self-reported LSAT scores and ACT scores was 0.46+ (n = 19).
The LSAT scores of the sample had a mean of 164 (SD 8.03) and the ACT scores had a mean of 29 (SD 4.02).
Using equipercentile equating, we can infer from the above distributions that the average LSAT taker (LSAT = 150) is a equivalent to a post-April 1995 to pre-March 2016 SAT score (V + M) of 1030 which is equivalent to an IQ of 107 (U.S. norms).
Meanwhile, the average Harvard Law student (LSAT = 173) equates to a post-April 1995 to pre-March 2016 SAT score of 1485 which equates to an IQ of 144. Of course Harvardl Law students (like all people selected by a specific test) would regress precipitously on a test not used to select them.
Nonetheless, a simple equation for converting LSAT to IQ is:
IQ = 1.61(LSAT) – 134.3
Of course this data is only based a small sample of self-reported scores so this equation should only be considered preliminary. One potential red flag is the IQ predicted for the average LSAT taker is 107. While this is above the U.S. average, it is surprisingly low for aspiring law students, given that the average university graduate has an IQ of 111 and mostly the above average ones would pursue even higher learning.
But it could be that many people who don’t even graduate from university decide to take the LSAT just in case, including many people from low IQ criminal communities who see a law degree as a way to vindicate themselves or their loved ones:
Some Guy said:
That’s about the same I got from converting HLS LSAT to GRE scores in the other thread: 145.9 without correcting for reliability or regression effects.
caffeine withdrawals said:
Love the new conversion. Moves me up 5 points.
I scored 165 on the LSAT. That would be an IQ of 131 according to your formula. If you have ever spoken to someone who’s scored in that range you would know your how far off that estimate is. In fact, look at the post history of reddit users with scores in the mid 160s and see if you find any evidence of above average intelligence.
The LSAT is repetitive enough that once you get the hang of the easy-moderate questions you can breeze through them on every other subsequent test. Doing well on them is like learning a game with fairly narrow constraints: once you understand how everything works the rules remain stable and require no creativity or fluidity. That alone puts you in the 160+ range. Beyond that you either have the cognition to tackle the hard questions under time-pressure or you get lucky with a few questions and boost your score that little extra bit.
I am really dumb and am just barely independent. I would be homeless without my parents support. Even if my score “regressed precipitously” by 2SD I would still be in normal range IQ. I would be over the moon to have an IQ of 100. Maybe I could have friends or hold a conversation.
To add: My head circumference is 22.5 inches. Anyone else want to put up their test scores and head size?
Some Guy said:
“Maybe I could have friends or hold a conversation.”
Sounds like your problem ain’t IQ but social.
Ha. This maybe one of the cleverest responses be seen in a while.
It’s certainly true that, at least to some extent, IQ tests measure how good you are at taking IQ tests, but there’s an intelligence component. If you scored 165 on the LSAT, you’re well above average in reasoning skill. As for personality and social skills. . . I believe that’s a different test altogether. That said, many (probably most) people of higher intelligence have difficulty socially – partly because most people are far below.
I’d say keep up the smartass routine – you may have a career in comedy. Hell, George Cartland didn’t even make it through high school – he made a lot of people laugh, though (and a lot of dough).
PP, can you do an article on the correlation between brain connectome and IQ?
I’m sure there is a positive correlation but I’ve never seen any study that quantified it.
Some Guy said:
Not sure if connectome is different from brain morphology but “The morphology of the brain explains NINETY-FIVE percent of the variation in IQ.” – https://inductivist.blogspot.com/2019/08/study-you-can-tell-if-someone-is-smart.html
fury is no schmeling...a better boxer...a much lower IQ...and fury has "mental health issues".... said:
iirc my dad had 95th SAT (when harvard admitted 20% of applicants)…
but 99th LSAT.
which is the opposite order one should expect because the LSAT is more selective.
but the LSAT has (or had) a pure logic component which other IQ tests don’t have…
and the rest was pure VIQ.
and it happens that people change percentiles from age 17 to age 22.
i have to take my bro to the hospital tonight. he hit his head while somnambulism-ing.
cross your fingers.
arnold once lost a match because un-developed calves. said:
but what’s the deal with black men’s calves?
i used to think it was just they had longer fore-legs and so their calves were more “spread out”…
but now i think they catually have smaller calves.
Not sure why I’m coming across this comment now but actually had an older black lady once make fun of me at the gym because my calves are incredibly large for a black guy. Most black guys have small, anorexic-looking calves relative to the rest of their leg.
It’s true that the SAT changed after 2016, but there are concordance tables that convert old scores to new scores and vice versa. Is it possible to create a post-2016 SAT to IQ table based on that data?
It’s true that the SAT changed after 2016. However, there are tables that convert old scores to new scores and vice versa, as well as new SAT-ACT conversion tables. Would it be possible for you to construct a post-2016 SAT to IQ table based on said data?
I plan to
Stop planning and start doing