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: