From 1981 to 1991, the LSAT was scored on a scale where 10 was the lowest possible score, and 48 was the highest. In the below chart, we see how various scores equated to percentile rank among those who took the LSAT (an elite sample):
| LSAT score | percentile among elite sample who takes the LSAT | Source | Z score assuming LSAT takers form a Gaussian distribution |
| 32 | 51 | year unspecified, note 79, Rothstein & Yoon 2008 | 0 |
| 35 | 65 | Circa 1990 distribution | +0.4 |
| 38 | 79 | 1990- 1991 distribution; note 53 Rothstein & Yoon 2008 | +0.8 |
| 41 | 89 | 1990-1991 distribution; note 53 Rothstein & Yoon 2008 | +1.2 |
| 41 | 90 | 1990-1991 distribution note 71 Rothstein & Yoon 2008 | +1.27 |
| 42 | 94 | 1987 to 1988 distribution | +1.53 |
| 45 | 98 | 1987 to 1988 distribution | +2.07 |
From the above data, our best estimate is LSAT takers had a mean score of 32.6 with an SD of 6.3.
In this article I once again try to convert these scores to IQ but this time using equipercentile equating, a technique in which I will map LSAT scores to IQ by equating both distributions in a sample that took both tests.
I am aware of only nine people with both reported LSAT scores on this scale, and reported scores on tests that can be converted to IQ. Some of these are from famous people (Barack Obama, Eliot Spitzer, Lion of the Blogospher) but most are from the Omni magazine sample used to norm Ron Hoeflin’s Mega Test, though only when there was no score from a more established test (SAT/GRE) with which which to pair the LSAT score, did I use the Mega Test score
| Person | LSAT score | Score on another test | IQ equivalent of other test (U.S. norms, sigma 15) | Source |
| Eliot Spitzer | 48 | 1590 on Old SAT | 170 | wikipedia (2024-09-24) |
| Lion of the Blogosphere | 46 | 1410 on Old SAT | 143 | Discussion on X.com (2024-06-02) |
| Barack Obama | 43.5 (42 to 45) | 128 on WISC (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children) | 124 after adjustment for suspected Flynn effect | Source for LSAT score Source for WISC score |
| Mega Test taker | 43 | 1400 old GRE | 141 | Omni sample |
| Mega Test taker | 42 | 1540 old SAT | 157 | Omni sample |
| Mega Test taker | 42 | 1360 old SAT | 139 | Omni sample |
| Mega Test taker | 41 | 1370 old SAT | 140 | Omni sample |
| Mega Test taker | 34 | 1290 old SAT | 139 | Omni sample |
| Mega Test taker | 34 | 6 on the Mega Test | 125 | Omni sample |
For these nine individuals, the correlation between the LSAT and another IQ test they took was about 0.53. Their average LSAT score is 41.5 (SD = 4.5) and their average IQ is 142 (SD = 13).
Thus the formula for converting LSATs from this era to IQ (U.S. norms):
IQ = [(LSAT – 41.5)/4.5](13) + 142
Recall from above that the mean LSAT scores of LSAT takers was 32.6 (SD = 6.3). Thus on a scale where Americans on the whole have an average IQ of 100 (SD = 15), the law school bound elite had averaged IQ 116 (SD 18.9). An average IQ of 116 sounds plausible given that this was just over the mean for college grads in the 1980s but the SD of 18.9 is surprisingly high and may be an artifact of some kind.
Pumpkin Person 
What have you discovered about high level IQ and test correlation for genius children?
SMPY study shows kids in the 1970’s who scored as high as college students when they were 12 years old on the SAT
On the one hand I’ve read that controlling for measurement error, IQ is stable from age 10 to adulthood. On the other hand I’ve read that the heritability of IQ doubles as you move from childhood to middle age. If so a lot of those SMPY geniuses will disappoint us as they regress to their genetic IQ. But the question is why? Is it because certain genes don’t express themselves into adulthood or is it because we need to adjust a child’s IQ for his social class?
The child brain is more plastic. As age increases fluid g decreases. So the developmental process is marked by more dimensionality than a linear system if we account for specialization to unfold.
That is to say, what profile one has is reliant to an exposure of ideas, people and self motivation to ones intellectual proclivity. This is why people such as Terence Tao is bellow 145 not near 220 because parents raised him to only do math. Mozart was raised only to do music the same. Meaning environmental factors have a great influence on IQ and what you are good at innately. People must practice their talents and strengths not their weaknesses as the video said on gender but more to ones personality.
So are you saying that IQ is genetic, but specific talents like math and music are cultural. You don’t believe Tao had good math genes and Mozart had good music genes? You believe they were interchangeable and one could have been the other?
Adjustments need to be made for what a child is exposed to because test correlation (r) squared is 0.49 meaning 51% is unexplained.
People like Tao might be high IQ but only in math from the beginning. If they were not raised at a university by parents who trained them where would they be now? If Mozart was not in the royal court but born in a peasant farm he would not be exposed to music so where would he be in history?
Genes do specialize but that is if you get exposed to the talent you happen to have. Chris langan could be a good body builder but he became a carpenter. He is probably 175 not 210 but then he never found his talent his intellectual nitch. Imaging if langan was not born poor in Montana.
So what is missing is culture and specialization genes as kids grow up. I would say that you need to find what you are good at and that requires a level playing field. If not then smart kids get exposed to less culture and less talented kids regress to the mean even if born at a university. Mozart was at most 145 – culturally his impact was great not because of IQ but because of his status.
SES on a curve brings people to the middle so we don’t know what it does to the tails? High IQ is diminished by poverty. Extremes then become lost in the noise.
I always had a feeling that Philo wasn’t real, but he would seem so genuine in his beliefs at times.
Waiting for you to say something about Gaza.
You’re not really relevant anymore since ive realized you’re not real.
You’re more than welcome to read some of my past comments on the subject, though. Ive been pretty vocal about it.
I’ve been here 7 years and you have never once mentioned even palestinians.
Anyone notice Kamala (or her boss) is running to the left of Biden? If she actually does what she says and bans private equity from residential sales that would be the ultimate time a politician has dared to offend their key donors. Most PE is jewish, but nominally ‘republican’ so maybe she doesn’t take that money.
Anyways, I don’t have problem voting for puppets in general. We have a lot in the UK and Ireland. You could argue in ‘democracy’ most of the pols are puppets so you have to research who their boss is.
With Macron its so obvious. Cameron/Osborne the same. I think the scandanvians have genuine leaders though. And some of the eastern european countries.
Irish pols are total complete human garbage and worse than puppets. They take bribes from whoever. We had this half indian gay guy who came third place twice and he was still made PM for diversity reasons. What the fuck was that all about.
Newspapers say Ireland is very progressive lol. They never met an Irish person obviously.
What do you make of Candace Owen’s crazy theory that Macron’s wife is a man? LOL
Well I believe Macron is maybe gay or even a paedo.
The gender-swapping conspiracies are pretty stupid IMO. However, the idea that powerful people are often somewhat androgynous, or have both intense feminine and masculine features, is interesting. It’s often said that a lot feminist leaders are very masculine (and hence, universalizing their personality/biology to the rest of fairer sex has lead to many problems). A lot of historical male leaders were probably more neotenous and more highly evolved. But they might have still had somewhat high testosterone.
Also, borderline homosexual men seem to marry masculine-looking women, which makes sense. So gay Barack married Michelle Obama, and Matthew Broderick with Sarah Jessica Parker.
Also I’m saying “highly evolved” in a tongue-in-cheek way, but not completely (as having larger brains, greater ability to interact with reality in general, and presumably living longer would seem to be progressive evolution).
Every year it gets worse and worse for poor Bruno. Longer working hours. Less pension. More immigrants bidding down his wages. Subsidies for the rich.
But when youre a stupid person you can’t help it and keep voting to make your life worse.
Hopefully RR’s wife sets him on fire.