The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Lots of STEM people who think they are smart suck at the LSAT
Poast new message in this thread
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:14 PM Author: gold multi-colored property sweet tailpipe Why is this? They seem to lack critical reasoning skills and the ability to think quickly. Just generally pretty dull.
After realizing they suck shit at the LSAT, they get so bitter that they go on to troll about how smart they are and how stupid non-STEM people are. |
 |
Date: April 24th, 2013 9:26 PM Author: 180 Carmine Public Bath DUR DuR, there are different types of intelligence. many smart engineers are no good at the LSAT, just like many "smart" law students couldn't pass Calc 2. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23070145) |
|
Date: April 26th, 2013 4:14 PM Author: gold multi-colored property sweet tailpipe This is not accurate. Intelligence is more of a singular measure than you think. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23083249) |
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:17 PM Author: Henna boyish spot Inability to read fast, most likely. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23067635) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:18 PM Author: judgmental cracking idiot becky this is like me, logic games are easy as FUCK but the other shit you only do decently well at, like get 2-4 wrong per section. You just never read as a STEM major. it's like writing a law exam 1L year, totally foreign. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23067653) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:21 PM Author: very tactful bull headed antidepressant drug sound barrier "You just never read as a STEM major."
STFU, you idiot.
By the time you take the LSAT, you've been reading for almost two decades.
|
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:22 PM Author: Laughsome chartreuse brunch background story yeah that's not really a good excuse.
|
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:23 PM Author: judgmental cracking idiot becky don't be a dick man, what i meant is you never read dense shit like philosophy majors which i'd say trains your mind much better to deal with shit like the LSAT. i never read at all, basically just looked at ppt slides from classes/did practice problems (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23067687) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:25 PM Author: adventurous yellow circlehead biochemistry texts and programming technical manuals are actually quite dense bro (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23067702) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:27 PM Author: judgmental cracking idiot becky not a technical guy, but biochem i didn't really read the text. all this being said, i still got a 170 which is decent enough.
I'm just saying STEM majors imo seem to have no problem at all with the games and get shit wrong in other areas, whereas the non-stem majors i know hated games and found the other shit easier |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:31 PM Author: soul-stirring national (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23067748) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:45 PM Author: Obsidian Plaza agree, if you aren't getting perfect games on the reg you might have problems with ls (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23067850) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:54 PM Author: Laughsome chartreuse brunch background story it takes a little practice to get it in the allotted time if you're new to games, but that's about it.
once you've taken a few practice tests that shit should be almost robotic and you should be completing games with plenty of time to spare. |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:57 PM Author: Obsidian Plaza agree (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23067944) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 4:03 PM Author: flatulent goyim native i never got the hang of games but got all the rest of the questions right. guess at my ls performance. tyia. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23067981) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 4:09 PM Author: soul-stirring national (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23068028) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 4:15 PM Author: flatulent goyim native i'm crushed (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23068064) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 6:19 PM Author: Khaki Godawful Whorehouse did you find them easy from the beginning, brother? the LR and reading comp came pretty easy for me...especially the LR, which I rarely missed any on. but I SUCKED at the games until I got a book on them...was missing like half of them in the beginning. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23068848) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 9:28 PM Author: 180 Carmine Public Bath (guy who thinks he's smarter than engineers even though he can't do math for shit) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23070164) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:40 PM Author: Jet-lagged field tbf, reading dense technical text for comprehension and to understand technical concepts is different than reading some dense philosophy shit to critically analyze it and point out argumentative flaws. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23067809) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:26 PM Author: Laughsome chartreuse brunch background story the reading comprehension is just...reading comprehension, and you should be able to do the logical reasoning stuff without much difficulty if you can think well. I suppose that having phil. classes could train you to do better on LR but I don't think the difference would be that big. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23067716) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:24 PM Author: adventurous yellow circlehead (guy who thinks STEM classes dont have voluminous text books) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23067696) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:25 PM Author: judgmental cracking idiot becky if you're smart using the text books beyond looking at the example problems and possibly a few paragraphs where necessary is a waste of time (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23067709) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:29 PM Author: adventurous yellow circlehead in physics and math, textbooks are useless, probably even detrimental
in biology/chem, they are invaluable |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:30 PM Author: judgmental cracking idiot becky biology ill give you, but i primarily used my teacher's slides and then only referred to the text when necessary to clarify.
chemistry no way man, even orgo i dont think reading helps very much. it's all bout the example problems in chem and the diagrams in o-chem |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:32 PM Author: adventurous yellow circlehead i agree that mastery of orgo is about practice, but you cant approach the problems if you havent read the text (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23067755) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:35 PM Author: judgmental cracking idiot becky i largely relied on my memory and my basic understanding of how electrophilic/nucleophilic the different elements were. I wish i could say i learned orgo better, but i really didnt. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23067771) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:37 PM Author: adventurous yellow circlehead yea thats what 90% of students do (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23067782) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:46 PM Author: Obsidian Plaza should have just done "organic chemistry as a second language", bro (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23067854) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:31 PM Author: Laughsome chartreuse brunch background story "in physics and math, textbooks are useless, probably even detrimental"
no. but they aren't going to improve your reading comprehension or reasoning ability |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:33 PM Author: judgmental cracking idiot becky exactly, this is what im saying. i can understand why STEMs do worse on LR, it's literally often the first time they are asked to answer questions like that. They don't write political science essays or philosophy essays that take at least some mindless critical examination of text. STEM majors NEVER critically examine text until the LSAT where they are asked to in the LR section (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23067760) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:36 PM Author: Laughsome chartreuse brunch background story I'm skeptical that philosophy courses and such really improve reading comprehension/logical reasoning that much. Definitely more so than reading STEM texts though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23067781) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:39 PM Author: judgmental cracking idiot becky yea i mean i can't really attest to that either, that's just what i would assume since at least when reading text like that you have to engage in some critical thinking (read: not just mindless memorization where you begin by accepting everything in a STEM text as true) and identify conclusions, premises, ect.
Reading comp on the other hand, STEM majors have no excuse. I kinda think being a STEM major helped me here because the LSAT always contained some passage related to science |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:33 PM Author: adventurous yellow circlehead just speaking from experience (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23067761) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:23 PM Author: adventurous yellow circlehead the LSAT is actually quite easy if you have IQ > 110 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23067682) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:35 PM Author: Hairless Greedy Dilemma Puppy Multiple different facets to intelligence (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23067772) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 8:12 PM Author: Cerebral Mexican this is true. take five different IQ tests and you get five different scores. LSAT plays to some people's strengths more than others, and it's not the best predictor of ability in quantitative fields -- doesn't test math or spatial ability, for example. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23069533) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:38 PM Author: Cordovan macaca a lot of STEM people are just grinders. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23067791) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:42 PM Author: adventurous yellow circlehead http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2008/04/which-undergrad.html
1. Physics/Math (157.6)
2. Philosophy/Religion (156.0)
3. Economics (155.3)
4. International Relations (155.1)
5. Chemistry (154.5)
6. Government/Service (154.4)
7. Anthropology/Geography (154.1)
8. History (154.0)
9. English (153.7)
10. Biology (153.6) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 3:51 PM Author: judgmental cracking idiot becky tyft, though what i'd really like to see is a breakdown of logic games v. LR for those who were Physics/Math majors and Philosophy majors who scored around 160. I'd be willing to bet the physics/math people significantly helped themselves with the games sections (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23067894) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 6:01 PM Author: Big shrine turdskin (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23068740) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 6:05 PM Author: gold multi-colored property sweet tailpipe Anyone who can't get near perfect games with enough practice is a dumb. LR and RC are the equalizers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23068769) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 6:10 PM Author: judgmental cracking idiot becky i agree, if you're smart you can do it all. I was asking about those people who get around 160. in that context i'd be willing to bet the math/physics bros kill games and do shitty on LR, and polisci is the opposite or 160ish across the board.
it seems clear to me, though i guess not everyone agrees, that math/physics training REALLY lends itself well to doing logical games which are like systems or even an organic-chem synthesis problem, and it isn't as helpful wrt to LR. |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 5:53 PM Author: startling vigorous personal credit line travel guidebook so the avg physics/math bro only scores 3 points higher than avg polisci shithead (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23068687) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 8:14 PM Author: Cerebral Mexican those are the physics/math bros who are thinking of going to law school; the smartest physics and math people would lol at pursuing such a career path. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23069551) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 4:07 PM Author: flesh athletic conference hall 1. Even if they suck and end up with like a 165, that's still pretty smart in the grand scheme of things.
2. Their thinking tends to be more practical, how to get something to work, troubleshooting. They don't spend much time reading dense material, thinking about abstract ideas, or spotting logical fallacies. |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 4:08 PM Author: provocative crackhouse nibblets The reason for this is that PoliSci shitheads have been studying for the LSAT full-time since their freshmen years of college whereas STEM bros spend all of that time doing lab assignments/writing code and studying. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23068014) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 4:48 PM Author: gold multi-colored property sweet tailpipe No, polisci shitheads have been fucking around and getting drunk and BSing their school work.
LOL at thinking even serious polisci coursework gives a leg up on the LSAT. There simply isn't that much to learn for the LSAT, it's just an ability you have or you don't beyond like a month of preparing for it. |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 4:50 PM Author: provocative crackhouse nibblets Exactly. You have to spend time learning the LSAT, and PoliSci shitheads have plenty of time, unlike STEM bros who are putting in 70 hour weeks at the UNIX lab. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23068272) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 6:04 PM Author: gold multi-colored property sweet tailpipe A few weeks to a month of light study is more than enough. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23068759) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 4:15 PM Author: effete home most of the people who do stem are total apes. certainly not all of them, and the brightest stem types are very smart and go on to do good things. Fields like banking and consulting have been attracting many of the country's brightest students for some time, and the result is a lot of those students opting not to pursue stem majors. and a college degree, even in stem, is not a proxy for any real intelligence. many of the dumb stem apes go on to take the lsat and do poorly. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23068067) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 4:29 PM Author: adventurous yellow circlehead banking and consulting only attract the students who are obsessed with money, banking especially has a bad reputation for attracting the greedy and moderately intelligent. most STEM bros are actually passionate about their area. They pride themselves on making meaningful contributions to the country through research, engineering or medicine. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23068145) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 5:05 PM Author: effete home Banking attracts a ton of the smartest students in the country. So does consulting, and, for whatever reason, so does law. They go entirely unchallenged throughout college majoring in bs majors. Are those fields dominated by superintelligent people at the higher levels? no, not really, because the people who succeed need to have an interest in the field/be hardworking/etc. The stuff about stem bros being passionate about their contributions is total flame. the only real difference is they had parents/siblings/teachers telling them it was smart to do stem. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23068348) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 6:15 PM Author: adventurous yellow circlehead flame? post-ITE LAW attracts the dumbest students in the country: http://abovethelaw.com/2012/04/if-you-are-still-applying-to-law-school-you-might-be-an-idiot/ , and pre-ITE it only attracted faggot strivers who would gladly sell their soul for a comfortable salary. the vast majority of pre-laws have NO idea what lawyers actually do, and they dont care.
the tech industry attracts the smartest students in the country, math bros outscore liberal artists on their own standardized tests.
STEM (non-eng bio and chem) bros have relatively low average salaries, but students still choose it because they are interested in and passionate about the subject matter.
as for banking, no, it attracts strivers who are pre-occupied with money, some of whom may be intelligent but certainly aren't the brightest minds in the country. |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 8:05 PM Author: effete home bro, you are being way too idolatrous of people with b.s. degrees. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23069474) |
|
Date: April 26th, 2013 11:20 AM Author: adventurous yellow circlehead (anthropology major)
thats not much of a response, brother. Plenty of EE and math majors go into finance, the difference is that the smartest ones stay in academia for the SCHOLARSHIP. Also remember that liberal arts majors (as in the degree reqs) are an absolute joke compared to their STEM counterparts at literally every school. |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 4:30 PM Author: provocative crackhouse nibblets i disagree when it comes to fields like EE. there's shit in EE that you literally cannot understand if your IQ isn't significantly above average among college students (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23068151) |
|
Date: April 26th, 2013 4:23 PM Author: Metal misanthropic corn cake lol kill yourself jjc
banking attracts the most striving, not the smartest. you certainly don't have to be a genius to get a bb ib job out of college
besides, tech is trendier than finance now anyway. |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 4:31 PM Author: Odious talking rehab who cares (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23068155) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 4:40 PM Author: sepia heady gaping My STEM friends could PWN the LSAT. I did so myself. But games aren't any easier for engineers than for liberal arts ppl. Games are easier for people who have taken discrete math and algorithms - CS majors. Digital logic design helps too. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23068203) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 5:54 PM Author: ocher confused persian hell Yet STEM bros score on average higher.
And then they cop dat Patent law. LOL at stem dominating even traditionally liberal arts professions. |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 6:09 PM Author: supple volcanic crater liquid oxygen well, non-STEM people are stupid, this cannot be denied
STEMs dont give a shit about the LSAT, but they do care about the MCAT, on which they score high |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 6:15 PM Author: adventurous yellow circlehead math/physics bros rape the LSAT (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23068826) |
|
Date: April 26th, 2013 11:29 AM Author: Aromatic center selfie this (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23081211) |
|
Date: April 26th, 2013 4:18 PM Author: dun church generalized bond yeah, they score like 1 point higher on average than philosophy and 2 points higher than history. That's brain power! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2238789&forum_id=2#23083272) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 8:16 PM Author: Violent Ungodly Community Account LOL
|
|
Date: April 26th, 2013 11:26 AM Author: Startled trailer park Reading shit...really.
I sucked on the verbal for GMAT and after law school went from something like a 650 pre LS overall to a 780.
Quant stayed the same. |