So I have been doing some research on the LSAT lately, and one of the things my overcharged, overanalytical personality prompted me to do is look to see if there was any correlation between I.Q, and LSAT scores. I did not get a clear answer, but I did have a different realization.
Every person on the forums discussing these issues seemed to have an LSAT score of 160+, or at least the majority of people did. a 160 LSAT (I believe is somewhere in the upper 12-15%) of test scores. Many had 170+ (upper 1-1.5 percentile) Now a score under 145, I believe is in the lower 20-25%. Only on rare occasions did anyone comment with these scores, and so one would think (if only viewing the forum) that a 145 was very low, and a 160 was quite average.
I think most of you see where I am going with this. The interesting thing is alot of people assume the average person who find’s thunders is below average, and I do not think this is the case. I have heard several arguments stating “I have seen less than a hand full of people with less than 5 inches BP on thunders) well on many of these Law School forums, less then a hand full of people with a score in the low 140’s ever says a word, and if they do it is out of desperation.
Perhaps this parallels the philosophy that the average BP is in between 5-6, but we rarely see people talking about their 5-6 inch BP on this forum, rather it seems the large majority has at least 6 BP. I think people come to forums, (whether it be penis size, Standardized tests, bodybuilding) to feel validated. I have major BDD, I am 6 feet tall, and I bought into some height increasing contraptions once. This is just a thought, and something that might make for interesting discussion.