<p>No 150 is the median score for everyone who takes it. I don't think that the average person who takes the LSAT has a 1200 SAT either. </p>
<p>But the LSAT is harder than the SAT. </p>
<p>For example, many people can go into the SAT without studying a wink and perhaps pull 1400s+. That's a decent score. However I think very few people can completely "wing" the LSAT and get in the upper 160s, 170+. This is partly due to curving but partly the nature of the exam.</p>
<p>so you can study for it like sat ll? if you study really hard than can you pull 170+? someone said that LSAT is like an aptitude test that after certain level you can not go up even if you study. Is this true?</p>
<p>Yes. Not necessarily. Yes.</p>
<p>so, this means that only the ones with innate intelligence(high IQ) can pull 170+?</p>
<p>I mean, the LSAT is preppable. But there is a ceiling which is related to natural test-taking aptitude. I won't go so far as to call it IQ, but there is a large component of natural ability.</p>
<p>I don't know if it's necessarily high IQ, but good test takers score in the 170s. Very few people with diagnostics in the 140s and early 150s make it to 170. People practice until they max out their own potentials. </p>
<p>I know quite a few people with diagnostics in the upper 150s (158/159) who ended up pulling in the early 170s. Without any scientific evidence--this is just me guessing from the people I've known--I would say that the cut-off for potential to hit 170+ is at least an upper 150s diagnostic.</p>
<p>thanks but I just wanted to know if you could be trained to be a good test scorer on the LSAT like with the SAT ll's</p>
<p>Again, preparation is very important -- that's how you get to that ceiling.</p>
<p>I think the LSAT is unlike the SAT IIs. SATIIs are very material based.
The LSAT relies more on innate ability, but prep is important.</p>