Post by Mossingen Post by Tim Norfolk
That is the claim of the left. It's one of the driving premises for the
'college for all' movement. The idea, promulgated in colleges of education,
is that anyone can succeed, if they are taught >'correctly'.
You disagree with that? I tend to that that is true. Sure, there are the
tails of the bell curve with retarded people on the one end and a small
number of super geniuses who can conceptualize complex ideas in their heads
in a way most people can't, but the for the bulk of the folks like us inside
the bell curve, I think parental example and instruction to young children
is probably the single greatest indicator of "intelligence" there is.
I grew up in rural Oklahoma at a time with no internet and with three
television stations at my house out in the country. But, my Dad valued
reading and education and he quizzed me on spelling words and went over my
homework with me, and he brought books home and a set of encyclopedias so
that I could look things up for myself. My mom would drive the half-hour to
the next city that had a library and would take me with her and spend the
In high school, I could really tell whose parents were involved and whose
were not, and I was one of the smartest in my class, probably the school,
but I have come to realize that there is nothing special about me. I just
learned to value learning and reading from an early age and remained
inquisitive. I am probably a guy of average intelligence who has worked
really hard through life to learn and think as much as I can. I think most
folks are like that.
If you were a person of "average intelligence" (~100 IQ), that is said to
translate to an LSAT score of about 125. That means ~99% if LSAT test takers
outscored you. Is that what happened? lol I don't think so. You would not
have been accepted into any accredited law school in North America.
iirc you went to law school at the University of Oklahoma. The median LSAT
score is 157 and the bottom 25% score in 155 (i.e. not a lot of standard
deviation in scores). An LSAT score of 157 is said to roughly translate to
an IQ of 128, or two almost two standard deviations above "average". That
makes sense, as my recollection is that the average undergraduate student in
first tier university has an IQ of 115-120 (96 in Ireland). An IQ of 128
would put your IQ somewhere around the 96th percentile...hardly "average".
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to deduct 10 IQ points for making that
stupid self-effacing comment in the first place, and another 10 for
believing that freedom of speech should be absolute, which makes no logical
Those numbers don't mean much to me because I think the LSAT was scaled
differently when I took it around 1989 or 1990. I think I scored somewhere
in the high 70s percentile-wise, like the 78% or around there. Not
spectacular, but coupled with my good grades it was enough to get me in.
But, that is a good example of what I mean. The LSAT is just a written
exam. A person of average intelligence as a child who values book-learning,
reading, and is curious about things in the world can acquire the skills to
take tests like that.
I suspect that you don't like to hear things like that because you raise law
school and LSAT scores frequently and it appears that these things are tied
to your identity. Remember, I grew up in a town of less than 1,500 people,
with less than 150 kids in my entire high school--let me repeat that---less
than 150 kids in all four high school grades (my graduating class had 28).
I managed to learn quite a bit in that environment. I think if I grew up in
Tulsa or OKC in a large school with a lot more resources I would probably be
more well off than I am.