Studying for the LSAT messed with your brain

August 29, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

It turns out that preparing to take the LSAT causes tiny structural changes in the brain that physically bolster connections between the areas of the brain needed for reasoning. LSAT test prep providers rejoice.

Research released last week by neuroscientists at the University of California, Berkley, found that reason training does alter brain connections. Not only is this good news for those who run test prep services, but also for those who would like to improve their reasoning skills.

The study found that training people in reasoning skills – the main focus of LSAT prep courses – can possibly reinforce the brain’s circuits involved in thinking and reasoning. Your IQ may even increase.

But, don’t get too excited thinking that all that studying has made you permanently smarter.

“How you perform on one of these tests is not necessarily predictive of your future success, it merely reflects your prior history of cognitive engagement, and potentially how prepared you are at this time to enter a graduate program or a law school, as opposed to how prepared you could ever be,” according to senior author Silvia Bunge, associate professor in the UC Berkeley Department of Psychology.

The researchers used diffusion tensor imaging scans of the brains of 24 college students or recent grads before and after 100 hours of LSAT training over a three-month period. When matched to the control group, the students preparing for the LSAT increased connectivity between the frontal lobes of the brain and between frontal and parietal lobes.

Here’s a news release from the school on the study, which goes into more detail about the study.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT