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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT