Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that philosophy majors do better than other majors on standardized tests (such as the LSAT). What might account for this? The American Philosophical Association (APA) strongly implies that the causal arrow goes from (1) studying philosophy to (2) doing well on standardized tests. I have long argued that it's just as likely (if not more likely) that analytically minded students (those who are already likely to do well on standardized tests) are attracted to philosophy, which rewards such skills.
Maybe it's a little of both. Here's an analogy. I suspect that the Southeastern Conference (SEC) has a higher percentage than other conferences of National Football League (NFL) players. (Here is confirmation.) Why might this be? Isn't it plausible that the SEC attracts better players, and also that playing in the SEC improves their skills so as to increase the likelihood that they'll make it to the NFL? The APA answer would be that playing in the SEC causes one to make it to the NFL, which ignores the fact that the SEC recruits the best players in the country.
What say you? Is this a good analogy?
