Early (Very early) LSAT Preparation

samboiam2000 · January 27, 2005, 4:44pm

I am a senior in high school who is considering attending law school when I graduate from college. I would like to start preparing for the LSAT now so I'm not scrambling to prepare in the January of my junior year.

First off, is that wise to do? Does pulling out the huge Kaplin LSAT prep book now afford any advantages to say pulling it out a year or two from now? Second, since I am considering majoring in civil engineering at Georgia Tech, what additional courses should I take that would be LSAT geared?

Greybeard · January 28, 2005, 4:07am

This topic was already covered in another thread:

<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=24125%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=24125</a>

Cardozo · January 28, 2005, 10:51pm

Take a basic course in Logic in college.

Take courses that will develop your reading comp skills.

Start your prep in advance, but a year or two should be sufficient.

Take a course or read the prep books early, then work through all available real exams before test day, spacing them out well.

jonri · January 29, 2005, 11:57am

I can't imagine spending more than a few months prepping for the LSAT. Remember that time spent prepping for it is time that isn't spent doing other things. If the OP is heading to Georgia Tech and planning to major in engineering, I'd suggest spending time prepping for his engineering courses before he gets there--brushing up on math skills, if needed, etc., --and then, once in college, studying for his engineering courses. Engineering is generally considered a tough major and it will probably take real effort for the OP to do well in it. (I say probably because there are always a few truly brilliant people who can ace things with little studying, but they're the exception, not the rule.)

It's not going to do him the OP much good to get a 180 on the LSAT if he has a 2.7 GPA. Focus on the college GPA now; worry about the LSAT later.

The OP may decide he enjoys engineering and doesn't want to go to law school after all. Or he may decide to take time off between college and LS and work. In that case, his GPA in engineering is going to matter more than the LSAT--which he may not ever take.

Additionally,as someone else said in the other thread, there's no guarantee that the LSAT will be the same test 3-5 years from now. (There have been at least 3 different versions of it in the last 30 years.) Even if the test remains the same, the importance given to it in LS admissions may change or more LS's may use automatic cut-offs, so that a low GPA may destroy the OP's chances, no matter how high the LSAT.

Again, step #1 is a high college GPA. Focus on that step now.

Cardozo · January 29, 2005, 3:11pm

Hey, Jonri.

I would agree that anything over a year or so is probably somewhat excessive (aside from the inherent prep contained in courses which require and develop reading comprehension and analytical reasoning skills, along with a basic logic course.)

However, I also think it would be a mistake to limit your prep to just a few months maximum. The truth is that preparing for the LSAT is much like learning a foreign language, and this kind of familiarity is usually best acquired over an extended period of time.

It's true that time spent prepping is time not spent doing something else. (This is true of everything, of course.) However, it's not like you'd be exclusively focused on the LSAT during that period. Spacing your prep out over 6 months or a year would rather give you the chance to make it a minor aspect of your life over that period, at least for most of it. Being able to take frequent and lengthy breaks away from prepping should generally make it much easier, more effective, and less instrusive. Personally, I'd rather have a year or so to read the major prep books, then maybe take a course, and then work through all available exams -- as opposed to trying to cram this within a few months. Not only would this be much more feasible, but it would probably be less distracting overall from one's studies.

I also disagree that it wouldn't do the OP much good to get a 2.7 and a 180 on the LSAT. The truth is, he could possibly get into a top 14 with those numbers, especially from engineering, and would almost certainly get into a top 25. He'd almost certainly be better off than if he got a 3.5 and a 160 -- LSAT is far more important than GPA for LS admissions, whether or not it should be.

However, again, I don't think that trade-off is a necessary one at all.

While there's no guarantee that the LSAT will be identical in 3-5 years, there's also no real reason to expect a major change. The modificiations which have occured over the last 30 years have mainly involved superficial issues like scoring scales or question distribution. The same basis skills are tested, however, and this isn't likely to change.

It's certainly possible that schools may give less importance to it, or institute GPA cutoffs, but there's also no real reason to expect this.

You are, of course, correct that he may change his mind halfway through college, and I would also encourage him to spend his first couple years in school focused on his schoolwork. Clearly, those academic skills will be important no matter what he does, and it's quite likely he'll decide against law school altogether. I'm just saying there's nothing wrong with getting a sense of what the LSAT involves ahead of time, so that he can take the logic course, etc., and plan his prep in advance. (For one thing, recognizing the importance of logical/analytical skills may give him additional motivation to study hard in his engineering classes, as these are an excellent way to develop those skills.) It may be good to recognize early on that a basic logic course, and a couple courses involving reading, will also be helpful.

jonri · January 29, 2005, 4:16pm

Back in the Iron Age, when I took the LSAT, it had a math section on it. It no longer does. I think that's more than a superficial change. (Of course, I took the test so long ago that scores usually didn't end in zeros either..you could get a 587 or 683 or 781.) 180s now are a lot more common that 800's were back then.

There are kids who spend years preparing for the SAT and score a 1550+.There are also kids who have an affinity for math, read a lot and score 1550+ with little, if any, prep. If I were giving advice to an 8th grader as to how to prepare for the SAT and get into a top college, I'd tell him to focus on his high school courses, make sure he took rigorous math courses, read a lot, and to worry about the SAT when the time came.

Now, it's perfectly possible that the kid who started memorizing vocabulary SAT vocabulary words and doing practice SATs in the 8th grade will do as well--maybe even better--on the SAT as the kid who took rigorous courses, read a lot and spent a few months prepping for the SAT. So, the kid who started memorizing SAT vocabulary lists might say I'm all wet and the prep paid off. But I suspect that the kid who followed my advice would do just as well on the SAT and in the interim would have learned a lot and read a lot of great books the "cram for the SAT approach" kid would not have read. And..when they get to the same college and take courses , the kid who did it "my way" will have an advantage..at least I think so.

I feel the same about college/the LSAT.

Yes, the OP can spend lots of time in college studying for the LSAT. It might work and he might do well. He might end up with a 2.7/180 and get into some LS's near the bottom of the top 14. But if he follows my advice, he might end up with a 3.6 in engineering and, with a little prep, get the 180. Or maybe he'll have a 3.6 and a 176. Seriously, I think the latter gives him a lot more options in life than the former does.

None of my older kid's friends spent more than a month studying for the LSAT. None scored below a 165 and the majority broke 175. Seems to me that following approach #2 worked just fine for them.

I admit that's probably skewed my perception. But I really think "my way" is a far better approach.

mensa160 · January 29, 2005, 4:21pm

[quote]
180s now are a lot more common that 800's were back then.

[/quote]

I tried to look this up, and found nothing on it. An older friend told me that 180s are virtually nonexistent. Since the 75th percentile at Harvardd Law is 174, I doubt that there could be many 180s. a 178 is 99.9, and 174 is 99.5%

Cardozo · January 29, 2005, 9:48pm

Hi, Jonri.

It doesn't seem you read my last post very carefully (no offense, I'd probably ignore them too! ;^) As I noted, the student should probably not spend four years preparing for the LSAT, at least not directly. Also, I agreed that the student should make sure he focuses on his classes and academics, both because it will be generally useful, and because it will also help him perform better on the exam (and in law school).

(The SAT is not very analgous, however, as it doesn't respond to prep in the same way the LSAT does, and the skills involved are not as esoteric to most.)

Also, as noted, there's no necessary trade off between GPA and LSAT prep. There's no reason a student has to get a 2.7 just because he spends a couple hours a week reviewing other material. He could easily get a 3.6 either way. On the other hand, it's extermely unlikely he'll get a 180 without thorough prep. In fact, it's extremely unlikely he'll get a 176, or even a 170, without thorough prep. Generally speaking though, the more time he puts in, the greater his chances of cracking 170.

(Your paragraph about your son's friends reminds me of a flawed LR Stimulus. There's no question that they are incredibly unrepresentative, (as you apper to acknowledge) and we therefore can't really draw any meaningful conclusions from them. (As noted, a 175 is around the 99.7th percentile. For every few students who did this well, there's a thousand who didn't.) Therefore, while I commend your son for hanging out with such a rarified elite, they don't really contribute much to the discussion, except in the obvious sense that if you're a genius, you might not need to prep as much.

However, if you want to extend this line of reasoning, I know someone who did one practice exam the night before the exam, and got a 180 on test day. I guess his system worked just fine for him, but I'm not sure I would recommend it to anyone else. )

I'm not saying everyone needs to spend a year preparing for the exam. However, I think it would be incredibly negligent to recommend people only spend a month preparing. For most people, at least three months are probably necessary to max out their performance, and most people would probably benefit from additional preparation, if they're willing to invest the time and effort. The exam is essentially the product of aptitude and preparation, and the 2nd aspect is the only thing you have much control over.

(I'm glad they removed the math section, and I wasn't aware of it. Clearly that would represent a meaningful change in the exam. However, when did that occur? I would assume this was sometime before 1982, when the 200-800 scale was dropped. This would still therefore indicate that substantive changes are few and far between. Also, it seems likely that even if new sections are added or changed, most older sections will still be retained. Finally, whatever modifications might theoretically occur, the core logical reasoning, analytical reasoning, and reading comp skills that are developed through proper prep (doing old exams, etc.) would almost certainly still be applicable.)

I will note that the 120/180 scoring scale is essentially identical to the 200/800 scale -- the only real difference is in form. (An 800 equates to a 180, a 700 equates to a 170, etc.) The current exam could easily be shifted to an 800 scale by simply dropping the 1 in front, and adding one more digit to the end.

(How do you know that 180's are currently more prevalent than 800's were? If this is true, it would presumably be primarily because of the greater prep that now occurs, math section notwithstanding. For the other poster: a 180 is in the 99.98th percentile, or 2 students in every 10,000, or about 20 every year. <a href="http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/scale.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/scale.htm</a>)

Anyway, I think we actually agree about most aspects of this issue - the student should focus on academics first, for several reasons, even if LSAT is more important to law schools, and shouldn't really be worried about it as an entering freshman -- except to the extent he selects challenging courses that will develop the requisite skills. (This would presumably help him regardless.) Odds are, he'll change his mind in a couple years anyway. It's just fun to argue with you! :^)

ariesathena · January 29, 2005, 10:26pm

Hum... as an engineer turned law student, I'm throwing my opinion in here.

Ga. Tech really, really deflates grades. Rumour going around these boards is that the 3.0 min. requirement for jobs in the state is often waived for their grads, because so many of them don't have a 3.0.

Fact is (and I say this as one who trotted off to l.s. admissions with my high LSAT score and low GPA from a very prestigous school) that GPA matters a TON for law school - but it also doesn't matter a lot. Permit an explanation. If you have a 3.3, your LSAT is, simply put, the most important part of your application package. If you have a very high score (173ish and up), you can get into most any school in the country, save HYS. If you have a 155, you're looking at third-tier schools. So LSAT is extremely important. However, applying as an engineer stinks - because it's so hard to get a reasonable enough GPA so your app isn't thrown out. Seriously. I'm convinced that the 3.1 or 3.2 range is really the cut-off - most top schools will have a rough time considering you if you are below that. It's just psychological - a 2.85 from computer engineering just seems "low," but a 3.1 from philosophy seems acceptable.

Summary: you really need to get a decent GPA to even consider law school. Without it, you're in for a rough, rough ride. Been there, done that, and got (ahem) 12 rejections and waitlists. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Advice: Get at least a 3.0 to be respectable.

Okay, so LSAT advice. 
*Read a lot. It's harder to complete the LSAT on time than it is to complete the SAT on time. Just be able to read fast and extract a general summary from things.
*When you start taking tests, don't do them timed. You'll gain speed as you take more of them.
*No penalties for guessing.
*Best LSAT advice I can give: after you are done with a sample test, get a cup of coffee (or tea, or milk, or OJ) and a cookie. Then, sit back down, and go through it. Once you've figured out what the right answer is, figure out WHY it is the right answer and why you picked the wrong one. It's the single best way to improve.

Finally, don't stress too much about going to law school two months after graduating from college. Second best LSAT advice is to take the test when you are ready for it - don't be afraid to wait another year so you can really do well on it. You're only supposed to take it once.

That said - start studying probably around October of junior year if you really want to pace yourself. Maybe summer btw. soph and junior if you're bored - just look at the test and get a feel for it.

It's also a good idea to take it when you aren't too far out of school (i.e. after graduation) - the test thing is just so long ago that it's tough to get used to it again. June is a great time to take it (just for application purposes and for the non-morning people of the world).

Cardozo · January 30, 2005, 2:51am

Good advice from Aries.

jonri · January 30, 2005, 1:25pm

Honest, 'Dozo, I did read your previous message ;)!

Earlier, you said that "a year or two" should be sufficient for LSAT prep. Now you've said that a year or so should be. I still think a few months is sufficient, but I admitted that my view is skewed by the fact that most of the young people I know who did well on the LSAT spent no more than a month preparing. I did NOT suggest that everyone could do all the needed studying in a month. I just thing a few months would be enough..You now say "at least three months"--I can live with that as standard advice.(In giving my answer, I took into account that the OP is entering Georgia Tech and plans to major in engineering, so I assume (s)he's not absolutely abysmal at taking standardized tests.

The more important disagreement between you and me is the priority to be given to test prep. Here too though, you seem to be moving towards my position. You see, I honestly think that for an engineering major to spend 2-5 hours a week for a solid year, including the academic year, on LSAT prep really might impact the studying done for courses. I don't know a heck of a lot of engineering majors, but those I do know study a lot and always feel they would have done a little better if they'd just had more time.

Additionally, for similar reasons, while I didn't study engineering, I'd hesitate to recommend taking a logic class in philosophy while studying engineering. Again, I only have an idea of how tough logic is at a few colleges--all pretty high up on the selectivity scale. (They are, however, the kinds of places filled with those spoiled brat undergrads who you think only got in because of connections ;)) At all of my admittedly unscientific sample, it's a hard course--not something I'd just throw on to an engineering work load. I mean not unless I really was willing to end up with a 2.7. Maybe it's a gut at Georgia Tech, though..if it's offered. I don't know.

So, we can agree to disagree. The way I look at it, you've got one shot to get a good gpa as you go through college. (Even if you flunk out and start all over again, LSDAS will include ALL your grades, even if your degree granting institution does not.) The OP is in a tough major where it's probably going to take a lot of effort to get a good gpa. If (s)he does that, (s)he's half way towards getting into a top law school. If (s)he spends one summer studying for the LSAT, I think (s)he can get a good score and thus have both parts of the puzzle. If a practice test shows (s)he's not doing well, (s)he can always take additional time to study--maybe even the year you recommend, if necessary, after graduating.

Meanwhile, with a better gpa, (s)he's in a much better position to get an engineering job, or for that matter, any kind of job, than (s)he would be with a 2.7 and a 180. And lets face reality...even if (s)he studies for a solid year, how likely is it that (s)he will get a 180?

As for the # of 180s, I do know that there were fewer way back in prehistoric times...but I can't find it on-line anywhere. So, while I do know it..I can't prove it. But think of this...back before the SAT was recentered, there were usually 30-35 1600s in a year. A 800 on the LSAT was much rarer.
It could be..I concede after thinking about it..that the percentage is the same. But the absolute # was a heck of a lot less than 20 a year, if you are in fact correct that is the current number.

Nice arguing with you too ;)

mensa160 · January 30, 2005, 1:38pm

You have to wonder what that test is testing. If it's law school aptitude, why do you have to prep so much to do well on it? I suppose you could argue that the prep improves your aptitude for law; but the logical implication of that would be that a Kaplan prep course prepares you better for law school than 4 years at a great college. Also, I downloaded a copy of the test just to look at. It has a "games" section, worth 1/4 of the score, that has nothing to do with anything you study in college. They use that to select people? You can be kept out of a top law school because you didn't study to do "games"? This is an absurd test, much worse than the SAT.

ariesathena · January 30, 2005, 1:53pm

Consensus, Part II.

You can spend a month studying for the LSAT and be prepared, or you could spend about six or eight months on it. It depends on how intense your preparation is. I think that the OP could start in October, order the book of 10 previously administered LSATs, and just start looking through it. Thanksgiving might include going through a section or two; then there's finals, so no LSAT prep. Winter break could include taking two or three full-length tests, and studying can increase from there. As the LSAT is broken down into sections, it's completely possible to do one section every week, going through it slowly, checking work, all that - which is about a test a month.

Likewise, the other method: school ends aroudn the middle of May. You spend the time between then and the first week of June doing the LSAT for five to six hours every day.

Cardozo · January 30, 2005, 3:54pm

"You have to wonder what that test is testing."

The exam is testing your ability to reason logically and analytically, along with your reading comp skills. These are all considered important in law school successs.

"If it's law school aptitude, why do you have to prep so much to do well on it?"

First off, not everyone does. Some people can do well their first time out.

However, whlile the exam is in part a measure of inherent aptitude (the basis for any ability), it more specifically measures the specific skills mentioned above. These skills are partly the result of inherent aptitude, but, like any skill, they can also be developed. That's what prep (and relevant coursework) is for.

People may have different levels of inherent aptitude in athletics, music, or any endeavor, but they can also obviously develop those abilities through practice. For most people, pratice is essential, whatever their inherent ability.

("Aptitude" for law school, of course, is different from "inherent ability" for law school, in that your aptitude will reflect both inherent ability and any skills development you've done, including prep.)

"I suppose you could argue that the prep improves your aptitude for law; but the logical implication of that would be that a Kaplan prep course prepares you better for law school than 4 years at a great college."

Again, the test is not a pure measure of inherent aptitude, but rather certain skills wihch are the product of both inherent ability and development.

However, the "logical implication" conclusion misses a key point. You can't really measure the benefit of a Kaplan course vs. 4 years of college unless you administer the LSAT to a bunch of high school seniors, then administer it to a bunch of high school seniors who've taken a Kaplan course, and then administer it to a bunch of college seniors who haven't taken a Kaplan course. In other words, we don't know what most college seniors would've gotten if they hadn't been through 4 years of college.

Finally, there are many college courses which do not do a very good job of developing logical/analytical reasoning and reading comprehension skills. As a good LSAT course is very specifically focused on developing these skills, it shouldn't be surprising that sometimes a good prep course might theoretically develop these skills better than 4 years of unrelated coursework.

"Also, I downloaded a copy of the test just to look at. It has a "games" section, worth 1/4 of the score, that has nothing to do with anything you study in college. They use that to select people? You can be kept out of a top law school because you didn't study to do "games"?"

The "games" are designed to measure your abililty to reason analytically. In law school, you'll have to manipulate various parties and issues in your mind, and the games test your ability to do that successfully.

Also, the fact that this "has nothing to do with anything you study in college" is completely irrelevant. Most of the stuff you do in law school (and in life) is completely unrelated to what you do in college. Law schools look at your transcript and GPA to determine what you studied in college. They look at your LSAT to determine your abilities in areas specifically relevant to the study of law.

Finally, everyone knows the LSAT is important for law school admissions, and anyone who looks at the exam knows that "games" are part of the exam. As an admissions officer at a top law school, would you let in someone who was apparently too lazy or unmotivated to study them?

"This is an absurd test, much worse than the SAT."

Actually, the LSAT is the single best predictor of first-year law school grades, far better than undergraduate GPA. It is a better predictor of academic success than the SAT, and would probably be an even better predictor if schools let in students with a broader range of scores. Therefore, for what it does, (predicting law school success) it's actually a pretty decent test.

It is also far from perfect, like any predictive tool. Some students may possess the requisite skills, but may have trouble displaying them on the exam. Others may be able to succeed in law school through greater effort and dedication. But that doesn't mean the exam, all things considered, isn't a helpful tool -- just like college GPA (which is an evey more imperfect and subjective predictor.)

The way I see it, the LSAT appears to measure (albeit imperfectly) skills which are important in law school. These skills are partly the product of inherent ability, which you can't do anything about. However, they are also the result of how much you develop these skills, including the effort you put into your preparation. Therefore, the LSAT also measures your determination and willingness to exert yourself -- probably the most important factor in law school, along with inherent ability. This is why I encourage students to prep as long as they need to to reach their maximum score -- schools recognize that scores reflect one or both of these factors, and they value both.

mensa160 · January 30, 2005, 4:17pm

Thanks you for the detailed reply. I have read it and understand your reasoning. I am several years away from having to think about the LSAT, thankfully.

Your advice about prepping is sound given the way the LSAT is constructed. My comments about the "nothing to do with what you learn in college" appear to have not been clear. This comment referred to the games only, The reading and the argument sections seem to be plausibly related to college skills. But the games are...games.

Also, you suggest that coaching/prepping is very helpful. I am sure you are right.In fact, you prove my point. This is precisely why I strongly disagree that this test is measuring "aptitude," which in common parlance, is something innate, or at least a skill developed over a period of time. Maybe they should offer games courses in college is this really is a valuable skill (I doubt it. The games are miles removed from keeping the parties and issues in a law case sepapate; I mean, they do have Court TV where I live). Or, maybe they should change the name and take out the word "aptitude," which was done on considerably less compelling grounds, fo the SAT some years ago.

ariesathena · January 30, 2005, 4:24pm

Cardozo: great post.

To me, the LSAT is more important than the SAT because, although flawed, it is the single uniform way to compare applicants. It's the way that a 3.0 MIT engineer can be measured against the 3.7 Podnuck sociology major. There is more variation among quality, grading schemes, and rigor of colleges and majors than there is among high schools.

To me, the games aren't "games" in the sense of something to play; rather, it's more of a lengthly logical analysis. You need to be familiar with the rules of logic to do well in law school. A lot of statutory interpretation has fairly set, easy rules (about what verbs are modified by "intent to," or interpreting to be consistent with the constitution, or so as to not be redundant, or the like) so it's actually good to know how to take rules and apply them to a certain circumstance. Just me though.

mensa160 · January 30, 2005, 4:28pm

[quote]
You need to be familiar with the rules of logic to do well in law school. A lot of statutory interpretation has fairly set, easy rules (about what verbs are modified by "intent to," or interpreting to be consistent with the constitution, or so as to not be redundant, or the like)

[/quote]

I'll bet that if they gave the games sections to the $$million partners in any top Wall Street firm, and to the video game boys in an average high school class, teh hs kids would do better. Yet, I assume these Wall Street people are pretty good legal minds.

ariesathena · January 30, 2005, 4:33pm

? Not sure I'm following you, Mensa.

I'm trying to say that the "games" section, if you look through it, is a vehicle to measure how well a student can apply logical rules to a problem. It's a very methodical way of thinking. That skill is quite important in law school - more important than SAT-type skills in college.

It's also easier to test well when you are younger. See my earlier advice to take the LSAT within some reasonable time frame of schooling.

Cardozo · January 30, 2005, 5:37pm

Hey, Jonri.

"Earlier, you said that "a year or two" should be sufficient for LSAT prep. Now you've said that a year or so should be."

My initial post was in response to the OP's question of whether they should start now (4 years in advance), or "in a year or two". My response was simply meant to discourage the former option, as I think that would be excessive.

I do feel a year or so should generally be sufficient -- though it certainly won't always be necessary. (Big difference here, as I'm sure you know.)

"I still think a few months is sufficient, but I admitted that my view is skewed by the fact that most of the young people I know who did well on the LSAT spent no more than a month preparing. I did NOT suggest that everyone could do all the needed studying in a month. I just thing a few months would be enough..You now say "at least three months"--I can live with that as standard advice.(In giving my answer, I took into account that the OP is entering Georgia Tech and plans to major in engineering, so I assume (s)he's not absolutely abysmal at taking standardized tests."

Three months may well be sufficient -- depending on the individual testtaker. Some (a smaller minority) will be fine with less time. My point is simply that the more time someone spends on the exam, the better they'll usually get, and the easier their prep will be. And I still feel that if the average person spends 4-6 months on prep, they'll be able to make it a less intrusive, less unpleasant aspect of their life.

Also, as working through preptests is probably the best way to solidify LSAT performance (after taking a course or reading the books), it's hard to argue that you wouldn't be better off, ultimately, if you worked through all available exams. And doing so would obviously be easier if you had more lead time.

Now, you'll probably experience diminishing returns at some point, and there's no reason anyone HAS to do this much work. Most people will probably get somewhat close to their maximum after only 15-25 exams. My point is simply that if someone is truly hard-core about the LSAT, and is willing to do anything and everything to achieve their maximum score, then they'll probably be best served by working through all available prep tests -- and giving themselves enough time so that they can get through them comfortably.

"The more important disagreement between you and me is the priority to be given to test prep. Here too though, you seem to be moving towards my position. You see, I honestly think that for an engineering major to spend 2-5 hours a week for a solid year, including the academic year, on LSAT prep really might impact the studying done for courses. I don't know a heck of a lot of engineering majors, but those I do know study a lot and always feel they would have done a little better if they'd just had more time."

I'm not sure that I'm moving -- I think you just initially misunderstood my position, which isn't that different than yours. ;^) First off, as far as priority of LSAT Prep, there's no question that LSAT is far more important than GPA, as far as law school goes. (Some people think it has a 75% weight vs. 25% weight for GPA.) I'm not defending this relative valuation, just acknowledging it. Therefore, if someone is definitely committmend to law school, then it would only make sense to assign LSAT prep a high priority.

However, again, I do feel academics should also be a high priority, and I don't feel you really have to sacrifice one for the other. Spending a couple hours on the weekend doesn't have to interfere much with studies, and the most intense prep could occur in the summer before you take the exam.

I think we both agree that there should be a balance -- I just believe that more weight should be given to the LSAT side of the scale, since that's more important to law schools. (If the student wasn't sure about law school, that would clearly impact the decision.)

"Additionally, for similar reasons, while I didn't study engineering, I'd hesitate to recommend taking a logic class in philosophy while studying engineering. Again, I only have an idea of how tough logic is at a few colleges--all pretty high up on the selectivity scale. (They are, however, the kinds of places filled with those spoiled brat undergrads who you think only got in because of connections ) At all of my admittedly unscientific sample, it's a hard course--not something I'd just throw on to an engineering work load. I mean not unless I really was willing to end up with a 2.7. Maybe it's a gut at Georgia Tech, though..if it's offered. I don't know."

I don't believe I specified a logic course in philosophy. Rather, I think students should take a basic logic course, as the LSAT is in essence a test of your ability to reason logically, and these principles appear throughout the exam. I would doubt such a course would be any more difficult than the engineering courses.

(I think you would acknowlegde that there are far more spoiled brats who get into top colleges based on connections, etc. than there are at top law schools. This was my only point on that issue, and I think its difficult to dispute. I will say that the students taking a basic logic course are probably less competitive than those in the engineering program.)

"So, we can agree to disagree. The way I look at it, you've got one shot to get a good gpa as you go through college. (Even if you flunk out and start all over again, LSDAS will include ALL your grades, even if your degree granting institution does not.) The OP is in a tough major where it's probably going to take a lot of effort to get a good gpa. If (s)he does that, (s)he's half way towards getting into a top law school."

Well, students presumably have many shots at getting a good gpa in college. Grades are based on many exams, papers, and assignments, which is why no one assignment or course will generally kill you (or even give you a 2.7).

And, even if the student does get a good GPA, they (unfortunately) won't be halfway to a top law school. Rather, they'll be at best 25% - 40% of the way, according to most observers. (Again, I'm not defending this, just noting it.)

On the other hand, the student really does only have one shot at doing well on the LSAT, which is the bulk of her admissions criteria. (She can retake it, of course, but this will usually only be averaged into her first score, so she better be fully prepared the first time out.) And if she does well, she'll be most of the way to a top law school.

"If (s)he spends one summer studying for the LSAT, I think (s)he can get a good score and thus have both parts of the puzzle. If a practice test shows (s)he's not doing well, (s)he can always take additional time to study--maybe even the year you recommend, if necessary, after graduating."

Some very good points here. Let me modify it slightly: If she starts looking at the LSAT, say, over Christmas break her Junior Year, she can get a sense of how much prep she feels she'll need. If need be, she can start prepping over that next semester, and then continue, more intensely, throughout the summer. If she takes it in October, her prep will really only impact one semester, despite having spent up to 9 months on it.

On the other hand, she may find its not difficult for her, and can then simply devote her summer to preparing.

Finally, again, I don't recomend the student take an entire year unless they feel it's necessary. However, I actually agree with you on that last point -- if the student really feels they need that much additional time to formally prep, they would be better served by taking a year off after graduation, and preparing throughout the year. There is always the possibility that the prep may detract somewhat from studies, and if you can completely separate the two, that would probably be best, especially if you need to impinge on more than one semester.

The only problem with this is that most students don't want to take a year off, though I think it's probably a good idea generally.

"Meanwhile, with a better gpa, (s)he's in a much better position to get an engineering job, or for that matter, any kind of job, than (s)he would be with a 2.7 and a 180. And lets face reality...even if (s)he studies for a solid year, how likely is it that (s)he will get a 180?"

No question on the first point, although again, I don't believe a 2.7 will necessarily follow if she starts her prep early. And I certainly don't feel a 180 will likely follow simply because she preps longer than most -- though a 165 or 170 would certainly be more likely as a result.

Again, my basic point is simply that the more time you spend on the LSAT, the more you'll master it (unless you're someone who gets up to 180 in a few days, which is unusual). This doesn't mean that anyone has to spend a huge amount of time on it, and personally, I think the basic approach I outline above (looking at it over Christmas before the October exam, and then creating a prep schedule) would be more than enough for most people. If anyone needed more time, they could always prep after graduation, as you note.

And I agree that ideally, you won't let the prep conflict significantly with your studies. However, as we've both noted, there isn't any reason it really has to.

Cardozo · January 30, 2005, 6:01pm

Hey, Mensa.

"Thanks you for the detailed reply. I have read it and understand your reasoning. I am several years away from having to think about the LSAT, thankfully."

You're very welcome. I think that if you review a basic prep book sometime in advance of your prep, you'll ge a better feel for why it's constructed the way it is -- it certainly seems strange and perhaps irrelevant at first.

"Your advice about prepping is sound given the way the LSAT is constructed. My comments about the "nothing to do with what you learn in college" appear to have not been clear. This comment referred to the games only, The reading and the argument sections seem to be plausibly related to college skills. But the games are...games."

I realize that. My point is simply that the law schools really aren't concerned with measuring what you've learned in college -- they're trying to measure those skills they feel will be helpful in law school. Their psychometricians have apparently determined that games help do that.

"Also, you suggest that coaching/prepping is very helpful. I am sure you are right.In fact, you prove my point. This is precisely why I strongly disagree that this test is measuring "aptitude," which in common parlance, is something innate, or at least a skill developed over a period of time. Maybe they should offer games courses in college is this really is a valuable skill (I doubt it. The games are miles removed from keeping the parties and issues in a law case sepapate; I mean, they do have Court TV where I live). Or, maybe they should change the name and take out the word "aptitude," which was done on considerably less compelling grounds, fo the SAT some years ago.

LSAT = "Law School Admission Test". (Nothing about aptitude in the title, though I could see how this would be confusing, given the acronym's similarity to the SAT, with its former aptitude terminology).

The truth is, I don't believe the LSAC (creators of the LSAT) ever even claim that the LSAT is an "aptitude" test. They simply note that it predicts success in law school, which it does to some degree. (They actually specifically note that the LSAT measures "acquired" skills, and while these skills are partly innate, they can also be acquired through education and practice.)

Also, as I note in my other posts, the skills required to perform well on the LSAT are in fact best developed over time. Someone who spends 6 months or a year preparing will generally do far better than if they prepared for 1 or 3 months. (Preparation, in my opinion, is more important than coaching.) The reasoning skills measured on the LSAT are somewhat esoteric to most people, which is why I also recommend a basic logic course.

"I'll bet that if they gave the games sections to the $$million partners in any top Wall Street firm, and to the video game boys in an average high school class, teh hs kids would do better. Yet, I assume these Wall Street people are pretty good legal minds."

I'm not sure you've actually worked through any of the Games yet -- there's little connection between these and video games, though those test their own subset of abilities, like hand-eye coordination, etc.

Rather, these are really a form of puzzle, which again tests your ability to manipulate facts and concepts in your mind. Whether or not this is actually applicable to law school or not is open for debate, but we do know the LSAT overall correlates with law school success.

In my opinion, though, if the LSAC could develop a better exam, that does a better job of predicting law school success, I've got to think they would, because it would be in their interests to do so. They would ensure stronger admits, and they'd be in an even stronger position to defend its use (which is certainly convenient).

(Thanks, Aries.)

Thread		Replies	Views
Beginning LSAT Prep Test Preparation lsat-prep	2	137	April 13, 2021
Early LSAT Prep Test Preparation lsat-prep	4	113	April 13, 2021
LSAT prep Law School	20	85	April 15, 2021
Test Prep Advice for LSAT Law School	3	83	April 15, 2021
Worth it to start studying for the LSAT this early? Law School	11	51	April 15, 2021

Early (Very early) LSAT Preparation

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

Early (Very early) LSAT Preparation

Related topics

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

CONNECT WITH US