<p>My son is considering if he wants to supplement LSAT self-studying with a private tutor. He has already ruled out attending a group class. He is generally good at standardized tests, and got a 35 ACT in high school with minimal prep. </p>
<p>He got a 164 on his very first, cold practice test, and is aiming for at least a 170. Are private tutors helpful in this score range? </p>
<p>I think that having the structure of a regular scheduled session with a tutor might be helpful in not letting self-study slip through the cracks when he gets busy. But we're not sure if it is worth it, and if private tutors are actually helpful in getting scores above 170. Are there private tutors available who have scored above 170 themselves?</p>
<p>I used to teach the LSAT, back in the day. I coached one of my kids to the fabled 180; the score I used to qualify to teach Advanced (i.e. I had to take a timed, proctored LSAT again) was a 179. </p>
<p>So yes, it can be helpful to get private tutoring, and some LSAT instructors really know the test, but you’re going to have to look for the right tutor and be prepared to shell out $125 an hour. Also, some companies guarantee a score improvement or money back; your son should get his initial score as high as possible before hiring a tutor.</p>
<p>with the skill set of a 35 ACT, he is clearly a strong test taker. Clearing 170 with focused, self-prep should not be a problem over 2-3 months. Where private tutors can add real value is isolating and focusing on specific problem areas, particularly if the time frame is short. But make no mistake – he will not improve unless he puts in the time. The LSAT is very learnable, particularly the logic games. (Manhattan’s new LG prep book is awesome.)</p>
<p>btw: with that ACT, I would be pushing him for a mid-170, if he is willing to do the work. In this economy, and drop off in application numbers, law schools are willing to pay big bucks (or a tuition discount) for high test scores.</p>
<p>Interesting that the LSAT is learnable. I think the SAT and ACT are not so learnable. Perhaps for the LSAT some of it is just that familiarity makes you able to do the problems more quickly. When my son took the practice test, he said that he thought it was purposely of a length where most people wouldn’t be able to finish the sections in time. He tends to be very quick, and still ran out of time on his cold practice test.</p>
<p>Also a good suggestion to get the practice LSAT score up before hiring a tutor. </p>
<p>He’s aiming for the June test. Perhaps the best plan is to study on his own for a couple of months, and then consider getting a small amount of private tutoring for whatever section(s) he could use the most help in.</p>
<p>I disagree that the ACT is not ‘learnable’, but that is a different discussion. (IMO, the ACT is rather straightforward, but its focus is on SPEED, particularly the so-called science section.)</p>
<p>Personally I think taking practice tests cold is a total waste of 3 hours of your life. There is zero advantage to it, and it will show big holes. (Indeed, that is why all of the prep companies offer a cold diagnostic. It scares the crap out of folks, and gets them to enroll in a course.)</p>
<p>The LSAT takes practice, practice, practice. The speed will come naturally, with familiarity, such that he’ll easily start finishing sections some 5 minutes to spare.</p>
<p>There are 60+ full length, real tests on which to use for practice. Take a look around top law schools; someone name pithypike has posted his detailed lsat prep plan, which will consume 5+ hours a day.</p>
<p>3 of the 4 sections are eminently learnable. With practice, anyone who scores even a 30+ on the ACT-science should be able to get the logic games down to ~0 errors. Two other sections, half of the test, are also learnable, since they are similar question types.</p>
<p>The Reading section, is just dense material, and might be easier for a Philosophy major who has been reading boring, dense material for years. lol</p>
<p>First off, let me state an obvious bias: I am an LSAT Tutor. </p>
<p>That said, I know that the LSAT is learnable and that there are specific things that can and must be learned to take your score from the 150s to the 160s and the 160s to 170s.</p>
<p>I totally agree with what most everyone else has said, there are no panaceas. Whatever your son learns, he will have to practice and incorporate into his test-taking behavior. If he is not scoring what he could and needs, and if circumstances permit, there is no reason he should take the test under-prepared.</p>
<p>He could hire a good LSAT Tutor or keep studying on his own until he’s peaked. If he studies on his own, he needs to make sure he doesn’t keep reinforcing flawed techniques–making the same mistakes. </p>
<p>That is where a good LSAT Tutor can help. For instance, I would analyze his most recent past practice tests and identify the pattern in wrong answers (there is always a pattern). Anyway, that would tell me what your son needs to learn, and we would focus there.</p>
<p>Anyway, good luck to you and your son.</p>
<p>And thanks to everyone else that has opined.</p>
<p>I agree with the advice above. The right LSAT prep and 2-3 points on test day can be worth tens of thousands of dollars in scholarships, and/or the difference between Harvard and Michigan.</p>