<p>i made the mistake of slaking off in HS and preping a week for the SAT. my 1280 stands as a testament of my failure. i want to attend law school, should i beging preping for the LSAT and the GRE from now? i will be a sophmore in college this fall at Maryland -College Park. if so, what would you recommend i do to prep?</p>
<p>If you've already finished a year of college, you should have a pretty good idea by now of what studying methods work best for you. Stick to them, and add LSAT prep and/or GRE prep to your studying by either looking to the test prep books out there, taking old tests or taking a course. I would not recommend studying for years for either of these exams. Your time will be much better spent focusing on your classes and doing well in school.</p>
<p>Continue to focus on your school work for now. I took the LSAT in the fall, and studied for it the summer before I took it. I had a full-time job, and studied two or three hours a night, four or five nights a week. I believe it's unlikely that studying any more than that will increase your score.</p>
<p>I'm actually doing about the same amount of study as Greybeard did. I work around 2-3 hours a day typically Monday through Friday.</p>
<p>IMO, practice makes perfect. Instead of going to the movies, study for the LSAT. Don't take my word for it. Listen to Ericsson -- <a href="http://www-news.uchicago.edu/citations/06/060507.levitt-nyt.html%5B/url%5D">http://www-news.uchicago.edu/citations/06/060507.levitt-nyt.html</a></p>
<p>While informative, the article, ignores the .5-.6 correlation between the IQ of parents and IQ of children. While the socioeconomic correlation between IQ and wealth may also explain the IQ of children, there is still a large genetic component. Kids with less of the innate intelligence the highest-paying jobs seem to select for (problem-solving and memorization) will still do worse in general to those who have such innate intelligence.</p>
<p>The article is right that you will never achieve your maximum potential without constant practice and adjustment. It just conveniently ignores the fact that humans are still on a gaussian distribution in relation to other humans on a wide variety of social and intellectual metrics.</p>
<p>i read the correlation to be closer to .5, which is by no means large.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Don't take my word for it. Listen to Ericsson
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why is this article being shown by so many as if it were gospel? </p>
<p>Wait, I think this article was suggested on my occasions by blaze, and I am not sure that accepting the article uncritically is advisable, given the context. I think that in terms of the LSAT, practice does not necessarily "make perfect." There comes a point when too much practice will not account for various careless blunders that could occur during the test; more generally, there is a point where the amount of return diminishes too much to justify so much practice (gosh! I believe there is a general statement about this sorta thing, but ya know, I am too frickin' stupid to articulate it at this moment, perhaps you could search Uchicago's newspaper for it or something). Practice might bring you to a 178 or something of the sort, but practicing even further for that 180 is about as silly as watching Telletubies while reading Noam Chomsky. Believe me, I have been there.</p>
<p>Just some perspective: from what I recall, the 25th percentile of admitted students at HLS is a 175.</p>
<p>(law of diminishing returns.) that 175 must be the 75th percentile, though. from 2005 back they were</p>
<p>170-176
169-175
167-173
167-172
average 2002 to 2005 168-174</p>
<p><a href="law%20of%20diminishing%20returns.">quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I was feigning ignorance, though for some reason I tend to do that with relative ease;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
that 175 must be the 75th percentile, though. from 2005 back they were
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Argh, for some reason I seem to confuse 75th and 25th percentiles. I do not know why. At any rate, I stand corrected. Thanks for the numbers:)</p>
<p>nspeds, do you find enjoyment in arguing over trivial matters? </p>
<p>I did not say that if you practice enough for the LSAT you will get a 180. Perfect does not necessarily mean a 180 -- perfect could be interpreted as reaching your full potential, which may be a 160 or lower for some people. </p>
<p>I feel silly even responding to your posts considering that my post obviously wasn't meant to be any sort of thesis. It was a couple of sentences that were intended to market an article that I found interesting. I thought that people would realize that I was throwing out a cliche, which does hold some truth but is in no way absolute. Moreover, the prior sentence to the "practice makes perfect" sentence suggested my non-seriousness: "Instead of going to the movies, study for the LSAT".</p>
<p>
[quote]
I did not say that if you practice enough for the LSAT you will get a 180. Perfect does not necessarily mean a 180 -- perfect could be interpreted as reaching your full potential, which may be a 160 or lower for some people.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ohhhhh... sorry... I did not know we were using your definition of "perfect." Next time I will know never to trust the dictionary. Got me there, buddy!</p>
<p>
[quote]
nspeds, do you find enjoyment in arguing over trivial matters?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you find enjoyment in posting silly things? Do not answer the question. It is rhetorical.</p>
<p><em>sigh</em> four light hearted, non-serious sentences and an internet link turns into this..</p>
<p>From webster.com (<a href="http://webster.com/dictionary/perfect%5B/url%5D">http://webster.com/dictionary/perfect</a>)</p>
<p>One definition for perfect, complete with an example of its usage:</p>
<p>2 : EXPERT, PROFICIENT <practice makes="" perfect=""></practice></p>
<p>Proficient, expert does not mean a "180".. it means thorough competence in a field or skill.</p>
<p>I'm done with this thread, that's for sure. I suggest you pick on someone else because I'm really tired of responding.</p>
<p>
[quote]
<em>sigh</em> four light hearted, non-serious sentences and
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I guess you answered my question...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you find enjoyment in posting silly things?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
it means thorough competence in a field or skill.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...and thorough competence means reaching one's full potential? That is utter nonsense. Some person's best just is not good enough. One cannot say that by him utilizing his full potential, he is somehow proficient for the LSAT or the field of law in general.</p>
<p>Sorry, what I just posted seems so self-evident; I am wondering why I must explain it. Some people are just not good enough. One should not lower the standard of "expert" and "proficient" to the maximum potential of every individual; standards exist for a reason. They are meant to be (supposedly) objective means with which to measure the aptitude of a person for a given discipline. You do not pat someone on the back when he scores a 145 on the LSAT and still utilizes his full potential; you say "sorry, perhaps you are not cut out for the field."</p>
<p>
[quote]
because I'm really tired of responding.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sayonara.</p>
<p>You started making personal attacks against me, even though I said nothing against you. Several times through out this thread you have attacked me for being stupid and intellectually worthless. I have avoided making any personal attacks against you, other than saying "do you find enjoyment in arguing over trivial matters?" and I only said that to respond to your harsh statements about my intelligence (that was definitely uncalled for) in your first reply. </p>
<p>I see no reason to engage in discussion with someone who simply attacks me for being stupid, and with this I will bite my tongue and stop replying to your vicious posts.</p>
<p>Indeed..</p>
<p>goodbye!</p>
<p>
[quote]
You started making personal attacks against me,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Where?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Several times through out this thread you have attacked me for being stupid and intellectually worthless.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really? Where? Someone is suffering from a guilty conscience.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and with this I will bite my tongue and stop replying to your vicious posts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fine. Rather than respond to my actual claims, respond to what is not there.</p>
<p>............</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wait, I think this article was suggested on my occasions by blaze, and I am not sure that accepting the article uncritically is advisable, given the context.
[/quote]
</p>
<p><a href="gosh!%20I%20believe%20there%20is%20a%20general%20statement%20about%20this%20sorta%20thing,%20but%20ya%20know,%20I%20am%20too%20frickin'%20stupid%20to%20articulate%20it%20at%20this%20moment,%20perhaps%20you%20could%20search%20Uchicago's%20newspaper%20for%20it%20or%20something">quote</a>.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sorry, what I just posted seems so self-evident; I am wondering why I must explain it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wait, I think this article was suggested on my occasions by blaze, and I am not sure that accepting the article uncritically is advisable, given the context.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That was not intended to be an insult.</p>
<p><a href="gosh!%20I%20believe%20there%20is%20a%20general%20statement%20about%20this%20sorta%20thing,%20but%20ya%20know,%20I%20am%20too%20frickin'%20stupid%20to%20articulate%20it%20at%20this%20moment,%20perhaps%20you%20could%20search%20Uchicago's%20newspaper%20for%20it%20or%20something">quote</a>.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That was a general statement, which I did not direct toward you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sorry, what I just posted seems so self-evident; I am wondering why I must explain it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again, a general statement.</p>
<p>I really do not understand. Never have I said "blaze, you are an idiot"; wait a minute, I just said it! Ya got me there ya sly devil.</p>
<p>i seem to have misplaced my fire extinguisher...</p>
<p>I am closing this thread as it has gone totally off track. This is a forum for adults and/or near adults -- I expect you all to treat each other with respect. You can certainly feel free to scrutinize ideas, but let's leave personalities out of it.</p>
<p>CD</p>