Awesome Study-Motivator...Tutoring! Forum

[LSATclincher]

My only goal of this post was to provide a suggestion to someone who had LSAT study burnout, like myself. The tutoring has forced me to get back on track since I now have someone to help. I'm not really surprised by the negative posts since this is the internet, but I'm not too sure the negative posters understand the perspective of someone who is scoring under 140 in their initial LSAT efforts.

I understand what you're saying. And I agree; I think tutoring does help one learn (/ study more). No one is really being negative though - I think we are more just baffled that someone would pay someone scoring in the 150s to tutor them. This person is prob just lonely and wants someone to hang out / study with, IMO.

Ok, perhaps I overreacted, I dunno. I just wanted to provide an alternative to endless self-study (while nearly going crazy).

[LSATclincher]

Hey OP, I think there are some pros and cons here. On the positive side, I find that explaining the material to others was a wonderful way to reinforce my knowledge and pick up little tricks as I went along. It also forces you to address your areas of deficiency. Finally, it makes you explain questions and concepts out loud. Too many times, while doing problems in my head, I would just give it the whole "ok, ok I get it" attitude, but explaining it out made me really cover every answer choice and possibility and truly get the most out of my review.

But on the flipside of the coin, a score in the 150's indicates that you have numerous areas in which to improve. Yes, your score improvement is great and you should be very proud of it as you continue to learn the material. But charging money to tutor seems a bit odd given your score range and extent of mastery. Again, I do not mean to offend you. I simply wish to push you in the direction that will both benefit yourself, as well as those you may end up tutoring. I would suggest you form a study group of people with similar scores. That would give you the chance to explain and discuss questions/concepts (which is what I believe you really want/need), without putting you in a position where absolute mastery of the material is expected.

I do not disagree with anything here. I stated my goal with my tutor: I wanted to improve her score to where I was scoring. And I admitted to her I am not finished with my own study, and my goal of hitting 165.

[justtotalk]

If I were in your position, I would refund all the money paid and start studying with this person for free. You're clearly a study buddy.

I'm just starting out with LSAT prep so I'm no expert. But IMO, an average scorer has flawed test taking techniques (at least in some sections). By tutoring your "student," you're ingraining these flawed techniques into your study buddy's test taking habits and asking money for it. It's just wrong even if the other person allows it.

[ResolutePear]

If I were in your position, I would refund all the money paid and start studying with this person for free. You're clearly a study buddy.

I'm just starting out with LSAT prep so I'm no expert. But IMO, an average scorer has flawed test taking techniques (at least in some sections). By tutoring your "student," you're ingraining these flawed techniques into your study buddy's test taking habits and asking money for it. It's just wrong even if the other person allows it.

As an experienced tutor in other subjects, I'm going to say: Having not gotten anywhere close a 180, you should not be teaching anybody. Your studying and testing techniques are flawed and the 150 score shows it. This might be due to cutting corners(intentionally or unintentionally), and students themselves are prone to cutting corners - therefore you could be condemning an otherwise good student to a very poor test score.

Charging for it seems unethical.

[3|ink]

If I were in your position, I would refund all the money paid and start studying with this person for free. You're clearly a study buddy.

I'm just starting out with LSAT prep so I'm no expert. But IMO, an average scorer has flawed test taking techniques (at least in some sections). By tutoring your "student," you're ingraining these flawed techniques into your study buddy's test taking habits and asking money for it. It's just wrong even if the other person allows it.

As an experienced tutor in other subjects, I'm going to say: Having not gotten anywhere close a 180, you should not be teaching anybody. Your studying and testing techniques are flawed and the 150 score shows it. This might be due to cutting corners(intentionally or unintentionally), and students themselves are prone to cutting corners - therefore you could be condemning an otherwise good student to a very poor test score.

Charging for it seems unethical.

I stand corrected. TITCR.

[arklogic]

Wait... you prepped for a year and you went from a 136 to a 15X?

[Jack Smirks]

OP: You are fucking ridiculous. That would be like me offering to tutor Spanish. I'm not at all fluent but I know some of the basics so, while I might know more than someone who doesn't speak it at all this doesn't qualify me to tutor Spanish. I would probably be teaching some mispronunciations and wrong conjugations, just like you're probably teaching bad LSAT techniques. Give that poor guy his money back and find a different method for you to find motivation to study. period.

[094320]

..

[ResolutePear]

As an experienced tutor in other subjects, I'm going to say: Having not gotten anywhere close a 180, you should not be teaching anybody. Your studying and testing techniques are flawed and the 150 score shows it. This might be due to cutting corners(intentionally or unintentionally), and students themselves are prone to cutting corners - therefore you could be condemning an otherwise good student to a very poor test score.

Charging for it seems unethical.

The fact that OP is using his/her consistently at getting 20 LG(and therefore...on average 3-4 wrong...) correct as credibility for being able to teach it weakens his/her argument considerably.

You guys are seriously entertaining this? He's obviously trolling.

I am obviously bored.

.

You're bored a lot.

Even getting 4 wrong out of 24 is a ~83.3% which is a 'B'. It's no basis to tutor somebody as they have to be comfortable enough to score in the 95%. Breaking it down by test, section, question etc. Doesn't matter. And 83% is horrible enough as a student, I'd imagine you can easily take 5% off that - and that's IF the tutor practices good assessment and evaluation techniques. Did you even do a baseline diagnostic? How does he know if his 10USD/hour helped him improve? Where's the *value* in this for him?

Congrats, the student paid you 10USD/hour to go to TTT sticker when he could of prob. done T14 with a scholly.

Give the man back his money and reason with him that you're at the ~45% which isn't even enough to get into some T4's before this gets shoved in your face at the Bar.

[Balthy]

OP, thanks for the suggestion. I have never thought of this, and since I'm already a tutor for other subjects, this would probably be a good idea for me.

I agree with others that, in most cases, someone who doesn't have full or close to full understanding of something shouldn't try teaching it for a fee, but from my experience as a tutor, I have observed one benefit of being closer in understanding with your student-- it's much easier to get in his wavelength, to understand what the problem is, and see his mental perspective more clearly.

[ResolutePear]

OP, thanks for the suggestion. I have never thought of this, and since I'm already a tutor for other subjects, this would probably be a good idea for me.

I agree with others that, in most cases, someone who doesn't have full or close to full understanding of something shouldn't try teaching it for a fee, but from my experience as a tutor, I have observed one benefit of being closer in understanding with your student-- it's much easier to get in his wavelength, to understand what the problem is, and see his mental perspective more clearly.

lolwut? I think you're confusing tutor with a study buddy.

A tutor should be somebody that has mastered a particular subject 110% from every perspective. People pay tutors are 'A's and 90+%'s. How can you advocate that you'll teach somebody how to get a 170+ on their LSAT if you yourself don't know your score? Or worse, a score under 170. This isn't The Karate Kid where the student's supposed to surpass the master. This is real life people, you're fucking a potential lawyer that's already fucked enough as it is.

Look through the LSAT articles section on this website. Click through the 'How I got a 180 on the LSAT'. Do you see any of them that say, 'How to get a 150'? You're supposed to prove your skills/talent then share it in the hopes that it gets replicated.

[blhblahblah]

I'm afraid the talking pear is right on this one

[3|ink]

OP, thanks for the suggestion. I have never thought of this, and since I'm already a tutor for other subjects, this would probably be a good idea for me.

I agree with others that, in most cases, someone who doesn't have full or close to full understanding of something shouldn't try teaching it for a fee, but from my experience as a tutor, I have observed one benefit of being closer in understanding with your student-- it's much easier to get in his wavelength, to understand what the problem is, and see his mental perspective more clearly.

lolwut? I think you're confusing tutor with a study buddy.

A tutor should be somebody that has mastered a particular subject 110% from every perspective. People pay tutors are 'A's and 90+%'s. How can you advocate that you'll teach somebody how to get a 170+ on their LSAT if you yourself don't know your score? Or worse, a score under 170. This isn't The Karate Kid where the student's supposed to surpass the master. This is real life people, you're fucking a potential lawyer that's already fucked enough as it is.

Look through the LSAT articles section on this website. Click through the 'How I got a 180 on the LSAT'. Do you see any of them that say, 'How to get a 150'? You're supposed to prove your skills/talent then share it in the hopes that it gets replicated.

I think it is possible to be good at teaching the LSAT without being good at testing it. I hear that the best TM reviews are for teachers who scored in the lower 170s while a lot of the bad reviews are for those who scored higher. Obviously, these people would still meet your 95% standard. However, it stands to reason that if there is a reverse correlation between teaching ability and LSAT score, this may extend to those on the lower end of the scoring spectrum.

$10.00 an hour is dirt cheap and if the OP is preparing drills for his student, I think that ould make him a little more than a study buddy.

[sophia.olive]

OP, thanks for the suggestion. I have never thought of this, and since I'm already a tutor for other subjects, this would probably be a good idea for me.

I agree with others that, in most cases, someone who doesn't have full or close to full understanding of something shouldn't try teaching it for a fee, but from my experience as a tutor, I have observed one benefit of being closer in understanding with your student-- it's much easier to get in his wavelength, to understand what the problem is, and see his mental perspective more clearly.

lolwut? I think you're confusing tutor with a study buddy.

A tutor should be somebody that has mastered a particular subject 110% from every perspective. People pay tutors are 'A's and 90+%'s. How can you advocate that you'll teach somebody how to get a 170+ on their LSAT if you yourself don't know your score? Or worse, a score under 170. This isn't The Karate Kid where the student's supposed to surpass the master. This is real life people, you're fucking a potential lawyer that's already fucked enough as it is.

Look through the LSAT articles section on this website. Click through the 'How I got a 180 on the LSAT'. Do you see any of them that say, 'How to get a 150'? You're supposed to prove your skills/talent then share it in the hopes that it gets replicated.

I think it is possible to be good at teaching the LSAT without being good at testing it. I hear that the best TM reviews are for teachers who scored in the lower 170s while a lot of the bad reviews are for those who scored higher. Obviously, these people would still meet your 95% standard. However, it stands to reason that if there is a reverse correlation between teaching ability and LSAT score, this may extend to those on the lower end of the scoring spectrum.

$10.00 an hour is dirt cheap and if the OP is preparing drills for his student, I think that ould make him a little more than a study buddy.

Are you suggesting something romantic.

[094320]

..

[skoobily doobily]

I think it is possible to be good at teaching the LSAT without being good at testing it. I hear that the best TM reviews are for teachers who scored in the lower 170s while a lot of the bad reviews are for those who scored higher. Obviously, these people would still meet your 95% standard. However, it stands to reason that if there is a reverse correlation between teaching ability and LSAT score, this may extend to those on the lower end of the scoring spectrum.

$10.00 an hour is dirt cheap and if the OP is preparing drills for his student, I think that ould make him a little more than a study buddy.

I want you to just think about this for a second. An inverse (i'm assuming that's what you meant) correlation between ability to teach a test, and being able to mentally grasp a test, does that make sense to you? Would a 130 not be a better tutor then? Perhaps someone illiterate who only gets 20% of the questions right be the ultimate guide for testtaking?

[ResolutePear]

I think it is possible to be good at teaching the LSAT without being good at testing it. I hear that the best TM reviews are for teachers who scored in the lower 170s while a lot of the bad reviews are for those who scored higher. Obviously, these people would still meet your 95% standard. However, it stands to reason that if there is a reverse correlation between teaching ability and LSAT score, this may extend to those on the lower end of the scoring spectrum.

$10.00 an hour is dirt cheap and if the OP is preparing drills for his student, I think that ould make him a little more than a study buddy.

Scoring in the low 170s is still the 98th percentile and IMO, once you get past 170, you've grasped the test. Past 170, it's a matter of focus, endurance, etc. which isn't taught. It doesn't really stand to reason that that correlation holds anywhere lower than the 170s at all. If you can't get 90% of the questions right, you don't understand the LSAT well enough to teach it. I would guess that those who score in the high 170s tend to be worse teachers because they are more likely to be people who grasp the material to the point that they don't know how to explain it to someone who doesn't--they don't know how it's possible to not "get it". That problem---being *too* skilled to teach it(something you often find in professors) is the confounding factor, which doesn't hold for most people.

Well, I threw 95% out there because that's what I usually like to get on a subject before I tutor it.. but yeah - I totally agree.

[ResolutePear]

I think it is possible to be good at teaching the LSAT without being good at testing it. I hear that the best TM reviews are for teachers who scored in the lower 170s while a lot of the bad reviews are for those who scored higher. Obviously, these people would still meet your 95% standard. However, it stands to reason that if there is a reverse correlation between teaching ability and LSAT score, this may extend to those on the lower end of the scoring spectrum.

$10.00 an hour is dirt cheap and if the OP is preparing drills for his student, I think that ould make him a little more than a study buddy.

I want you to just think about this for a second. An inverse (i'm assuming that's what you meant) correlation between ability to teach a test, and being able to mentally grasp a test, does that make sense to you? Would a 130 not be a better tutor then? Perhaps someone illiterate who only gets 20% of the questions right be the ultimate guide for testtaking?

Yeah. Also, you're skewing tutors with teachers. It doesn't make sense either way - but less sense as a tutor. Tutors are for individuals or small groups(diminishing returns!!). Teachers are for classes and are trained in that way.

There's a reason why you pay a good tutor upwards of $50USD/hour.

[Anaconda]

When a talking pear belittles you, you know your time as an amateur LSAT tutor is up.

To the OP: what is your student PTing at? It does seem ludicrous you're not just study buddies. I'd only consider paying a "friend" or even a peer a minimal amount of money (out of my own goodwill) if they were PTing in the mid 170's or higher - an even then I'd expect them to help me for free since I'd do the same for them.

[ResolutePear]

When a talking pear belittles you, you know your time as an amateur LSAT tutor is up.

To the OP: what is your student PTing at? It does seem ludicrous you're not just study buddies. I'd only consider paying a "friend" or even a peer a minimal amount of money (out of my own goodwill) if they were PTing in the mid 170's or higher - an even then I'd expect them to help me for free since I'd do the same for them.

Hey, this Pear happens to be a upcoming Disney character. I'll probably be voiced by Gilbert Gottfried.

EDIT: MISTER PIXAR!

[3|ink]

I think it is possible to be good at teaching the LSAT without being good at testing it. I hear that the best TM reviews are for teachers who scored in the lower 170s while a lot of the bad reviews are for those who scored higher. Obviously, these people would still meet your 95% standard. However, it stands to reason that if there is a reverse correlation between teaching ability and LSAT score, this may extend to those on the lower end of the scoring spectrum.

$10.00 an hour is dirt cheap and if the OP is preparing drills for his student, I think that ould make him a little more than a study buddy.

I want you to just think about this for a second. An inverse (i'm assuming that's what you meant) correlation between ability to teach a test, and being able to mentally grasp a test, does that make sense to you? Would a 130 not be a better tutor then? Perhaps someone illiterate who only gets 20% of the questions right be the ultimate guide for testtaking?

I never said it extends as far as 130. I said " this may extend to those on the lower end of the scoring spectrum." Lower in comparison to a 170 isn't necessarily 130. The idea is that those who perform best on the test may not be the best people to teach the material. That isn't the same as saying that those who perform worst on the test are the best at teahcing the material.

[ResolutePear]

I think it is possible to be good at teaching the LSAT without being good at testing it. I hear that the best TM reviews are for teachers who scored in the lower 170s while a lot of the bad reviews are for those who scored higher. Obviously, these people would still meet your 95% standard. However, it stands to reason that if there is a reverse correlation between teaching ability and LSAT score, this may extend to those on the lower end of the scoring spectrum.

$10.00 an hour is dirt cheap and if the OP is preparing drills for his student, I think that ould make him a little more than a study buddy.

I want you to just think about this for a second. An inverse (i'm assuming that's what you meant) correlation between ability to teach a test, and being able to mentally grasp a test, does that make sense to you? Would a 130 not be a better tutor then? Perhaps someone illiterate who only gets 20% of the questions right be the ultimate guide for testtaking?

Reading comprehension. I never said it extends as far as 130. I said " this may extend to those on the lower end of the scoring spectrum." Lower in comparison to a 170 isn't necessarily 130. The idea is that those who perform best on the test may not be the best people to teach the material. That isn't the same as saying that those who perform worst on the test are the best at teahcing the material.

Not entirely disagreeing with you; but how would you quantify how well somebody can teach a test without using the test score? Different students learn in different ways; how one students regards a teacher's method doesn't qualify or disqualify him whereas a test score will.

Just look at it this way: Would would you rather pay to lobby for you at 150USD/hour, a Yale law grad who graduated top 10% - or bottom-median TTT guy, roughly top 55%(Wasn't sure how I'd quantify bottom-median in percentile other than.. percentile!)?

Tutors are not teachers. They both are similar but whereas a teacher is required to know the lessons and explore the surface - serious tutors will have the ability to profoundly answer any questions on said subject. Saying, "I'll get back to you on that tomorrow." while you research that topic just isn't acceptable when you're being paid - 10, 20, 100/hour. It's still getting paid and it's still a professional service. This isn't to say tutors know more than teachers - I'm just trying to show the double standard here.

[3|ink]

I think it is possible to be good at teaching the LSAT without being good at testing it. I hear that the best TM reviews are for teachers who scored in the lower 170s while a lot of the bad reviews are for those who scored higher. Obviously, these people would still meet your 95% standard. However, it stands to reason that if there is a reverse correlation between teaching ability and LSAT score, this may extend to those on the lower end of the scoring spectrum.

$10.00 an hour is dirt cheap and if the OP is preparing drills for his student, I think that ould make him a little more than a study buddy.

I want you to just think about this for a second. An inverse (i'm assuming that's what you meant) correlation between ability to teach a test, and being able to mentally grasp a test, does that make sense to you? Would a 130 not be a better tutor then? Perhaps someone illiterate who only gets 20% of the questions right be the ultimate guide for testtaking?

Reading comprehension. I never said it extends as far as 130. I said " this may extend to those on the lower end of the scoring spectrum." Lower in comparison to a 170 isn't necessarily 130. The idea is that those who perform best on the test may not be the best people to teach the material. That isn't the same as saying that those who perform worst on the test are the best at teahcing the material.

Not entirely disagreeing with you; but how would you quantify how well somebody can teach a test without using the test score? Different students learn in different ways; how one students regards a teacher's method doesn't qualify or disqualify him whereas a test score will.

Just look at it this way: Would would you rather pay to lobby for you at 150USD/hour, a Yale law grad who graduated top 10% - or bottom-median TTT guy, roughly top 55%(Wasn't sure how I'd quantify bottom-median in percentile other than.. percentile!)?

Tutors are not teachers. They both are similar but whereas a teacher is required to know the lessons and explore the surface - serious tutors will have the ability to profoundly answer any questions on said subject. Saying, "I'll get back to you on that tomorrow." while you research that topic just isn't acceptable when you're being paid - 10, 20, 100/hour. It's still getting paid and it's still a professional service. This isn't to say tutors know more than teachers - I'm just trying to show the double standard here.

I'm not disagreeing with your logic. I was just clarifying something for skoobily.

[ResolutePear]

I'm not disagreeing with your logic. I was just clarifying something for skoobily.

I wasn't trying to say you were. I was just throwing out some additional thoughts for the rest of the viewers since the questions are probably going to arise.

I should of have said that before. My fault.