Top Law Schools

Does everyone put in retarded amounts of prep for the LSAT, or is it just the people on here? I'm taking the June LSAT and I'm interested.

Everyone (who is serious about going to a good law school to try and have an actually successful career afterward instead of just be burdened with debt and a useless degree) studies a "retarded amount" for the LSAT.

jgloster wrote:Does everyone put in retarded amounts of prep for the LSAT, or is it just the people on here? I'm taking the June LSAT and I'm interested.

You gotta understand though, that some people just aren't "170+" people. I took a class, took every practice test, did all the practice problems in the book from the class and reviewed 6 nights a week for 5 months and only got a 163. I never got higher than that on a practice. So I disagree with the assumption on this website that you can study "retarded amounts" and great scores automatically. I maxed out. And frankly that 163 was better than 85% of all test takers. So yeah.

abc12345675 wrote:

jgloster wrote:Does everyone put in retarded amounts of prep for the LSAT, or is it just the people on here? I'm taking the June LSAT and I'm interested.

You gotta understand though, that some people just aren't "170+" people. I took a class, took every practice test, did all the practice problems in the book from the class and reviewed 6 nights a week for 5 months and only got a 163. I never got higher than that on a practice. So I disagree with the assumption on this website that you can study "retarded amounts" and great scores automatically. I maxed out. And frankly that 163 was better than 85% of all test takers. So yeah.

Yikes!

princeR wrote:

abc12345675 wrote:

jgloster wrote:Does everyone put in retarded amounts of prep for the LSAT, or is it just the people on here? I'm taking the June LSAT and I'm interested.

You gotta understand though, that some people just aren't "170+" people. I took a class, took every practice test, did all the practice problems in the book from the class and reviewed 6 nights a week for 5 months and only got a 163. I never got higher than that on a practice. So I disagree with the assumption on this website that you can study "retarded amounts" and great scores automatically. I maxed out. And frankly that 163 was better than 85% of all test takers. So yeah.

Yikes!

You people are idiots. If you polled the students at any school from say 40 on down you'd hear similar stories.........It is irrational to think that every person who takes the test can achieve the same score

Obviously the people who study a bunch of the test will generally correlate with the type of person who spends time on a forum for law school before even being in law school lol. But I'm sure there are plenty of people not on here who study the same/more.

abc12345675 wrote:
You people are idiots. If you polled the students at any school from say 40 on down you'd hear similar stories.........It is irrational to think that every person who takes the test can achieve the same score

i believe TITCR. If the LSAT is anything like the SAT, GRE, and GMAT (all of which I have taken with little prep), then studying beyond 50 hours or so is pretty much useless for 99% of people. Such is the nature of aptitude tests

jgloster wrote:

abc12345675 wrote:
You people are idiots. If you polled the students at any school from say 40 on down you'd hear similar stories.........It is irrational to think that every person who takes the test can achieve the same score

i believe TITCR. If the LSAT is anything like the SAT, GRE, and GMAT (all of which I have taken with little prep), then studying beyond 50 hours or so is pretty much useless for 99% of people. Such is the nature of aptitude tests

it's not. HTH.

jgloster wrote:

abc12345675 wrote:
You people are idiots. If you polled the students at any school from say 40 on down you'd hear similar stories.........It is irrational to think that every person who takes the test can achieve the same score

i believe TITCR. If the LSAT is anything like the SAT, GRE, and GMAT (all of which I have taken with little prep), then studying beyond 50 hours or so is pretty much useless for 99% of people. Such is the nature of aptitude tests

Notice your conditional statement of IF, well, its not anything like those tests because it's testing something that for most of us, does not come as second nature or we didn't learn in HS/UG. I was a business major... do you think we learned ANYTHING about logic or proper argumentation structures? I learned about finance, accounting, business cycles, etc. In order to give myself a shot at scoring decent on this test I needed to put in some heavy hours of studying because the LSAT is unlike anything I've ever encountered. For me, personally, I had to fucking teach myself a new approach to reading... that shit does not come easy. I was used to reading 100+ pages and memorizing the random key facts, which is the exact opposite of how you should approach the LSAT RC. At the end of the day, I just want to know that I gave this thing my best shot and couldn't have studied anymore without hitting diminishing returns. While I could wait to take the test in October, I'm not actually sure if I could improve anymore considering the lack of unused materials and lower levels of motivation.

jgloster wrote: i believe TITCR. If the LSAT is anything like the SAT, GRE, and GMAT (all of which I have taken with little prep), then studying beyond 50 hours or so is pretty much useless for 99% of people. Such is the nature of aptitude tests

SAT no, GRE and GMAT yes. The SAT has had studies show that it correlates ~90% to your intelligence, so it is very difficult to really improve.

The LSAT, GRE, GMAT, and for that matter also ACT from high school, have lower correlations with intelligence, thus you can improve a ton by studying. Although obviously natural intellect is still going to be a huge part of it.

It is ridiculous to believe that ANYONE can study into the 99th percentile of college graduates (170s,) but the general assumption is that if you are on this particular website, you are probably in the upper echelons of college grads and thus most people here probably are capable of the 170s. I think anyone with a strict cold diag in the mid 150s and up should have no problem getting to the 170s.

SaintsTheMetal wrote:

jgloster wrote: i believe TITCR. If the LSAT is anything like the SAT, GRE, and GMAT (all of which I have taken with little prep), then studying beyond 50 hours or so is pretty much useless for 99% of people. Such is the nature of aptitude tests

SAT no, GRE and GMAT yes. The SAT has had studies show that it correlates ~90% to your intelligence, so it is very difficult to really improve.

The LSAT, GRE, GMAT, and for that matter also ACT from high school, have lower correlations with intelligence, thus you can improve a ton by studying. Although obviously natural intellect is still going to be a huge part of it.

It is ridiculous to believe that ANYONE can study into the 99th percentile of college graduates (170s,) but the general assumption is that if you are on this particular website, you are probably in the upper echelons of college grads and thus most people here probably are capable of the 170s. I think anyone with a strict cold diag in the mid 150s and up should have no problem getting to the 170s.

Well, I've seen "studies" (though we've all seen studies) that say the correlation between ACT scores and IQ scores is similar to that between the SAT and IQ, although there is a small, significant difference. And the GRE is so similar to the SAT that I have a hard time imagining that its correlation with IQ scores is much lower than SAT's.

None of this is to say you can't increase scores on SAT-type tests like the LSAT. It's just that most of the increase will come in the first 50 hours, and significant increases above and beyond that won't occur until one has studied a few thousand hours or more. I'd rather spend my time doing other things.

jgloster wrote: Well, I've seen "studies" (though we've all seen studies) that say the correlation between ACT scores and IQ scores is similar to that between the SAT and IQ, although there is a small, significant difference. And the GRE is so similar to the SAT that I have a hard time imagining that its correlation with IQ scores is much lower than SATs, either.

None of this is to say you can't increase scores on SAT-type tests like the LSAT. It's just that most of the increase will come in the first 50 hours, and significant increases above and beyond that won't occur until one has studied a few thousand hours or more. I'd rather spend my time doing other things.

ITT, we throw around arbitrary numbers and we don't link the studies we're referring to.

We also have no idea what the fuck we're talking about, if we're jgloster.

You understand that conditional, little breh? I bet you don't, because you didn't put in that last hour and twenty-three minutes of studying.

HTH.

jgloster wrote:

SaintsTheMetal wrote:

jgloster wrote: i believe TITCR. If the LSAT is anything like the SAT, GRE, and GMAT (all of which I have taken with little prep), then studying beyond 50 hours or so is pretty much useless for 99% of people. Such is the nature of aptitude tests

SAT no, GRE and GMAT yes. The SAT has had studies show that it correlates ~90% to your intelligence, so it is very difficult to really improve.

The LSAT, GRE, GMAT, and for that matter also ACT from high school, have lower correlations with intelligence, thus you can improve a ton by studying. Although obviously natural intellect is still going to be a huge part of it.

It is ridiculous to believe that ANYONE can study into the 99th percentile of college graduates (170s,) but the general assumption is that if you are on this particular website, you are probably in the upper echelons of college grads and thus most people here probably are capable of the 170s. I think anyone with a strict cold diag in the mid 150s and up should have no problem getting to the 170s.

Well, I've seen "studies" (though we've all seen studies) that say the correlation between ACT scores and IQ scores is similar to that between the SAT and IQ, although there is a small, significant difference. And the GRE is so similar to the SAT that I have a hard time imagining that its correlation with IQ scores is much lower than SAT's.

None of this is to say you can't increase scores on SAT-type tests like the LSAT. It's just that most of the increase will come in the first 50 hours, and significant increases above and beyond that won't occur until one has studied a few thousand hours or more. I'd rather spend my time doing other things.

Well, I'm going to prove you wrong... for science.

princeR wrote:Well, I'm going to prove you wrong... for science.

jgloster wrote:

SaintsTheMetal wrote:

jgloster wrote: i believe TITCR. If the LSAT is anything like the SAT, GRE, and GMAT (all of which I have taken with little prep), then studying beyond 50 hours or so is pretty much useless for 99% of people. Such is the nature of aptitude tests

SAT no, GRE and GMAT yes. The SAT has had studies show that it correlates ~90% to your intelligence, so it is very difficult to really improve.

The LSAT, GRE, GMAT, and for that matter also ACT from high school, have lower correlations with intelligence, thus you can improve a ton by studying. Although obviously natural intellect is still going to be a huge part of it.

It is ridiculous to believe that ANYONE can study into the 99th percentile of college graduates (170s,) but the general assumption is that if you are on this particular website, you are probably in the upper echelons of college grads and thus most people here probably are capable of the 170s. I think anyone with a strict cold diag in the mid 150s and up should have no problem getting to the 170s.

Well, I've seen "studies" (though we've all seen studies) that say the correlation between ACT scores and IQ scores is similar to that between the SAT and IQ, although there is a small, significant difference. And the GRE is so similar to the SAT that I have a hard time imagining that its correlation with IQ scores is much lower than SAT's.

None of this is to say you can't increase scores on SAT-type tests like the LSAT. It's just that most of the increase will come in the first 50 hours, and significant increases above and beyond that won't occur until one has studied a few thousand hours or more. I'd rather spend my time doing other things.

ACT has that stupid ass "science" graph reading section. I remember the strangest cyclical graph when I took it, never seen anything like it before..like a half cardioid but with directional t dependance. If I had prepped I would have certainly breezed through those kind of questions. Whereas going into the SAT cold, there wasn't really anything you haven't seen before, like a Logic Game for example. If you've been a humanities major you might not have had to think logically in years, so this is where studying comes in. That and getting timing/speed down. The hardest factor on the LSAT is speed.. I don't remember any time issues on other tests I've taken, even with no prep (never prepped for a test before.)

.

SaintsTheMetal wrote:
SAT no, GRE and GMAT yes. The SAT has had studies show that it correlates ~90% to your intelligence, so it is very difficult to really improve.

Lolwut. Either cite these "studies" or don't make such an assertion. You're suggesting that a test which examines two subjects has an r value of 0.9. That is almost a perfect correlation, and is incredibly high for any standardized test, or any relationship between two variables. So please, cite or don't poast shit like that.

SaintsTheMetal wrote:If you've been a humanities major you might not have had to think logically in years

haha +1.

.

nmop_apisdn wrote:

jgloster wrote: Well, I've seen "studies" (though we've all seen studies) that say the correlation between ACT scores and IQ scores is similar to that between the SAT and IQ, although there is a small, significant difference. And the GRE is so similar to the SAT that I have a hard time imagining that its correlation with IQ scores is much lower than SATs, either.

None of this is to say you can't increase scores on SAT-type tests like the LSAT. It's just that most of the increase will come in the first 50 hours, and significant increases above and beyond that won't occur until one has studied a few thousand hours or more. I'd rather spend my time doing other things.

ITT, we throw around arbitrary numbers and we don't link the studies we're referring to.

We also have no idea what the fuck we're talking about, if we're jgloster.

You understand that conditional, little breh? I bet you don't, because you didn't put in that last hour and twenty-three minutes of studying.

HTH.

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/15/6/373.short
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/ps/frey.pdf
--LinkRemoved--

to get you started. Exact numbers depend on study, but as far as I've seen SAT comes out on top of the IQ correlation list. I've seen the SAT correlation as high 0.9, but I guess usually it comes up in the 0.8 area. Still, a very high correlation.

jgloster wrote:

SaintsTheMetal wrote:

jgloster wrote: i believe TITCR. If the LSAT is anything like the SAT, GRE, and GMAT (all of which I have taken with little prep), then studying beyond 50 hours or so is pretty much useless for 99% of people. Such is the nature of aptitude tests

SAT no, GRE and GMAT yes. The SAT has had studies show that it correlates ~90% to your intelligence, so it is very difficult to really improve.

The LSAT, GRE, GMAT, and for that matter also ACT from high school, have lower correlations with intelligence, thus you can improve a ton by studying. Although obviously natural intellect is still going to be a huge part of it.

It is ridiculous to believe that ANYONE can study into the 99th percentile of college graduates (170s,) but the general assumption is that if you are on this particular website, you are probably in the upper echelons of college grads and thus most people here probably are capable of the 170s. I think anyone with a strict cold diag in the mid 150s and up should have no problem getting to the 170s.

Well, I've seen "studies" (though we've all seen studies) that say the correlation between ACT scores and IQ scores is similar to that between the SAT and IQ, although there is a small, significant difference. And the GRE is so similar to the SAT that I have a hard time imagining that its correlation with IQ scores is much lower than SAT's.

None of this is to say you can't increase scores on SAT-type tests like the LSAT. It's just that most of the increase will come in the first 50 hours, and significant increases above and beyond that won't occur until one has studied a few thousand hours or more. I'd rather spend my time doing other things.

Stop spewing misinformation and made up numbers. Significant increases are possible with the LSAT before studying 50 hours and after studying 50 hours (without studying a few thousand hours). It can vary from person to person. I've had students who make significant improvements early on and slowly build from that point on. I've had students that put in a lot of time and effort and it was awhile before they saw a significant jump. I've had students who have had a significant jump, hit a wall that took a lot of time and energy to overcome and then made another significant jump when stuff just clicked. I personally made a small jump initial, hit a wall for awhile, made another small jump, hit another wall, and then made a significant jump.

If you want to delude yourself into thinking that it's only worth studying 50 hours for the LSAT, then go right ahead. Just don't try to convince everyone else of your delusion.

VasaVasori wrote:

cc.celina wrote:

SaintsTheMetal wrote:If you've been a humanities major you might not have had to think logically in years

haha +1.
science majors woo

I understand this is a joke. But... Philosophy major here, and I will say that my philosophy major is more logically rigorous than either my Biology major or my Chemistry minor.

But Philosophy is a unique case

Microbio grad here. Outside of organic chem and the physics you have to take, I thought bio was pretty much a joke.

VasaVasori wrote: I will say that my philosophy major is more logically rigorous than either my Biology major or my Chemistry minor.

no, totally agreed, my philosophy classes have definitely helped me out more than my neuro classes (minus those super fun bio RC passages). But both probably >>> art history majors lsat-wise

nmop_apisdn wrote:

jgloster wrote: Well, I've seen "studies" (though we've all seen studies) that say the correlation between ACT scores and IQ scores is similar to that between the SAT and IQ, although there is a small, significant difference. And the GRE is so similar to the SAT that I have a hard time imagining that its correlation with IQ scores is much lower than SATs, either.

None of this is to say you can't increase scores on SAT-type tests like the LSAT. It's just that most of the increase will come in the first 50 hours, and significant increases above and beyond that won't occur until one has studied a few thousand hours or more. I'd rather spend my time doing other things.

ITT, we throw around arbitrary numbers and we don't link the studies we're referring to.

We also have no idea what the fuck we're talking about, if we're jgloster.

You understand that conditional, little breh? I bet you don't, because you didn't put in that last hour and twenty-three minutes of studying.

HTH.

I can't find anything good right of the bat, so I'll direct you to this old Prometheus Society website
--LinkRemoved--
scroll a third of the way down the page and look at the "hours of study" chart and the text below it.
And look at http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2012/02/te ... cores.html
Of course these pertain just to the SAT, but I've found similar info about other standardized tests. Don't just take my word for it, of course, you can do your own research.