KaplanLSATInstructor said that he didn't want to continue the thread because it wasn't fair to the OP. Understandable.
However, a couple of us raised some valid points, and I think it's reasonable to request a response from Kaplan about them. Students should know about the quality and experience of their instructors before dropping $1000+ on a prep course.
For this reason, it's worth creating a new thread to discuss, imo. Hope KaplanLSATInstructor decides to respond.
Here's where the discussion left off...
2011hopeful wrote:KaplanLSATInstructor wrote:ealwcml wrote:You have no control over whether people have already seen the tests.
While this may be true, it's entirely unfair of you to accuse us of letting teachers see tests before taking them. You're basically accusing our teachers of being unethical, of which you have absolutely no verification. You can't assume that just because we can't 100% control teacher's prior knowledge that teachers will take advantage of that.
I think it would be unwarranted to assume that any Kaplan teacher with any sense of ethics would stoop to such a level. And I think it's equally unwarranted to suggest that any of our teachers actually do this.
Also, it should be noted that merely acheiving a qualifying score is no guarantee that the candidate will be allowed to teach for Kaplan. There's still a lot every candidate has to go through before ever setting foot in front of paying students.
Furthermore, you're also assuming that it's common for LSAT instructors to come to Kaplan having never taken a real LSAT. I don't have the definite statistics, but based on the people in my center and all of the people I've worked with, I'm confident that a vast majority of Kaplan instructors HAVE taken a real LSAT and score acceptably well. So, this whole concept of score qualifying on a previously released LSAT is only applicable in a small proportion of cases. In fact, I have never seen an LSAT trainee come to Kaplan directly having never taken an official LSAT before. The only teachers I know of that have never paid the LSAC fee for the test are ones that have spent time teaching other exams and crossed over to the LSAT after score-qualifying.
Oh boy, here goes:
Chalking it up to a moral issue is ignoring the reality.
It's a question of incentives. You have a responsibility to your customers to do what's within your power to prevent resourceful job applicants from being able to ask friends and/or look around online in forums such as this one to find out which PrepTest is given for the "score-qualifying" aspect of the hiring process.
KaplanLSATInstructor - with regard to whether or not teachers "pay the LSAC fee", you're committing a straw-man fallacy here.
It's not about paying the LSAC fee.
It's about not having previously seen the exam for which one's score will play a role in the hiring process.
It's also about the thoroughly stressful experience of taking a real LSAC-administered LSAT exam in real test center conditions. Being left alone in a room to time oneself can't compare (I'm referring to anecdotes I read about this in a previous thread, can't find it now).
Also, does the score-qualifying exam contain 4 sections or does it have a 5th spliced in (to simulate the experimental)? There's a big difference in terms of fatigue/endurance.
If you're not going to make teachers take an LSAC-administered exam, why not at least rotate which PrepTest you use for the score-qualifying exam? You can make it one of those "secret PrepTests" so it'd be less likely that applicants have seen it.
You suggest that most instructors who haven't taken an LSAC-administered exam already taught other exams (and are therefore qualified to teach the LSAT just by virtue of their general teaching experience???).
Do you have any hard data on this?
At the very least, if an LSAT applicant hasn't taught other exams before, require that they've taken an LSAC-administered exam. Otherwise, what kind of LSAT experience do they actually have?
I wouldn't want to be taught by someone who had less LSAT experience than I do.
Look forward to your response.
crombot wrote:100% agree. IMO the most important things that I can learn from my instructor have nothing to do with the materials that I can learn in a book myself. It is the experience of having gone through the same intense prep that they are teaching us, the emotional ups and downs, the plateaus, attitude going into test day, strategies that worked for them, etc.
And if KaplanLSATInstructor's postings were flaw in the reasoning questions, his flaw would be that he takes for granted that taking a non-LSAC administered test is comparable to taking a real LSAT. Not so my friend. How many people who take the real test succumb to test day nerves and score significantly lower?
And I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who take Kaplan and end up doing extraordinarily well on test day. BUT, I believe that is causal mistake--people who score 160+ on their diagnostics are going to do well regardless of Kaplan's instruction methods.
I personally don't mind if more people take the Kaplan course--to each their own. It just means higher scores for the rest of us and better scoring scales.