Do people who over study for the LSAT do worse in law school Forum

[ScottRiqui]

DF - Assuming it's not any kind of a violation, could you post the question that goes along with that answer?

You aren't allowed to keep them.

Thanks anyway. So does that mean that when you're looking at model answers from a professor's previous exams, that's literally all you're seeing - the answers?

[09042014]

DF - Assuming it's not any kind of a violation, could you post the question that goes along with that answer?

You aren't allowed to keep them.

Thanks anyway. So does that mean that when you're looking at model answers from a professor's previous exams, that's literally all you're seeing - the answers?

Profs can give out their own exams. But you aren't allowed to keep them yourself.

[Elston Gunn]

The time management skills on the LSAT could arguably transfer to these law school exams then, even though time management isn't directly tested (although it's a major component of success on the LSAT).

It's a totally different kind of time management. Though I could buy that someone who PTs a lot for the LSAT would PT more for law school exams, which does help with time management.

When they did all that research that found correlations between LSATs and law school grades, IIRC, it was basically entirely on timed exams, for which the LSAT was a good predictor. On take-homes there was basically no correlation. So that makes me think that what the LSAT is testing most of all (at least when you haven't prepped a ton) is your ability to think and answer quickly.

[09042014]

The time management skills on the LSAT could arguably transfer to these law school exams then, even though time management isn't directly tested (although it's a major component of success on the LSAT).

It's a totally different kind of time management. Though I could buy that someone who PTs a lot for the LSAT would PT more for law school exams, which does help with time management.

When they did all that research that found correlations between LSATs and law school grades, IIRC, it was basically entirely on timed exams, for which the LSAT was a good predictor. On take-homes there was basically no correlation. So that makes me think that what the LSAT is testing most of all (at least when you haven't prepped a ton) is your ability to think and answer quickly.

That may be true.

[Pragmatic Gun]

I didn't even know they do take-home exams in law school. That doesn't seem so bad.

[09042014]

I didn't even know they do take-home exams in law school. That doesn't seem so bad.

Most of your 1L classes probably wont be take home.

[Pragmatic Gun]

I didn't even know they do take-home exams in law school. That doesn't seem so bad.

Most of your 1L classes probably wont be take home.

Oh. Yup, it's bad then.

[Straw_Mandible]

The time management skills on the LSAT could arguably transfer to these law school exams then, even though time management isn't directly tested (although it's a major component of success on the LSAT).

It's a totally different kind of time management. Though I could buy that someone who PTs a lot for the LSAT would PT more for law school exams, which does help with time management.

When they did all that research that found correlations between LSATs and law school grades, IIRC, it was basically entirely on timed exams, for which the LSAT was a good predictor. On take-homes there was basically no correlation. So that makes me think that what the LSAT is testing most of all (at least when you haven't prepped a ton) is your ability to think and answer quickly.

That may be true.

And it is undoubtedly possible to train yourself to think more quickly, just like it is undoubtedly possible to train yourself to run more quickly.

Maybe that is, at least in part, what people are doing when they hardcore study for the LSAT.

[d cooper]

An 8-hour take home exam sounds even worse, because you know there are going to be students typing nonstop for those 8 hours.

[09042014]

An 8-hour take home exam sounds even worse, because you know there are going to be students typing nonstop for those 8 hours.

Professors learn right quick that you need a word limit.

[Elston Gunn]

And it is undoubtedly possible to train yourself to think more quickly, just like it is undoubtedly possible to train yourself to run more quickly.

Maybe that is, at least in part, what people are doing when they hardcore study for the LSAT.

A little bit of that, and a lot of learning the patterns and strategies specific to the LSAT so cold that they can skip the early stages of reasoning.

[UnicornHunter]

And it is undoubtedly possible to train yourself to think more quickly, just like it is undoubtedly possible to train yourself to run more quickly.

Maybe that is, at least in part, what people are doing when they hardcore study for the LSAT.

It is... to a point. Look at this article (http://www.active.com/football/articles ... -yard-dash.) It is essentially the 40 yard dash version of LSAT prep. If you follow those seven steps (and drill them over and over...sound familiar?), you can improve your 40 time.

If you are overweight, you can also cut fat. That will improve your 40 time.

What you can't do, at least not without a lifetime of training, is alter your genetically predetermined ration of fast-twitch to slow-twitch muscle fiber. This is what determines the true potential of a sprinter.

so if you have sprinter a) who has learned perfect 40 form and gotten down to 5% body fat and sprinter b) who has ok form and 9% body fat and they both run a 4.5 40, who has the most potential to run quickly? Who is going to be faster when you throw them on a field and take away the structure and predictability of a 40 yard dash?

[Straw_Mandible]

And it is undoubtedly possible to train yourself to think more quickly, just like it is undoubtedly possible to train yourself to run more quickly.

Maybe that is, at least in part, what people are doing when they hardcore study for the LSAT.

It is... to a point. Look at this article (http://www.active.com/football/articles ... -yard-dash.) It is essentially the 40 yard dash version of LSAT prep. If you follow those seven steps (and drill them over and over...sound familiar?), you can improve your 40 time.

If you are overweight, you can also cut fat. That will improve your 40 time.

What you can't do, at least not without a lifetime of training, is alter your genetically predetermined ration of fast-twitch to slow-twitch muscle fiber. This is what determines the true potential of a sprinter.

so if you have sprinter a) who has learned perfect 40 form and gotten down to 5% body fat and sprinter b) who has ok form and 9% body fat and they both run a 4.5 40, who has the most potential to run quickly? Who is going to be faster when you throw them on a field and take away the structure and predictability of a 40 yard dash?

And this is why distance runners and sprinters don't get along. We (distance runners) despise their reliance on natural talent. It might be possible to run a 4.5s 40 with 9% body fat and very little training, but it's not at all possible to run a 22 minute 8K with 9% body fat and very little training.

Two things: 1) This only applies to performance at the margins. Yes, of the two sprinters who train to get to the top of their game in the 40, the one with a better ratio of fast twitch:slow twitch muscles will win. However, 2) this obviously does not carry over when you change the length of the race (see example above).

How this line of reasoning applies to LSAT vs. law school should be obvious. Different races.

[UnicornHunter]

And it is undoubtedly possible to train yourself to think more quickly, just like it is undoubtedly possible to train yourself to run more quickly.

Maybe that is, at least in part, what people are doing when they hardcore study for the LSAT.

It is... to a point. Look at this article (http://www.active.com/football/articles ... -yard-dash.) It is essentially the 40 yard dash version of LSAT prep. If you follow those seven steps (and drill them over and over...sound familiar?), you can improve your 40 time.

If you are overweight, you can also cut fat. That will improve your 40 time.

What you can't do, at least not without a lifetime of training, is alter your genetically predetermined ration of fast-twitch to slow-twitch muscle fiber. This is what determines the true potential of a sprinter.

so if you have sprinter a) who has learned perfect 40 form and gotten down to 5% body fat and sprinter b) who has ok form and 9% body fat and they both run a 4.5 40, who has the most potential to run quickly? Who is going to be faster when you throw them on a field and take away the structure and predictability of a 40 yard dash?

And this is why distance runners and sprinters don't get along. We (distance runners) despise their reliance on natural talent. It might be possible to run a 4.5s 40 with 9% body fat and very little training, but it's not at all possible to run a 22 minute 8K with 9% body fat and very little training.

Two things: 1) This only applies to performance at the margins. Yes, of the two sprinters who train to get to the top of their game in the 40, the one with a better ratio of fast twitch:slow twitch muscles will win. However, 2) this obviously does not carry over when you change the length of the race (see example above).

How this line of reasoning applies to LSAT vs. law school should be obvious. Different races.

Are you saying there's no role for natural talent in distance running? Like, long legs and a high proportion of slow twitch muscle wouldn't give one a natural advantage?

Anyway, the proper analogy is not LSAT=40 and Law School=8K. A much more appropriate analogy is to say LSAT is like the combine and law school is like the NFL. What the LSAT and combine are trying to measure is potential, but there are a ton of things you can do to get better at the tests without necessarily getting better at the game. Genetic potential is a thing, as are skills developed over a lifetime that can't be crammed into one or two years of intensive training.

That being said, it is clearly to any one individual's advantage to train like crazy for the combine/LSAT.

[ymmv]

I tend to think that most reverse splitters like me were just academically smart enough to excel in undergrad but too practically stupid to do our research on the LSAT and study properly for it. Also lazy, because I did have some inkling from early TLS lurking that studying for the LSAT was something I should have dedicated more than a weekend to.

Extra kicking of myself because the logic games were my shit section and could easily have been improved.

[Straw_Mandible]

Are you saying there's no role for natural talent in distance running? Like, long legs and a high proportion of slow twitch muscle wouldn't give one a natural advantage?

Anyway, the proper analogy is not LSAT=40 and Law School=8K. A much more appropriate analogy is to say LSAT is like the combine and law school is like the NFL. What the LSAT and combine are trying to measure is potential, but there are a ton of things you can do to get better at the tests without necessarily getting better at the game. Genetic potential is a thing, as are skills developed over a lifetime that can't be crammed into one or two years of intensive training.

That being said, it is clearly to any one individual's advantage to train like crazy for the combine/LSAT.

Of course genetic advantages and disadvantages are a real thing. But I firmly believe that with the right amount (and the right kind) of training, nearly any of those disadvantages can be overcome. The sad truth, however, is that most people in this world aren't willing to do that kind of work. Instead, they resign, throw up their hands, write their failures off to "Genetics," and move on with their lives. If there's anything I hope to teach my children before I die, it's to have the strength not to resent me for the genes I gave them. Human perfection can be achieved--it just has to happen one genetic disadvantage at a time.

[WheatThins]

I'd imagine that people who score under their potential could do better than others in law school. But if you're too lazy to max out the lsat you're probably too lazy to do well in school too

[Power_of_Facing]

Why is this about distance running? The real champions are the middle distance guys who have the pain tolerance of the distance slowpokes and the swagger of the sprinters.

How this relates to the lsat? Donno. I'd imagine that people who score under their potential could do better than others in law school. But if you're too lazy to max out the lsat you're probably too lazy to do well in school too

This has been a fascinating thread to read.

[NYSprague]

People are so invested in the LSAT as a measure of their worth. This thread and the LSAX disability thread have been eye opening.

I don't know the LSAT score of anyone, not on TLS or irl. It just isn't relevant unless you decide to be a tutor. Grades matter, but outside of postings on the firm website, I know the grades of one person from my firm.

[Theopliske8711]

People have invested a lot of time studying and have become accustomed to impressing ppl with their score and a result they really identify it.

[cotiger]

Have not read this thread, but I get the feeling you two are strawman-ing.

The only people who I've told my LSAT score to are my SO and my parents.

You know the tls mantra of $$$ or gtfo? LSAT is the biggest determinant of whether you get that or not. If I had scored three points less on my LSAT, I would either be going hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt or going to a regional school.

LSAT isn't a big deal bc of vanity or a measure of self-worth. It's a BFD because it's the difference between crippling debt and going for free.

[Straw_Mandible]

People have invested a lot of time studying and have become accustomed to impressing ppl with their score and a result they really identify it.

You're definitely strawman-ing. (Trust me; I'm the expert.)

I would never think of telling someone else my LSAT score. That would be strange and sperglordish, and I'm sure nearly nobody studies for the LSAT for the sake of "impressing ppl."

I study for the obvious admissions/scholarship benefits that cotiger identified, and also because I genuinely enjoy the feeling of becoming better at a skill that doesn't come to me naturally.

Also, RIP Pre. Your mustache was as glorious; your work ethic superhuman. The more you trained, the more irrelevant your talent became.

[A. Nony Mouse]

But people in this and the other thread do seem awfully invested in the idea that the LSAT has some kind of significant meaning apart from its role in admissions.

[Theopliske8711]

I definitely do think that people get defensive about the usefulness of the LSAT because they really want to believe that it measures something about their abilities. I'm not saying you do in particular, Straw, but I think many do become attached to it.

[Straw_Mandible]

But people in this and the other thread do seem awfully invested in the idea that the LSAT has some kind of significant meaning apart from its role in admissions.

It's a difficult test. Succeeding at difficult things can be rewarding and meaningful. I see nothing wrong with this.