How much do folks study for LSAT Forum

[jgloster]

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.

TITCR. Now if only I can find similar research about the LSAT...

[SaintsTheMetal]

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.

Studying for the SAT is definitely not going to be indicative of studying for the LSAT. The AR section of the LSAT especially, I do think anyone could get -0, or close it. That alone will get you a decent score.

[cc.celina]

I do think anyone could get -0, or close it

I don't know, I don't entirely buy it. My boyfriend says the same thing about multivariable calc tests, on the grounds that "calculus just makes so much sense!"

[Nova]

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.

TROLLOLOLOL

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.

+1

Thank you.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

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.

SAT =/= LSAT. Just taking the games section alone, the average test-taker should be able to make significant improvements on the section. I really don't care who you are, if you are able to put in the effort you should be able to improve on games (unless you are already starting out at almost near perfect--but even that person should probably be able to become somewhat consistent at missing 0).

[SaintsTheMetal]

I do think anyone could get -0, or close it

I don't know, I don't entirely buy it. My boyfriend says the same thing about multivariable calc tests, on the grounds that "calculus just makes so much sense!"

Lol well I would probably say the same about calc, but still, the level of synthesis is not even close between the two. Once you've done a few hundred games, you've really seen every question they could possibly through at you dozens of times. They don't usually come up with unique scenarios for AR sections, they are just regurgitations of previous questions with superficial changes.

TITCR. Now if only I can find similar research about the LSAT...

As for the LSAT, I have never looked into it as I have with the SAT, but these may be a good place to start:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2 ... 6242492183
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?c ... &id=&page=

Although, I would bet my left nut that it will be significantly lower than the SAT

[mindarmed]

I do think anyone could get -0, or close it

I don't know, I don't entirely buy it. My boyfriend says the same thing about multivariable calc tests, on the grounds that "calculus just makes so much sense!"

Calculus makes sense, thus LG makes sense.

[cc.celina]

I do think anyone could get -0, or close it

I don't know, I don't entirely buy it. My boyfriend says the same thing about multivariable calc tests, on the grounds that "calculus just makes so much sense!"

Calculus makes sense, thus LG makes sense.

My GPA begs to differ

[RedBirds2011]

I do think anyone could get -0, or close it

I don't know, I don't entirely buy it. My boyfriend says the same thing about multivariable calc tests, on the grounds that "calculus just makes so much sense!"

Calculus makes sense, thus LG makes sense.

My GPA begs to differ

The calculus thing goes along with the "I get it, therefore everyone should get it" fallacy. The LSAT is definitely learnable though.

[TheThriller]

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.

This is not 100% true. For instance, my friend took a 2 practice tests a week before the October Lsat last year, rolled a near perfect on the real thing an is in at Yale. He also had a 4.0+ gpa.

Sometime people are just born with the gift of being a really smart.

[Micdiddy]

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.

This is not 100% true. For instance, my friend took a 2 practice tests a week before the October Lsat last year, rolled a near perfect on the real thing an is in at Yale. He also had a 4.0+ gpa.

Sometime people are just born with the gift of being a really smart.

So much lulz in this thread and THIS is what you decide to argue about?
I concede.

[NoodleyOne]

Hey, he's probably right and he doesn't need to study more for the LSAT.

Thanks for helping the curve, brah.

[TheThriller]

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.

This is not 100% true. For instance, my friend took a 2 practice tests a week before the October Lsat last year, rolled a near perfect on the real thing an is in at Yale. He also had a 4.0+ gpa.

Sometime people are just born with the gift of being a really smart.

So much lulz in this thread and THIS is what you decide to argue about?
I concede.

It was playful

[bdeebs]

I find it very hard to believe that the average person puts more than 50 hours into this test. I may be overestimating the average law school candidate's intelligence, but I feel like a 152 (not the best source, but I'll roll with it) would be a horrible median score if everyone spent even 50 hours studying.

I haven't been keeping track, but I'd estimate that I've spent 300-400 hours.

[PDaddy]

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.

A minimum of 6 months of prep is a good rule of thumb. Some people need up to a year, and that's ok too. It depends on the individual. Very few people can do "well" (earn an optimal score) with just three months of prep, and even fewer can do well with one or two months. The problem is that most people don't know this.

To the poster above,

50 hours is basically three hours per day four days per week for four weeks. That's nothing.

[gatorhoosier]

I took 46 practice LSAT tests over 4 months. My average score or the first 23 tests was about 4 points less than my average score for the second 23 practice tests. On the real thing I scored a bit less the average of my second 23 tests.

I would say, looking back, I could have studied about half as much and scored the same. My big improvement was after the first 5 or 6 practice tests. But, as several lawyers told me when I was studying, it is impossible to over prepare for the LSAT. If you are a gifted and can score 170 in your sleep, more power to you. Anyone else should study a lot. Each point means a ton.

[TyrionLannister]

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.

lolwat?

3hrs./day, 4 days/wk., 1 month of study = the best you can achieve without studying ~10hrs./day, 6days/wk., 8 months of study?

Maybe you aren't studying correctly.

Newsflash: On a test when every single correct answer could determine law school acceptance, as well as translate into thousands of dollars of scholarship money, any increase is a significant increase.

I'd rather spend my time doing other things.

No shit, who wouldn't?

Sometimes in life, we do things because we have to, not because we want to.

[Excellent117]

It is not necessarily about how long you put in to studying for the LSAT, it is about HOW you are using that time while you study. Quality over quantity. Spending hours and hours taking practice tests won't get you anywhere if you don't understand the basic underlying concepts of the questions/sections.

Edit: That being said, once you understand those concepts, drilling questions over and over again so that they become second nature can only help.

[Micdiddy]

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.

This is not 100% true. For instance, my friend took a 2 practice tests a week before the October Lsat last year, rolled a near perfect on the real thing an is in at Yale. He also had a 4.0+ gpa.

Sometime people are just born with the gift of being a really smart.

So much lulz in this thread and THIS is what you decide to argue about?
I concede.

It was playful

Well yeah, I figured it wasn't too serious. Sounds like a sick friend.

[Micdiddy]

Ok, come on. Half the people on this thread are trolls right? How can anyone advocate studying less with a straight face? Sure, maybe the last 50 hours don't add much to your score, but they didn't hurt right? They kept your skills at a maximum, they COULD have done great things, even if they didn't it doesn't mean you spent your time unwisely.
Anyone seriously saying they regret studying a single minute for the LSAT is going to hate their life in 1L anyway, so don't apply to law school at all. Then your regret would at least be justified.

[cc.celina]

A minimum of 6 months of prep is a good rule of thumb.

Whaaat I find this ridiculous. I would run out of prep tests!! Is this really true for most people? If you're good at standardized tests, I don't really see why you would need more than a month... It probably wouldn't hurt to study for six months, but it just seems unnecessary!

How can anyone advocate studying less with a straight face?

Studying too much can make people crazy It's all well and good when you're studying a lot in a healthy way and not neglecting other obligations, but when you study so much it starts robbing you of your mental health, well, it's probably better not to have studied as much.

[pdeturk]

A minimum of 6 months of prep is a good rule of thumb.

Whaaat I find this ridiculous. I would run out of prep tests!! Is this really true for most people? If you're good at standardized tests, I don't really see why you would need more than a month... It probably wouldn't hurt to study for six months, but it just seems unnecessary![/quote]



I don't know if 6 months is legit, but I consider myself good at standardized tests (99% without studying on other exams) and I studied for one month almost exactly 50 hours for my first LSAT administration last October. I made almost no progress during that time.

I have been studying for Monday's exam since March. I don't know how many hours I have put in, but its a much larger number. My greatest progress has come in the last two weeks as concepts and patterns are really finally clicking.

Choosing to be underprepared for this test is ridiculous, especially if you have found TLS and all of the data on the economy that it provides.

[cc.celina]

Of course i'm not advocating choosing to be underprepared, I just think people vary really widely in their baselines for this test, their free time per day, their ability to drop lots of money all at once on PTs, etc. that would make it optimal for some people to study over the span of more than 6 months, and some to study in a more concentrated way for a shorter period of time. Telling people to study "more than X amount of time, minimum" without taking into account their circumstances doesn't really seem to do much good other than to freak people out.

It's a really, really important test, but it IS a test, and the ritual that's built up around it can be counterproductive to one's ability to study and take it with confidence

[Micdiddy]

A minimum of 6 months of prep is a good rule of thumb.

Whaaat I find this ridiculous. I would run out of prep tests!! Is this really true for most people? If you're good at standardized tests, I don't really see why you would need more than a month... It probably wouldn't hurt to study for six months, but it just seems unnecessary!

How can anyone advocate studying less with a straight face?

Studying too much can make people crazy It's all well and good when you're studying a lot in a healthy way and not neglecting other obligations, but when you study so much it starts robbing you of your mental health, well, it's probably better not to have studied as much.

Your reply has a critical flaw http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

[Mr.Binks]

It is not necessarily about how long you put in to studying for the LSAT, it is about HOW you are using that time while you study. Quality over quantity. Spending hours and hours taking practice tests won't get you anywhere if you don't understand the basic underlying concepts of the questions/sections.

Edit: That being said, once you understand those concepts, drilling questions over and over again so that they become second nature can only help.

This. 1000 times.

While I by no means think everyone is capable of a perfect score, I think nearly everyone can improve their score significantly. I find it extremely hard to believe that if you miss a question, then review and understand why you missed it, that you will continually make the same mistake...