Self-Study Entirely or Tutor/Class? Forum

[StandupPaddler]

That sort of calls your credibility into question. Everyone else who works/worked for a company says which one.

Seems weird you worked for "several" in a short period of time. Was thinking your views might be biased if you got canned repeatedly.

Hahaha, or maybe I went to law school and I don't like outting myself. Also I don't recall specifying a time frame. Plenty of people here will vouch for me, don't worry. Which course did you take? I really couldn't care less who does or doesn't take an LSAT class, chill... Also find me an instructor here that thinks taking a typical group LSAT class with a 164 diagnostic is a good idea please.

I'm not advocating the opposite viewpoint. But it's hard to believe you worked for several LSAT companies in the short interval between taking the test and going to law school. I mean, who does that?

If you want us to play a guessing game, at least say who you think the "major companies" are. Aren't there a lot of companies in NY? And give us details about the 164+ scorers who were in your classes but didn't see improvement.

[StandupPaddler]

That sort of calls your credibility into question. Everyone else who works/worked for a company says which one.

Seems weird you worked for "several" in a short period of time. Was thinking your views might be biased if you got canned repeatedly.

Meh, no need to be adversarial or suspicious of people that are trying to be helpful and giving good advice. Clearly gave solid advice and he's a legit LSAT teacher with a lot of experience teaching LSAT classes and tutoring students and was never canned by any prep companies. I know him and vouch for him. His post history alone speaks for itself about his LSAT expertise so I don't see the need for him to post his private personal work history information here like one would do on LinkedIn. It's not like he's trying to sell or promote anything or trying to get another LSAT teaching job, he's currently a law student at a T14 law school.

Anyway, taking an LSAT prep class would be a waste of time for somebody already scoring ~165+ range on fully timed test day conditions PT's. It's the 90th+% score range and one has to already know and have a solid grasp of all the LSAT fundamentals prep courses teach to score that high on timed PT's.

Let's say test taker X had a 165, and instructor Y who worked for company Z had a 177. Missing 5 is arguably 4 times better than missing 20. Couldn't the 165 test taker learn something taking a class taught by a 177 test taker?

Not trying to be a dick, just trying to find out why he thinks a class wouldn't help, especially if the instructor was good and the class provided other helpful stuff (explanations, etc.)

[artistar]

Just self study.

[A. Nony Mouse]

That sort of calls your credibility into question. Everyone else who works/worked for a company says which one.

Seems weird you worked for "several" in a short period of time. Was thinking your views might be biased if you got canned repeatedly.

Hahaha, or maybe I went to law school and I don't like outting myself. Also I don't recall specifying a time frame. Plenty of people here will vouch for me, don't worry. Which course did you take? I really couldn't care less who does or doesn't take an LSAT class, chill... Also find me an instructor here that thinks taking a typical group LSAT class with a 164 diagnostic is a good idea please.

I'm not advocating the opposite viewpoint. But it's hard to believe you worked for several LSAT companies in the short interval between taking the test and going to law school. I mean, who does that?

If you want us to play a guessing game, at least say who you think the "major companies" are. Aren't there a lot of companies in NY? And give us details about the 164+ scorers who were in your classes but didn't see improvement.

You're assuming that the interval between taking the LSAT and going to school is short. It doesn't need to be.

[Clearly]

Indeed I took 2.5 years off between the two, also what's with the demanding I tell you details about students? It comes off as a little crazy...

You don't have to believe me, of course you'll get better in a course just because of the forced practice, but the reality is the content of courses isn't designed for 164+ scorers, it's designed for the least common denominator. You can take PTs on your own, or take a more advanced online class at your own pace and you'll get better results for cheaper.

[Clearly]

That sort of calls your credibility into question. Everyone else who works/worked for a company says which one.

Seems weird you worked for "several" in a short period of time. Was thinking your views might be biased if you got canned repeatedly.

Meh, no need to be adversarial or suspicious of people that are trying to be helpful and giving good advice. Clearly gave solid advice and he's a legit LSAT teacher with a lot of experience teaching LSAT classes and tutoring students and was never canned by any prep companies. I know him and vouch for him. His post history alone speaks for itself about his LSAT expertise so I don't see the need for him to post his private personal work history information here like one would do on LinkedIn. It's not like he's trying to sell or promote anything or trying to get another LSAT teaching job, he's currently a law student at a T14 law school.

Anyway, taking an LSAT prep class would be a waste of time for somebody already scoring ~165+ range on fully timed test day conditions PT's. It's the 90th+% score range and one has to already know and have a solid grasp of all the LSAT fundamentals prep courses teach to score that high on timed PT's.

Let's say test taker X had a 165, and instructor Y who worked for company Z had a 177. Missing 5 is arguably 4 times better than missing 20. Couldn't the 165 test taker learn something taking a class taught by a 177 test taker?

Not trying to be a dick, just trying to find out why he thinks a class wouldn't help, especially if the instructor was good and the class provided other helpful stuff (explanations, etc.)

Please reread my earlier post. I'm the one who pointed out that reasoning, then you practically quote it to argue against what I'm saying? If you'll recall, all along I've said not to rule out a private tutor, and that a 175+ can very much help a 164. I know because I've done it. The only thing I'm saying is that a CLASS is not the right setting for that, because you're gonna learn things you already know and the teacher will tailor the class to the 140 in the room. At that point you're getting little more than a few proctored tests and getting to feel good about yourself, and it's not the best way to proceed...

[StandupPaddler]

So when you were teaching classes you tailored them to the 140 in the room? I wonder if that approach is the exception or the norm. It'd be cool if others with in-class teaching experience would weigh in here.

[Clearly]

So when you were teaching classes you tailored them to the 140 in the room? I wonder if that approach is the exception or the norm. It'd be cool if others with in-class teaching experience would weigh in here.

It's not even so much a conscious dubbing down, it's that the book you're working out of is designed for 140 students, the whole experience is engineered for them. they have to teach basic material that obviously is going to be redundant to a 90th percentile scorer.

[StandupPaddler]

So everyone who teaches these classes dumbs down what they teach...subconsciously.

Damn these companies! I bet they devote entire class sessions to teaching "If X then Y and If Y then Z then If X then Z." And I bet the folks who wrote their books scored in the 140s themselves. Your argument is very convincing.

[Clearly]

Alrighty, I can see now you're a troll. Have fun with that.