Kaplan course worth $1398 for high score Forum

[tomwatts]

Then care to offer justifications for the other 2 things I listed? I'd especially like to hear your justification for telling minorities that they will do worse on the test.

Mis-spoke slightly. I don't say, "You're black. You will do worse." But if anyone asks, I do acknowledge that the LSAT shows racial bias. It's simply a statistical fact. Now, individual people can overcome that, so it would be horribly prejudiced and stupid to say that any one person will perform better or worse because of race, and I seriously doubt that anyone actually told any of your students that in so many words. However, the test is biased.

As far as taking games questions out of order, the main thing is that we suggest doing Specific questions (the ones that start with the word "If," basically") before General questions (most of the rest of the questions), the reason being that it is fairly common that work that you've done on Specific questions can help you eliminate answers on General questions so that you don't have to try a whole bunch of hypotheticals; you've already written out a bunch of possibilities in answering the other questions. That's about it.

Or you might be referring to doing the games themselves out of order, which is a complicated thing. For people who have time problems, it is often useful to make sure that they do the hardest game in the section last, which means taking a quick glance at each game (maybe 10 seconds at most) to assess whether it's going to be awful before doing it. The idea is that you then skip a game or two on the first pass through the section, so that they don't suck up a ton of your time and leave with no time for easy games that you could definitely do if you had only gotten to them. This helps a lot of students, but exactly how this plays out is obviously quite individual.

[glewz]

'm sure Princeton and Kaplan have some benefit, but they're organizations with lower qualifications and pay for teachers, and LSAT is not their flagship. Neither even teach formal logic, right? I don't understand how you can have an LSAT prep course that doesn't teach formal logic.

You are misinformed. The quals for Princeton Review are similar to those for TM/BP: 98th percentile on a real LSAT. Princeton Review classes also do teach as much formal logic as the LSAT tests (contrapositive, "only if," etc.). I know less about Kaplan, though, so I can't say what they do, but I imagine that it's similar. (Their qualifications for instructors are a little flakier, though.)

To my understanding, Princeton Review came up with their "Hyperlearning" course within the last few years. Prior to that, it was on the same level as Kaplan.

Duno how the Hyperlearning course fares, but I expect that it's >>Kaplan's...but at the same time, I'd trust PS, TM, or BP to do a better job.

[tomwatts]

To my understanding, Princeton Review came up with their "Hyperlearning" course within the last few years. Prior to that, it was on the same level as Kaplan.

I don't think anyone is asking which test prep course they should've taken back in 2006. I think people are asking about test prep courses now.

Duno how the Hyperlearning course fares, but I expect that it's >>Kaplan's...but at the same time, I'd trust PS, TM, or BP to do a better job.

BP as a company is barely older than our Hyperlearning course. This is a silly line of reasoning.

[NYCLSATTutor]

Then care to offer justifications for the other 2 things I listed? I'd especially like to hear your justification for telling minorities that they will do worse on the test.

Mis-spoke slightly. I don't say, "You're black. You will do worse." But if anyone asks, I do acknowledge that the LSAT shows racial bias. It's simply a statistical fact. Now, individual people can overcome that, so it would be horribly prejudiced and stupid to say that any one person will perform better or worse because of race, and I seriously doubt that anyone actually told any of your students that in so many words. However, the test is biased.

Yeah, see, nobody asked the instructor about racial bias, he just sort of decided to say that they would do worse because they are minorities. It was bad enough that the school who was paying for them pressured Princeton Review to fire the instructor, which they eventually did.

That being said if you EVER are going to tell a bunch of kids that they are likely to do worse because of their race, you damn well better have a good plan about how to get rid of the racial biases in the test. That combined with telling them they might as well only try for 3 games was, to them, pretty much writing them off as unable to do well because of their race.

As far as taking games questions out of order, the main thing is that we suggest doing Specific questions (the ones that start with the word "If," basically") before General questions (most of the rest of the questions), the reason being that it is fairly common that work that you've done on Specific questions can help you eliminate answers on General questions so that you don't have to try a whole bunch of hypotheticals; you've already written out a bunch of possibilities in answering the other questions. That's about it.

Yeah. This is really, really dumb. One of the few ways the testwriters help you on the LSAT is to put the games questions in an order in which you can use past work to help you. If you remember what you did previously and how you did it, this is often incredibly helpful.

Or you might be referring to doing the games themselves out of order, which is a complicated thing. For people who have time problems, it is often useful to make sure that they do the hardest game in the section last, which means taking a quick glance at each game (maybe 10 seconds at most) to assess whether it's going to be awful before doing it. The idea is that you then skip a game or two on the first pass through the section, so that they don't suck up a ton of your time and leave with no time for easy games that you could definitely do if you had only gotten to them. This helps a lot of students, but exactly how this plays out is obviously quite individual.

As I said before, it is incredibly hard to tell which games are easier and which are harder before actually getting into the meat of them.

[tomwatts]

I essentially agree with you on the first point — though I think you're blowing an isolated incident out of proportion — and irreconcilably disagree with you on the second two and furthermore disapprove of your generally closed-minded attitude towards it. There are certainly advantages to doing the questions in the order I mentioned; you might try to argue that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, but to do that, you'd have to understand the method in the first place and try to apply it to a number of games. You don't appear to have done that.

But I can definitely train my students to differentiate between most easy games and most hard games within the first 10-20 seconds of looking at a game. The fact that you can't doesn't make it impossible.

[EarlCat]

As far as taking games questions out of order, the main thing is that we suggest doing Specific questions (the ones that start with the word "If," basically") before General questions (most of the rest of the questions), the reason being that it is fairly common that work that you've done on Specific questions can help you eliminate answers on General questions so that you don't have to try a whole bunch of hypotheticals; you've already written out a bunch of possibilities in answering the other questions. That's about it.

Yeah. This is really, really dumb. One of the few ways the testwriters help you on the LSAT is to put the games questions in an order in which you can use past work to help you. If you remember what you did previously and how you did it, this is often incredibly helpful.

Specific questions almost always give you information useful in general questions. The test writers do not put them in that order.

As I said before, it is incredibly hard to tell which games are easier and which are harder before actually getting into the meat of them.

Not true.

[sundance95]

Specific questions almost always give you information useful in general questions. The test writers do not put them in that order.

TBF, this is largely because local or specific questions often force you to do hypotheticals, whereas global or general questions usually test whether you've gotten a major deduction. Of course, if you get the major deduction at first then those questions are simple.

[sundance95]

I can definitely train my students to differentiate between most easy games and most hard games within the first 10-20 seconds of looking at a game.

10-20 seconds x 4 games = 40-80 seconds.

That's kind of a long time to not be progressing through the section, no?

[typ3]

I took the Kaplan class with a Diagnostic of 161. After 3 months I scored a 163. I retook in the fall after using Manhattan LSAT and scored a 170 below my PT average of 172-176 (had to leave the test during my 5th section so lost a few questions). I would strongly recommend Manhattan LSAT (they were purchased by Kaplan a year ago or so but remain independent for producing content)

Pros: You get all the questions and are organized in a nice fashion.

Cons: It's made for the middle 150ish scorers. Stratosphere is a joke.

I would say save the money. Get Manhattan LSAT and use the rest of the money you save to get a private tutor.

[EarlCat]

Specific questions almost always give you information useful in general questions. The test writers do not put them in that order.

TBF, this is largely because local or specific questions often force you to do hypotheticals, whereas global or general questions usually test whether you've gotten a major deduction.

Yes. Specific questions are, by definition, hypotheticals, and general questions are necessarily about deductions (I suppose they could be directly about rules, but that would be silly).

Of course, if you get the major deduction at first then those questions are simple.

If you get all the major deductions, they're all simple and it makes no difference what order you do things in. The question is which course of action is more beneficial when you don't see the important deductions right away.

I can definitely train my students to differentiate between most easy games and most hard games within the first 10-20 seconds of looking at a game.

10-20 seconds x 4 games = 40-80 seconds.

That's kind of a long time to not be progressing through the section, no?

It would only be wasted time on games you skipped, which certainly wouldn't be all four, and it's only wasted if you didn't save even more time (or gain more points in the same amount of time) by skipping the hard ones.

[sundance95]

If you get all the major deductions, they're all simple and it makes no difference what order you do things in. The question is which course of action is more beneficial when you don't see the important deductions right away.

I don't disagree with any of that, but training students to always do the specific questions first seems like a potential timewaster...wouldn't it be better to teach them to take them as they come but skip and come back if they haven't gotten the deduction, or a hypothetical sweep of the prior questions doesn't yield the answer?

[sundance95]

I can definitely train my students to differentiate between most easy games and most hard games within the first 10-20 seconds of looking at a game.

10-20 seconds x 4 games = 40-80 seconds.

That's kind of a long time to not be progressing through the section, no?

It would only be wasted time on games you skipped, which certainly wouldn't be all four, and it's only wasted if you didn't save even more time (or gain more points in the same amount of time) by skipping the hard ones.

Re your edited, I concede that point. I guess the only problem I have is that my understanding is (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you're teaching all students to do this. That seems to be teaching to mediocrity rather than highest potential. Is this something you teach after you work with a student and know they simply can't finish a LG section, or is this standard TPR orthodoxy?

[EarlCat]

If you get all the major deductions, they're all simple and it makes no difference what order you do things in. The question is which course of action is more beneficial when you don't see the important deductions right away.

I don't disagree with any of that, but training students to always do the specific questions first seems like a potential timewaster...wouldn't it be better to teach them to take them as they come but skip and come back if they haven't gotten the deduction, or a hypothetical sweep of the prior questions doesn't yield the answer?

No. It costs probably less than a quarter second to skip a specific question (seriously, how long does it take to read the word "If"?), and if you're really good enough that you don't need any help finding deductions, you've probably got time to spare on the section anyway.

It would only be wasted time on games you skipped, which certainly wouldn't be all four, and it's only wasted if you didn't save even more time (or gain more points in the same amount of time) by skipping the hard ones.

Re your edited, I concede that point. I guess the only problem I have is that my understanding is (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you're teaching all students to do this. That seems to be teaching to mediocrity rather than highest potential. Is this something you teach after you work with a student and know they simply can't finish a LG section, or is this standard TPR orthodoxy?

It's all just game identification, which you should be able to do whether or not you're going to skip games. Someone who should finish all four games had better know how to set up every type of game (which requires first knowing what type of games they are). Someone who should be skipping a game or two is better off knowing that he should skip a particular game after 10 or 20 seconds rather than wishing he had skipped it after 10 or 15 minutes. So if JoeBob really sucks at two-tiered group games with distribution, he'd better know when he's faced with one so he can turn the page.

I won't speak for TPR orthodoxy, but for me, other than helping low-scoring students strategically skip certain questions/games and a little flexibility in RC, I teach the exact same method I use.

[sundance95]

Fair enough.

[NYCLSATTutor]

As far as taking games questions out of order, the main thing is that we suggest doing Specific questions (the ones that start with the word "If," basically") before General questions (most of the rest of the questions), the reason being that it is fairly common that work that you've done on Specific questions can help you eliminate answers on General questions so that you don't have to try a whole bunch of hypotheticals; you've already written out a bunch of possibilities in answering the other questions. That's about it.

Yeah. This is really, really dumb. One of the few ways the testwriters help you on the LSAT is to put the games questions in an order in which you can use past work to help you. If you remember what you did previously and how you did it, this is often incredibly helpful.

Specific questions almost always give you information useful in general questions. The test writers do not put them in that order.

The only reason specific questions would help you for general questions is if you prefer to answer the games just by looking at your previous work and checking to see all the various hypos. If you are doing the games just by doing heaps of hypos then you aren't doing the right.

[NYCLSATTutor]

Specific questions almost always give you information useful in general questions. The test writers do not put them in that order.

TBF, this is largely because local or specific questions often force you to do hypotheticals, whereas global or general questions usually test whether you've gotten a major deduction.

Yes. Specific questions are, by definition, hypotheticals, and general questions are necessarily about deductions (I suppose they could be directly about rules, but that would be silly).

Yeah, no. By hypotheticals, he/she was referring to drawing them out without knowing what you are doing. You should not be drawing out hypos based on a specific question. You should be filling in the additional information and then making deductions from that. If you are trying to do that while lacking a major deduction because you decided to skip around, you are screwed.

Of course, if you get the major deduction at first then those questions are simple.

If you get all the major deductions, they're all simple and it makes no difference what order you do things in. The question is which course of action is more beneficial when you don't see the important deductions right away.

General questions force you to make those deductions and give you clues as to what they are. Specific questions don't.

[EarlCat]

The only reason specific questions would help you for general questions is if you prefer to answer the games just by looking at your previous work and checking to see all the various hypos. If you are doing the games just by doing heaps of hypos then you aren't doing the right.

You know, it's funny how so many people can consistently answer all the games questions correctly in far less than the allotted time despite not "doing the (sic) right."

[EarlCat]

Yeah, no. By hypotheticals, he/she was referring to drawing them out without knowing what you are doing. You should not be drawing out hypos based on a specific question.

Hmmm... I don't think I or tomwatts was advocating that. Let me check.... yep, didn't happen.

[NYCLSATTutor]

The only reason specific questions would help you for general questions is if you prefer to answer the games just by looking at your previous work and checking to see all the various hypos. If you are doing the games just by doing heaps of hypos then you aren't doing the right.

You know, it's funny how so many people can consistently answer all the games questions correctly in far less than the allotted time despite not "doing the (sic) right."

I call bullshit. If you are answering the games just by doing hypo after hypo after hypo you certainly aren't going to answer all the games questions correctly in far less than the allotted time.

[NYCLSATTutor]

Yeah, no. By hypotheticals, he/she was referring to drawing them out without knowing what you are doing. You should not be drawing out hypos based on a specific question.

Hmmm... I don't think I or tomwatts was advocating that. Let me check.... yep, didn't happen.

Hmm....might want to check the person you quoted and see if I was referring to what they (sundance) said. Its not as if I included their post in quotes or anything.

[EarlCat]

If you are answering the games just by doing hypo after hypo after hypo you certainly aren't going to answer all the games questions correctly in far less than the allotted time.

WTF makes you think doing specific questions first requires doing "hypo after hypo" unless the hypos you're referring to are the specific questions themselves?? Nobody said they were plugging and chugging hypos. Nobody advocated doing so. You're tilting at windmills, dude.

[glewz]

To my understanding, Princeton Review came up with their "Hyperlearning" course within the last few years. Prior to that, it was on the same level as Kaplan.

I don't think anyone is asking which test prep course they should've taken back in 2006. I think people are asking about test prep courses now.

Duno how the Hyperlearning course fares, but I expect that it's >>Kaplan's...but at the same time, I'd trust PS, TM, or BP to do a better job.

BP as a company is barely older than our Hyperlearning course. This is a silly line of reasoning.

Please explain why it's a silly line of reasoning --> If test prep companies (such as TM/PS) have had more time to perfect their already top-notch products, wouldn't they be more likely to have a better course than a PR hyperlearning course that launched itself in 2006? (BP is obviously an exception because it was founded by an ex-TM instructor..)

I've taken the TM course and have seen the BP & PS books. The logic is the same in all three products; what seems to give TM and PS the edge is that their products are so well refined (even in BP books, I spotted a number of errors)...probably because of years of modification.

What seems to help BP sell their courses so well though is their fresh, humor-driven image (and this is reflected in their instructors as well). But PR and Kaplan have been bogged down by their history of mediocre LSAT prep courses - they're hard to trust. Added by the fact that PR so recently launched a Hyperlearning course to Match/Respond to its competitors (98% req), I would obviously recommend students to choose TM, PS, or BP.

[NYCLSATTutor]

If you are answering the games just by doing hypo after hypo after hypo you certainly aren't going to answer all the games questions correctly in far less than the allotted time.

WTF makes you think doing specific questions first requires doing "hypo after hypo" unless the hypos you're referring to are the specific questions themselves?? Nobody said they were plugging and chugging hypos. Nobody advocated doing so. You're tilting at windmills, dude.

It doesn't "require" doing hypo after hypo. However I said:

If you are doing the games just by doing heaps of hypos then you aren't doing the right.

You then attacked my comment saying that:

You know, it's funny how so many people can consistently answer all the games questions correctly in far less than the allotted time despite not "doing the (sic) right."

So, yeah, actually it appears that you, at the very least, defended just doing hypo after hypo after hypo. I said doing it that way wasn't doing it right, you then responded disagreeing with me.

[EarlCat]

It doesn't "require" doing hypo after hypo. However I said:

The only reason specific questions would help you for general questions is if you prefer to answer the games just by looking at your previous work and checking to see all the various hypos. If you are doing the games just by doing heaps of hypos then you aren't doing the right.

FTFY (Way to take your own statements out of context, BTW.)

You then attacked my comment saying that:

You know, it's funny how so many people can consistently answer all the games questions correctly in far less than the allotted time despite not "doing the (sic) right."

So, yeah, actually it appears that you, at the very least, defended just doing hypo after hypo after hypo.

I was attacking your explicit declaration (above) that doing specific questions first is ONLY to see the hypos, which, you concluded was doing it wrong. Should I diagram this for you, Mr. LSAT Tutor?

You:
S-->H-->W
S------->W

Me:
~(S---->W)

You:
Bullshit. H-->W

Me:
facepalm

[NYCLSATTutor]

It doesn't "require" doing hypo after hypo. However I said:

The only reason specific questions would help you for general questions is if you prefer to answer the games just by looking at your previous work and checking to see all the various hypos. If you are doing the games just by doing heaps of hypos then you aren't doing the right.

FTFY (Way to take your own statements out of context, BTW.)

Notice the period denoting separate sentences? When you specifically quote the second sentence, I foolishly, thought you were talking about the second sentence. Pardon me for thinking that what you quoted is what you were referring too.

Please explain exactly what context is necessary. I quoted what YOU quoted.

You then attacked my comment saying that:
[quoteYou know, it's funny how so many people can consistently answer all the games questions correctly in far less than the allotted time despite not "doing the (sic) right."

So, yeah, actually it appears that you, at the very least, defended just doing hypo after hypo after hypo.

I love how you take your own statements out of context. I was attacking your explicit declaration (above) that doing specific questions first is ONLY to see the hypos, which, you concluded was doing it wrong. Should I diagram this for you, Mr. LSAT Tutor?

You:
S-->H-->W
S------->W

Me:
~(S---->W)

You:
Bullshit. H-->W

Me:
facepalm

Really? You said ~(S --> W)?

Care to point exactly where in your statement of "You know, it's funny how so many people can consistently answer all the games questions correctly in far less than the allotted time despite not "doing the (sic) right."" you said ~(S-->W). Good luck with that. See, the way translations work is that in order to get the variable S you actually have to SAY the word that S is referring too (ostensibly in this case "specific"). You didn't.