LSAT Tutoring (SKYPE)- First 30 Minute Session Is FREE!! Forum

[AffordablePrep]

This is why you don't attend a tier 2, any tier 2 out of your target region. Law schools saying, "Oh we're awesome at placing every where because we have alumni every where" is so goddamn flawed, anybody who doesn't pick up on the fact that this doesn't mean many students who want to work somewhere do find work there or that those who do didn't just have a ridiculous family connection should reconsider their potential as a lawyer.

Also, yes OP's LSAT score isn't that great especially when you consider half of people who take the LSAT never attend law school, but are you telling me that a 163 and a 175 make a big difference when teaching someone with a 135? Wouldn't it be more about teacher experience there? I've seen people with 180s teach 135s, and just think how much of their brilliance goes to waste during the course of an hour long lesson that spends a disproportionate time breaking down what words like "inhibit" and "precede" mean.

[imjustjoking22]

This is why you don't attend a tier 2, any tier 2 out of your target region. Law schools saying, "Oh we're awesome at placing every where because we have alumni every where" is so goddamn flawed, anybody who doesn't pick up on the fact that this doesn't mean many students who want to work somewhere do find work there or that those who do didn't just have a ridiculous family connection should reconsider their potential as a lawyer.

Also, yes OP's LSAT score isn't that great especially when you consider half of people who take the LSAT never attend law school, but are you telling me that a 163 and a 175 make a big difference when teaching someone with a 135? Wouldn't it be more about teacher experience there? I've seen people with 180s teach 135s, and just think how much of their brilliance goes to waste during the course of an hour long lesson that spends a disproportionate time breaking down what words like "inhibit" and "precede" mean.

...your reasoning seems flawed to me.

eta: also, I'd think that in order for that to apply, he should put a disclaimer in his ad:

"note: only people scoring really pathetically are accepted; must have no dreams of going over 163"

Of course, this is -arguably- implied, given his substandard writing abilities and additional lack of credentials.

[tyro]

Also, yes OP's LSAT score isn't that great especially when you consider half of people who take the LSAT never attend law school, but are you telling me that a 163 and a 175 make a big difference when teaching someone with a 135? Wouldn't it be more about teacher experience there? I've seen people with 180s teach 135s, and just think how much of their brilliance goes to waste during the course of an hour long lesson that spends a disproportionate time breaking down what words like "inhibit" and "precede" mean.

This thought crossed my mind as well and it's somewhat of a difficult scenario to address without data to back. Would someone such as Daniel be a better tutor for sub-150 persons who are truly struggling or would the seasoned recorder of multiple 175+ scores be a better tutor overall?

Well this seems like something Daniel could throw into his marketting strategy at the least, even if it proves to be kind of faulty reasoning. Maybe someone like Daniel could better relate to the person who can't crack a 155 and offer some basic techniques (rather than advanced ones) to those who are struggling with the basics.

[Bildungsroman]

Also, yes OP's LSAT score isn't that great especially when you consider half of people who take the LSAT never attend law school, but are you telling me that a 163 and a 175 make a big difference when teaching someone with a 135?

Other things being equal, yes. The person with a 170+ understands the LSAT much better than the person with a 163.

[AffordablePrep]

I was not saying that Dan being a lower scorer would make him better at tutoring people who are in the 130s or 140s than someone in the 170s. I was just saying score does not matter as much there. I think it'd be more experienced based. While I always am comfortable teahing people in the 150s and 160s as long as I have a light load and am refreshed, I find I'm better with those in the 130s and 140s when I am consistently tutoring as it's all being able to teach basic concepts while those with higher scores seem to learn better from just seeing how you approach something, which does noy require as much tutoring experience as much as it requires aptitude with the test and the ability to break down your thought process while assuming that no steps are implied or "obvious". However, OP is offering a free trial so you can't say he's "scamming." There are likely some people he can help, and I imagine that his rates are pretty low. Let's just hope he has some business sense as posting that crap on here shows a bit of naivity that the craigslist clientele can tear to shreads (eg: I'll pay with traveler's checks, I'll pay after the lessons are done, etc.)

[AffordablePrep]

Also, yes OP's LSAT score isn't that great especially when you consider half of people who take the LSAT never attend law school, but are you telling me that a 163 and a 175 make a big difference when teaching someone with a 135?

Other things being equal, yes. The person with a 170+ understands the LSAT much better than the person with a 163.

No doubt, but I think teaching experience is more important with low scorers than a few points on the LSAT. I do agree that a 163, though, the more I think about it is prob. too low unless it was all stress based. Many people with a 163 get tutoring for a retake.

[JamMasterJ]

Also, yes OP's LSAT score isn't that great especially when you consider half of people who take the LSAT never attend law school, but are you telling me that a 163 and a 175 make a big difference when teaching someone with a 135?

Other things being equal, yes. The person with a 170+ understands the LSAT much better than the person with a 163.

I think I agree with this too, though there are some definite exceptions. A person like Dave Hall is a strong tutor for about any level of test-taker, but there are some examples of people with Diagnostic scores of 178 who seem unable to see why people can't understand seemingly basic principles of the test. I think a slightly above average test-taker that is a below average teacher may be better for someone in the 140s than a top-notch test-taker that is a below average teacher, but in virtually all other situations, the high scorer is going to be better suited for any level of student.

[AffordablePrep]

I still don't see why the 163 would be better, and not just not necessarily worse. If you want basketball lessons and can learn from someone who played division 2 or kobe bryant, if you're terrible at b-ball then the div 2 guy isn't necessarily a worse teacher, but he isn't necessarily better than Kobe who may be better at both the basics and the advanced stuff than the div 2 guy. You cannot assume that the 163 is better at anything other than getting more questiobs wrong unless he shows some evidence suggesting otherwise.

[birdlaw117]

I still don't see why the 163 would be better, and not just not necessarily worse. If you want basketball lessons and can learn from someone who played division 2 or kobe bryant, if you're terrible at b-ball then the div 2 guy isn't necessarily a worse teacher, but he isn't necessarily better than Kobe who may be better at both the basics and the advanced stuff than the div 2 guy. You cannot assume that the 163 is better at anything other than getting more questiobs wrong unless he shows some evidence suggesting otherwise.

I feel like it's pretty safe to say Kobe IS better at both than the D-II guy

[071816]

Damnit. This thread isn't funny anymore.

[dr123]

I still don't see why the 163 would be better, and not just not necessarily worse. If you want basketball lessons and can learn from someone who played division 2 or kobe bryant, if you're terrible at b-ball then the div 2 guy isn't necessarily a worse teacher, but he isn't necessarily better than Kobe who may be better at both the basics and the advanced stuff than the div 2 guy. You cannot assume that the 163 is better at anything other than getting more questiobs wrong unless he shows some evidence suggesting otherwise.

I feel like it's pretty safe to say Kobe IS better at both than the D-II guy

Eh, a lot of the best coaches had pretty mediocre careers in their playing days, see: Phil Jackson, Urban Meyer, etc. On the flipside there's guys like isaiah Thomas who were great players turned awful coaches.

[vanwinkle]

Damnit. This thread isn't funny anymore.