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

[Big Dog]

People aren't going from average reasoning abilities to top 1% by just taking a test over and over.

You were a STEM major, yes, DF? If so, you come already equipped with reasoning skills (which I assume is evidenced by the fact that you aced the SAT-M?).

However, there are average reasoning skills and average reasoning skills, and by that I mean that some majors teach them, most do not. One needs reasoning skills to do well in HS Geom - but not Alg I, and for Organic Chem (as well as for most Engin. courses). However, 'Studies' majors can skate by with little/no reasoning skills. It's not that such folks don't have an innate ability for 'reasoning', but doing well in college just don't require the use of such skills in many majors.

Thus, prepping for the LSAT is not always punching above one's weight class, but just training the brain to use it's innate ability.

Thought about another way: someone with an average IQ of 100 has neither the innate ability nor the processing speed (think pc-RAM) to clear 170. Such a score is impossible for that person. But someone with an IQ of, say, 132 (top 5%?) has both the innate ability and the processing power to get to ~170. However, they may need to brush up/strengthen/train their reasoning skills to get over 165.

[Tyr]

What is the difference between learning how to take the LSAT (thus, it would appear in your opinion, not really deserving the score) and learning how to be a good student in law school? Many things are simply a matter of learning "the system." Learning the LSAT system gets you a better score and hopefully into a better school. Learning the law school system hopefully gets you better grades and a better job. Just because you learn how to be a better student (and as you say it, game the system), does that mean you don't deserve the good job that follows?

So, it doesn't matter.

[Theopliske8711]

What is the difference between learning how to take the LSAT (thus, it would appear in your opinion, not really deserving the score) and learning how to be a good student in law school?

I'm a 0L, but I'm guessing the fact that you have only one chance to take a 1L test makes a world of difference.

[09042014]

What is the difference between learning how to take the LSAT (thus, it would appear in your opinion, not really deserving the score) and learning how to be a good student in law school? Many things are simply a matter of learning "the system." Learning the LSAT system gets you a better score and hopefully into a better school. Learning the law school system hopefully gets you better grades and a better job. Just because you learn how to be a better student (and as you say it, game the system), does that mean you don't deserve the good job that follows?

So, it doesn't matter.

Flaw in the reasoning: you assume that they are as gamble as each other.

[180kickflip]

As someone with a crap 1st LSAT trying to study my way to a score worth applying with, I definitely hope this scenario isn't real. It does make some sense though. I don't think I'm getting more skilled at much of anything beyond this test, so if my score is expected to predict 20% of my 1st year or whatever, thats gonna be 20% I'm overrated at.

On the other side, I think people who dedicate more time to their studies than most and succeed based partly because of that, may carry some of those study habits with them.

[09042014]

As someone with a crap 1st LSAT trying to study my way to a score worth applying with, I definitely hope this scenario isn't real. It does make some sense though. I don't think I'm getting more skilled at much of anything beyond this test, so if my score is expected to predict 20% of my 1st year or whatever, thats gonna be 20% I'm overrated at.

On the other side, I think people who dedicate more time to their studies than most and succeed based partly because of that, may carry some of those study habits with them.

Everyone studies hard in law school. You won't find much advantage there.

But the LSAT is a terrible predictor of grades for an individual anyway. And the better school / lower debt is still well worth the effort.

[Tyr]

What is the difference between learning how to take the LSAT (thus, it would appear in your opinion, not really deserving the score) and learning how to be a good student in law school? Many things are simply a matter of learning "the system." Learning the LSAT system gets you a better score and hopefully into a better school. Learning the law school system hopefully gets you better grades and a better job. Just because you learn how to be a better student (and as you say it, game the system), does that mean you don't deserve the good job that follows?

So, it doesn't matter.

Flaw in the reasoning: you assume that they are as gamble as each other.

No flaw. Also, the "gamble" of the scenario is irrelevant. We're simply talking about executing the learned/innate skill. People can learn how to do both and come out ahead in both. However, there are people who can only learn how to do one or the other. In either case they will suffer if they don't learn the test or learn how to be a better student. What I'm saying is that a person can learn how to take the LSAT then go on to be successful in law school. But, by no means is it a guarantee. I'm a firm believer that standardized tests are bad indicators of skills in other areas.

[09042014]

What is the difference between learning how to take the LSAT (thus, it would appear in your opinion, not really deserving the score) and learning how to be a good student in law school? Many things are simply a matter of learning "the system." Learning the LSAT system gets you a better score and hopefully into a better school. Learning the law school system hopefully gets you better grades and a better job. Just because you learn how to be a better student (and as you say it, game the system), does that mean you don't deserve the good job that follows?

So, it doesn't matter.

Flaw in the reasoning: you assume that they are as gamble as each other.

No flaw. Also, the "gamble" of the scenario is irrelevant. We're simply talking about executing the learned/innate skill. People can learn how to do both and come out ahead in both. However, there are people who can only learn how to do one or the other. In either case they will suffer if they don't learn the test or learn how to be a better student. What I'm saying is that a person can learn how to take the LSAT then go on to be successful in law school. But, by no means is it a guarantee. I'm a firm believer that standardized tests are bad indicators of skills in other areas.

Yes flaw. Law school is significantly harder to game for a variety of reasons. The atmosphere encourages everyone to study hard, the LSAT doesn't. You don't get to take 50 prep tests that show all your errors. Most likely you'll get zero real prep tests. The tests themselves are much more different from each other than LSAT tests are. There aren't little tricks and patterns you pick up that will help you.

What I'm saying is that a person can learn how to take the LSAT then go on to be successful in law school. But, by no means is it a guarantee. I'm a firm believer that standardized tests are bad indicators of skills in other areas.[

That's a different story. Of course you can. LSAT isn't that accurate. We are talking big picture here. But your idea that you'll just game law school like you did LSAT is stupid.

[Tyr]

What is the difference between learning how to take the LSAT (thus, it would appear in your opinion, not really deserving the score) and learning how to be a good student in law school? Many things are simply a matter of learning "the system." Learning the LSAT system gets you a better score and hopefully into a better school. Learning the law school system hopefully gets you better grades and a better job. Just because you learn how to be a better student (and as you say it, game the system), does that mean you don't deserve the good job that follows?

So, it doesn't matter.

Flaw in the reasoning: you assume that they are as gamble as each other.

No flaw. Also, the "gamble" of the scenario is irrelevant. We're simply talking about executing the learned/innate skill. People can learn how to do both and come out ahead in both. However, there are people who can only learn how to do one or the other. In either case they will suffer if they don't learn the test or learn how to be a better student. What I'm saying is that a person can learn how to take the LSAT then go on to be successful in law school. But, by no means is it a guarantee. I'm a firm believer that standardized tests are bad indicators of skills in other areas.

Yes flaw. Law school is significantly harder to game for a variety of reasons. The atmosphere encourages everyone to study hard, the LSAT doesn't. You don't get to take 50 prep tests that show all your errors. Most likely you'll get zero real prep tests. The tests themselves are much more different from each other than LSAT tests are. There aren't little tricks and patterns you pick up that will help you.

What I'm saying is that a person can learn how to take the LSAT then go on to be successful in law school. But, by no means is it a guarantee. I'm a firm believer that standardized tests are bad indicators of skills in other areas.[

That's a different story. Of course you can. LSAT isn't that accurate. We are talking big picture here. But your idea that you'll just game law school like you did LSAT is stupid.

No no no. I'm not saying that you can game the LSAT in the same way that you can game law school. You misunderstand what I mean. Of course you can't just learn tricks to become a great student in school. But, I'm saying you can learn how to be a better student. Sure, it's monumentally more difficult, but it can be done. That's all I'm saying. It can be done, but would I bet money on it? Nope.

[09042014]

Flaw in the reasoning: you assume that they are as gamble as each other.

No flaw. Also, the "gamble" of the scenario is irrelevant. We're simply talking about executing the learned/innate skill. People can learn how to do both and come out ahead in both. However, there are people who can only learn how to do one or the other. In either case they will suffer if they don't learn the test or learn how to be a better student. What I'm saying is that a person can learn how to take the LSAT then go on to be successful in law school. But, by no means is it a guarantee. I'm a firm believer that standardized tests are bad indicators of skills in other areas.

Yes flaw. Law school is significantly harder to game for a variety of reasons. The atmosphere encourages everyone to study hard, the LSAT doesn't. You don't get to take 50 prep tests that show all your errors. Most likely you'll get zero real prep tests. The tests themselves are much more different from each other than LSAT tests are. There aren't little tricks and patterns you pick up that will help you.

What I'm saying is that a person can learn how to take the LSAT then go on to be successful in law school. But, by no means is it a guarantee. I'm a firm believer that standardized tests are bad indicators of skills in other areas.[

That's a different story. Of course you can. LSAT isn't that accurate. We are talking big picture here. But your idea that you'll just game law school like you did LSAT is stupid.

No no no. I'm not saying that you can game the LSAT in the same way that you can game law school. You misunderstand what I mean. Of course you can't just learn tricks to become a great student in school. But, I'm saying you can learn how to be a better student. Sure, it's monumentally more difficult, but it can be done. That's all I'm saying. It can be done, but would I bet money on it? Nope.

To be honest, I don't think you can game Law school like that.

[UnicornHunter]

ITT: people who gamed the LSAT get defensive and misconstrue DF's point. He's talking about expected performance over a large population- on an individual basis, of course it makes sense to game the LSAT.

[Straw_Mandible]

But you can't actually game the LSAT. You can develop reading and reasoning skills that allow you to do well on the LSAT. And those skills don't just disappear when you walk out of the testing center. You use them every day of your life, and you bring them with you to law school.

I don't see why DF thinks that learned ability is qualitatively inferior to innate ability.

[jk148706]

So many lulz itt

Entirely irrelevant and pointless argument

[09042014]

But you can't actually game the LSAT. You can develop reading and reasoning skills that allow you to do well on the LSAT. And those skills don't just disappear when you walk out of the testing center. You use them every day of your life, and you bring them with you to law school.

I don't see why DF thinks that learned ability is qualitatively inferior to innate ability.

But you do actually game the LSAT. It's absurd you don't think that is, at least partially, what is going on. You learn the test patterns, you learn strategies, you learn timing. etc. etc. that apply only to the LSAT.

[09042014]

So many lulz itt

Entirely irrelevant and pointless argument

I don't come into the UVA waitlist thread and shit on you guys for being little weirdos.

[Pneumonia]

But you can't actually game the LSAT. You can develop reading and reasoning skills that allow you to do well on the LSAT. And those skills don't just disappear when you walk out of the testing center. You use them every day of your life, and you bring them with you to law school.

I don't see why DF thinks that learned ability is qualitatively inferior to innate ability.

The bolded is true; what follows is the opposite of true. Because of this relationship, most people equate "developing skills that allow you to do well on the LSAT" to "gaming the LSAT." At maximum real-life LSAT applicability terminates with a slightly better understanding of necessary/sufficient.

LG obviously doesn't help. LR is just about learning how to diagram efficently. Lol at RC skills turning into real life reading comp skills. Lol at reading for content in general on the test.

[jk148706]

So many lulz itt

Entirely irrelevant and pointless argument

I don't come into the UVA waitlist thread and shit on you guys for being little weirdos.

Why little weirdos? Ouch bro

[09042014]

So many lulz itt

Entirely irrelevant and pointless argument

I don't come into the UVA waitlist thread and shit on you guys for being little weirdos.

Why little weirdos? Ouch bro

Do you guys even lift?

[jk148706]

So many lulz itt

Entirely irrelevant and pointless argument

I don't come into the UVA waitlist thread and shit on you guys for being little weirdos.

Why little weirdos? Ouch bro

Do you guys even lift?

Lold irl

Glad DF is back

[Straw_Mandible]

But you can't actually game the LSAT. You can develop reading and reasoning skills that allow you to do well on the LSAT. And those skills don't just disappear when you walk out of the testing center. You use them every day of your life, and you bring them with you to law school.

I don't see why DF thinks that learned ability is qualitatively inferior to innate ability.

But you do actually game the LSAT. It's absurd you don't think that is, at least partially, what is going on. You learn the test patterns, you learn strategies, you learn timing. etc. etc. that apply only to the LSAT.

Totally true. But isn't it possible that in the process of learning how to see those patterns, apply those strategies, and think under those conditions, we are developing general cognitive abilities that match those of the LSAT 'natural'?

The basic disagreement here seems to be about the nature of intelligence. DF thinks it's some kind of general, immutable measurement of worth. I see it as a (large, undefined) set of skills, many of which can be learned. Insofar as those skills are measured by the LSAT, we should be able to assume that the natural 170 and the learned 170 are of equal ability.

[Elston Gunn]

Unless your contention is that literally 100% of what you learn to improve your LSAT score improves your general reasoning skills to exactly the same degree, then it seems pretty obvious that the correlation between LSATs and LS grades is going to be smaller for people who studied a lot.

[Straw_Mandible]

Unless your contention is that literally 100% of what you learn to improve your LSAT score improves your general reasoning skills to exactly the same degree, then it seems pretty obvious that the correlation between LSATs and LS grades is going to be smaller for people who studied a lot.

I wouldn't even need to assume that much, if you allow for the possibility that the LSAT 'natural' has specific skills that are better aligned with success on the LSAT, but his general cognitive abilities are not necessarily stronger overall.

Everyone who takes this position seems to also believe that the LSAT is not a strong predictor of success in law school. If this is true, then isn't it possible that someone who has to learn skills to perform well on the LSAT could be 'naturally' equipped with stronger abilities in areas that are relevant to success in law school?

The contradiction should be obvious: DF is saying that (1) the skills tested by the LSAT are irrelevant to anything outside of the LSAT; and (2) LSAT 'naturals'--by virtue of being naturally good at the skills tested by the LSAT--will also be naturally strong in the areas that are relevant to success in law school. Does not compute.

[Elston Gunn]

Unless your contention is that literally 100% of what you learn to improve your LSAT score improves your general reasoning skills to exactly the same degree, then it seems pretty obvious that the correlation between LSATs and LS grades is going to be smaller for people who studied a lot.

I wouldn't even need to assume that much, if you allow for the possibility that the LSAT 'natural' has specific skills that are better aligned with success on the LSAT, but his general cognitive abilities are not necessarily stronger overall.

Everyone who takes this position seems to also believe that the LSAT is not a strong predictor of success in law school. If this is true, then isn't it possible that someone who has to learn skills to perform well on the LSAT could be 'naturally' equipped with stronger abilities in areas that are relevant to success in law school?

The contradiction should be obvious: DF is saying that (1) the skills tested by the LSAT are irrelevant to anything outside of the LSAT; and (2) LSAT 'naturals'--by virtue of being naturally good at the skills tested by the LSAT--will also be naturally strong in the areas that are relevant to success in law school. Does not compute.

No. He's saying the LSAT is pretty good (over a big population) at testing skills that correlate with law school success when taken cold, but, like any standardized test, can be "gamed" by learning the tricks. Obviously if you can sit down with an RC section for the first time, without knowing any LSAT tells, and get a -0, you've got some reading skills. If instead you learn that "first question is always main point so blah blah blah," that hasn't actually helped you with anything but the LSAT.

[Straw_Mandible]

No. He's saying the LSAT is pretty good (over a big population) at testing skills that correlate with law school success when taken cold, but, like any standardized test, can be "gamed" by learning the tricks. Obviously if you can sit down with an RC section for the first time, without knowing any LSAT tells, and get a -0, you've got some reading skills. If instead you learn that "first question is always main point so blah blah blah," that hasn't actually helped you with anything but the LSAT.

And I'd say that if you can sit down with an RC section after six months of studying and get a -0, you've also got some reading skills. The fact that you didn't have them six months ago is irrelevant.

The tricks don't work. If they did, this would all be a lot easier.

[Elston Gunn]

No. He's saying the LSAT is pretty good (over a big population) at testing skills that correlate with law school success when taken cold, but, like any standardized test, can be "gamed" by learning the tricks. Obviously if you can sit down with an RC section for the first time, without knowing any LSAT tells, and get a -0, you've got some reading skills. If instead you learn that "first question is always main point so blah blah blah," that hasn't actually helped you with anything but the LSAT.

And I'd say that if you can sit down with an RC section after six months of studying and get a -0, you've also got some reading skills. The fact that you didn't have them six months ago is irrelevant.

The tricks don't work. If they did, this would all be a lot easier.

Yep, knowing what diagram to make for an unbalanced ordering game (or whatever they're called) is definitely the mark of a superior intellect and not someone who has learned a trick.