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

[Straw_Mandible]

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.

Diagrams are not cheap tricks. They're organizational tools. They don't solve questions for you. You still have to understand and apply the reasoning relationships in order to get questions right.

[09042014]

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.

Diagrams are not cheap tricks. They're organizational tools. They don't solve questions for you. You still have to understand and apply the reasoning relationships in order to get questions right.

It's not a cheap trick, but it's a strategy that increases your score and is really only useful for the test.

[Straw_Mandible]

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.

Diagrams are not cheap tricks. They're organizational tools. They don't solve questions for you. You still have to understand and apply the reasoning relationships in order to get questions right.

It's not a cheap trick, but it's a strategy that increases your score and is really only useful for the test.

Sure, learning strategies helps you increase your score. But it doesn't do so magically. Even diagrams in LG -- far and away the most game-able section of the test -- are just techniques for organizing information and representing reasoning relationships. Learning how to draw a diagram will not increase your score unless you actually understand what it represents and how to apply it. The only difference between the learned -0 and the cold -0 is that one of them had to train to develop those basic understandings and the other one didn't.

[09042014]

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.

Diagrams are not cheap tricks. They're organizational tools. They don't solve questions for you. You still have to understand and apply the reasoning relationships in order to get questions right.

It's not a cheap trick, but it's a strategy that increases your score and is really only useful for the test.

Sure, learning strategies helps you increase your score. But it doesn't do so magically. Even diagrams in LG -- far and away the most game-able section of the test -- are just techniques for organizing information and representing reasoning relationships. Learning how to draw a diagram will not increase your score unless you actually understand what it represents and how to apply it. The only difference between the learned -0 and the cold -0 is that one of them had to train to develop those basic understandings and the other one didn't.

It's a technique that has exactly zero real world application. It definitely doesn't have any application on law exams.

The only difference between the learned -0 and the cold -0 is that one of them had to train to develop those basic understandings and the other one didn't.

That's just not true.

[Theopliske8711]

The only difference between the learned -0 and the cold -0 is that one of them had to train to develop those basic understandings and the other one didn't.

No... just... no. It's quite clear that the former has some innate ability that gives him/her a distinct advantage. Life doesn't work like the LSAT. You are very rarely given an indeterminate amount of time to perfect something and get it right. The latter may have learned how to do well on the LSAT, but in that time the former has very probably moved on to other things.

[Straw_Mandible]

The only difference between the learned -0 and the cold -0 is that one of them had to train to develop those basic understandings and the other one didn't.

No... just... no. It's quite clear that the former has some innate ability that gives him/her a distinct advantage. Life doesn't work like the LSAT. You are very rarely given an indeterminate amount of time to perfect something and get it right. The latter may have learned how to do well on the LSAT, but in that time the former has very probably moved on to other things.

I think you're assuming a lot about these natural-born geniuses.

The fact that they were naturally good at the LSAT tells us only that they were naturally good at the LSAT. Why are you claiming that it means something else?

[Elston Gunn]

The only difference between the learned -0 and the cold -0 is that one of them had to train to develop those basic understandings and the other one didn't.

No... just... no. It's quite clear that the former has some innate ability that gives him/her a distinct advantage. Life doesn't work like the LSAT. You are very rarely given an indeterminate amount of time to perfect something and get it right. The latter may have learned how to do well on the LSAT, but in that time the former has very probably moved on to other things.

I think you're assuming a lot about these natural-born geniuses.

The fact that they were naturally good at the LSAT tells us only that they were naturally good at the LSAT. Why are you claiming that it means something else?

Social science research done before the growth of the test-prep industrial complex.

[Straw_Mandible]

.

[Elston Gunn]

Social science research done before the growth of the test-prep industrial complex.

And that research tells us that LSAT naturals are all-around geniuses who shit rainbows all over us plebes who have to spend time acquiring skills?

You are boring.

[Straw_Mandible]

Sorry.

[hopeful 0L]

Social science research done before the growth of the test-prep industrial complex.

And that research tells us that LSAT naturals are all-around geniuses who shit rainbows all over us plebes who have to spend time acquiring skills?

I feel like you're assuming a static performance level for the innate high-scorer.

What happens when the innate high-scorer puts in equal effort to the little-engine-that-could high score earner? Why can't the innate high-scorer improve to the same degree as the student that had to work 6 months for that same score? You're assuming that there's no cap on the degree to which one can improve. Now obviously, we're not talking about absolutes here. Still, as unscientific as this may be...As a 167 1st-time taker, I would rather go up against A) someone that (assuming roughly equal prep time) scored 158, then 173 after 6-9 addition months of studying than B) someone that (again assuming equal prep time to my own) scored 173 on the first crack and had the same 9 months for other pursuits.

I don't know, but the basketball-tennis analogy from earlier makes sense to me.

[Theopliske8711]

Simply put: someone who scores a 170 after 8 months of study has put a lot of effort into learning the ins and outs of the test; someone who took 4 weeks to get the same score is using what are clearly more applicable skills, they did not rely on heavy familiarity.

[Straw_Mandible]

Social science research done before the growth of the test-prep industrial complex.

And that research tells us that LSAT naturals are all-around geniuses who shit rainbows all over us plebes who have to spend time acquiring skills?

I feel like you're assuming a static performance level for the innate high-scorer.

What happens when the innate high-scorer puts in equal effort to the little-engine-that-could high score earner? Why can't the innate high-scorer improve to the same degree as the student that had to work 6 months for that same score? You're assuming that there's no cap on the degree to which one can improve. Now obviously, we're not talking about absolutes here. Still, as unscientific as this may be...As a 167 1st-time taker, I would rather go up against A) someone that (assuming roughly equal prep time) scored 158, then 173 after 6-9 addition months of studying than B) someone that (again assuming equal prep time to my own) scored 173 on the first crack and had the same 9 months for other pursuits.

I don't know, but the basketball-tennis analogy from earlier makes sense to me.

There is. The cap is 180.

All I'm saying is that people with equal scores have equal abilities, insofar as those abilities are measured by the LSAT. This should not be controversial.

[Straw_Mandible]

Simply put: someone who scores a 170 after 8 months of study has put a lot of effort into learning the ins and outs of the test; someone who took 4 weeks to get the same score is using what are clearly more applicable skills, they did not rely on heavy familiarity.

Yes, but by the time they sit for the test, they have the same abilities--as evidenced by their scores.

Remember my formerly flabby roommate (page 1)? He trained daily for six months, and he can now run a sub-5:00 mile. He is exactly as fast as I am. The fact that he trained to get into shape, while I was already in shape, is irrelevant.

[09042014]

Simply put: someone who scores a 170 after 8 months of study has put a lot of effort into learning the ins and outs of the test; someone who took 4 weeks to get the same score is using what are clearly more applicable skills, they did not rely on heavy familiarity.

Yes, but by the time they sit for the test, they have the same abilities--as evidenced by their scores.

Remember my formerly flabby roommate (page 1)? He trained daily for six months, and he can now run a sub-5:00 mile. He is exactly as fast as I am. The fact that he trained to get into shape, while I was already in shape, is irrelevant.

The problem is you assume the test is accurately gauging a real skill. It's not. It's an attempt to gauge a real skill, but by using tricks you can get a better score than you should have.

It'd be like taking a shortcut on your mile race so they only run half as far. They'd have the same time, but they really are only going half as fast.

[Theopliske8711]

The test is supposed to test the ability to process information and organize it. Its not supposed to test how quickly you've learned to finish a logic game. That's what is nullifying the point

[09042014]

My only lament is that this will be tl;dr for some of those who are struggling the most in RC.

As a person struggling with RC, I will say that this rings true.

Great guide, Pakalypse! Thanks for spreading the love, and huge congrats on your 180.

u dont say

[Straw_Mandible]

The problem is you assume the test is accurately gauging a real skill. It's not. It's an attempt to gauge a real skill, but by using tricks you can get a better score than you should have.

It'd be like taking a shortcut on your mile race so they only run half as far. They'd have the same time, but they really are only going half as fast.

You're really minimizing (and misunderstanding) the preparation process here.

Learning information about the test does not somehow enable you to perform better than your reading/reasoning skills will allow.

The intensive drilling, reviewing, and PTing that people have to do in order to improve their LSAT score is much more closely analogous to doing interval, speed, and endurance workouts on the track than it is to shortening the length of the race.

[09042014]

The problem is you assume the test is accurately gauging a real skill. It's not. It's an attempt to gauge a real skill, but by using tricks you can get a better score than you should have.

It'd be like taking a shortcut on your mile race so they only run half as far. They'd have the same time, but they really are only going half as fast.

You're really minimizing (and misunderstanding) the preparation process here.

Learning information about the test does not somehow enable you to perform better than your reading/reasoning skills will allow.

The intensive drilling, reviewing, and PTing that people have to do in order to improve their LSAT score is much more closely analogous to doing interval, speed, and endurance workouts on the track than it is to shortening the length of the race.

And you are minimizing the amount of LSAT specific tricks, strategies and patterns people are exploiting to do better on the LSAT. You are nuts if you think that has NO effect. Which is an assumption you must make if you think a legit 170 is the same as a gunner 170.

[Nebby]

Closest relevant thread for this.

http://abovethelaw.com/2014/05/top-law- ... -students/

[Straw_Mandible]

The test is supposed to test the ability to process information and organize it. Its not supposed to test how quickly you've learned to finish a logic game. That's what is nullifying the point

And you can't finish a logic game quickly unless you have the ability to process and organize information. The fact that you "learned" that ability is irrelevant. You have it.

[hopeful 0L]

Social science research done before the growth of the test-prep industrial complex.

And that research tells us that LSAT naturals are all-around geniuses who shit rainbows all over us plebes who have to spend time acquiring skills?

I feel like you're assuming a static performance level for the innate high-scorer.

What happens when the innate high-scorer puts in equal effort to the little-engine-that-could high score earner? Why can't the innate high-scorer improve to the same degree as the student that had to work 6 months for that same score? You're assuming that there's no cap on the degree to which one can improve. Now obviously, we're not talking about absolutes here. Still, as unscientific as this may be...As a 167 1st-time taker, I would rather go up against A) someone that (assuming roughly equal prep time) scored 158, then 173 after 6-9 addition months of studying than B) someone that (again assuming equal prep time to my own) scored 173 on the first crack and had the same 9 months for other pursuits.

I don't know, but the basketball-tennis analogy from earlier makes sense to me.

There is. The cap is 180.

All I'm saying is that people with equal scores have equal abilities, insofar as those abilities are measured by the LSAT. This should not be controversial.

No, people with equal scores do not have equal abilities. They have equal scores. And your running analogy doesn't work, because again you are assuming static performance. It only holds up if runner # 1 or the stronger runner doesn't improve at all while runner #2 or the weaker runner is busting his ass and training hard for six months. Again, what happens when runner # 1 starts a similarly intensive training regimen, and improves to the same degree? Then they are both faster, but runner #2 gets smoked.

[Pneumonia]

here is some LSAT for you:

Someone who is 99th right off the bat has an extremely strong intellect that allows them to do well on the test.

Someone who studies form 150-170 is substituting hard work and effort for the intellectual capacity exhibited by the first person.

After the test is taken and they both get a 175 or whatever the first person still has the same intellect that allowed them to do well quickly; the second person still has the same intellect that got them a 150 right off the bat in addition to a greater understanding of the LSAT.

The second person is now an LSAT genius just like the first person. However, the first person will presumably continue to do well quickly at other things that aren't the LSAT whereas the second person will continue to expend great effort to achieve those same things.

Obviously this is broad strokes or whatever and I'm not using "Intellectual capacity" in its broadest sense. Just having taken, taught, and tutored the test for some time I know for a fact that the biggest increases come from people who "learn the test" rather than "learn to think logically" and in fact I have never seen anyone do the latter. I don't think it's impossible but I do think it is clearly ridiculous to claim that studying the LSAT is sufficient for doing so to any material degree, especially when the benchmark you're using is "as good as a natural 175" as opposed to "a marginally better logical thinker."

I don't think you'd be getting as much pushback if you were arguing for the second of those two things. Btw I started out with like a 151 or something so my stake in this game is not defending that I'm smarter than someone who has to study a lot; its the opposite. The people I know that were 17x on a first try (there are only a few of them) are so clearly smarter than me that I am compelled to reject your argument on that basis alone.

[Pneumonia]

And you can't finish a logic game quickly unless you have the ability to process and organize information the rules for that game. The fact that you "learned" that ability is irrelevant highly relevant. You have it.

The point is a natural 170 person has an intellectual apparatus that allows them to process and organize rules generally, and that ability makes the LSAT easy for them. The gunner learns LSAT specific strategies and, yes, clearly achieves the same result. But after doing so what they have is an "LSAT organization" apparatus which is not the same as what the natural 170 has.

[Straw_Mandible]

here is some LSAT for you:

Someone who is 99th right off the bat has an extremely strong intellect that allows them to do well on the test.

Someone who studies form 150-170 is substituting hard work and effort for the intellectual capacity exhibited by the first person.

After the test is taken and they both get a 175 or whatever the first person still has the same intellect that allowed them to do well quickly; the second person still has the same intellect that got them a 150 right off the bat in addition to a greater understanding of the LSAT.

The second person is now an LSAT genius just like the first person. However, the first person will presumably continue to do well quickly at other things that aren't the LSAT whereas the second person will continue to expend great effort to achieve those same things.

Obviously this is broad strokes or whatever and I'm not using "Intellectual capacity" in its broadest sense. Just having taken, taught, and tutored the test for some time I know for a fact that the biggest increases come from people who "learn the test" rather than "learn to think logically" and in fact I have never seen anyone do the latter. I don't think it's impossible but I do think it is clearly ridiculous to claim that studying the LSAT is sufficient for doing so to any material degree, especially when the benchmark you're using is "as good as a natural 175" as opposed to "a marginally better logical thinker."

I don't think you'd be getting as much pushback if you were arguing for the second of those two things. Btw I started out with like a 151 or something so my stake in this game is not defending that I'm smarter than someone who has to study a lot; its the opposite. The people I know that were 17x on a first try (there are only a few of them) are so clearly smarter than me that I am compelled to reject your argument on that basis alone.

Why are we so quick to accept the idea that intellect is immutable? That's not obvious to me at all. Are you saying it's impossible for a person to develop real, transferable cognitive skills over the course of a year-long intensive LSAT prep period? I would imagine that this is entirely possible.

Remember this?

Edit: But you're right. The argument I'm making is way too strong. I guess I'm just saying that it's possible to train cognitive skills to the extent that someone who scores a 150 on the first try is not necessarily limited to a 150-sized "intellect" for the rest of her life -- and this probably extends to mean that a learned 99th percentile scorer should not expect to be carrying around some kind of crippling mental handicap in law school.