Top Law Schools

There are so many choices, but given my criteria, any advice?

Criteria:
1. On a budget!
2. Prefer established company
3. Prefer classroom to online
4. Would like access to a lot of real LSAT material

Thanks!

Don't forget criterion #5 (should really be the most important one, except perhaps #1): Prefer effective methods.

Criteria #4 (I think) and #5 (definitely) disqualify PR. There's a poster here (tomwatts, I think) who teaches for PR. He might come in and give his perspective. I still think PR and Kaplan aren't worth your money, though.

soj wrote:Criteria #4 (I think)

All the major test prep companies (including us) give you access to all of the released LSAT questions. If you've read any of my posts, you've read me write that. There's nobody who offers less or more, at least not among the big five.

I will also point out that our strategies work just as well as anybody else's. Preferring "effective methods" is all well and good, but it doesn't give you a reason to choose between companies. I got a 180 using Princeton Review methods. I'd call that effective. Others get similar scores with other companies' methods.

At any rate, there are at least 5 established companies that offer classroom courses with all of the released tests. That pretty much eliminates any use of criteria 2-4. Your location is probably the most important thing that you didn't mention here... but in your other topic you mention San Diego. I think we're running Ultimate LSAT down there, probably taught by Jennifer Wooddell; if you can get that, you should do it. She's been teaching with us for over 20 years and is ridiculously badass. The Ultimate LSAT course is 104 hours of class time (not including practice tests or available online content) for less than most other companies (forget the exact sticker price). So I'd heartily endorse that.

If you were somewhere else, my line on this might be different, and if you couldn't get Jennifer Wooddell, my line on this might also be somewhat different (depending on who the teacher is). But if that's your option, I'd say it's solid.

soj wrote:Don't forget criterion #5 (should really be the most important one, except perhaps #1): Prefer effective methods.

Criteria #4 (I think) and #5 (definitely) disqualify PR. There's a poster here (tomwatts, I think) who teaches for PR. He might come in and give his perspective. I still think PR and Kaplan aren't worth your money, though.

General consensus on TLS is that TestMasters and Blueprint offer the most promising LSAT courses. I've heard a few negative things about PR and Kaplan, but I'm sure that this website's search function will provide more clarity. Personally, I took TestMasters, which was great.

You mentioned that you were on a budget - #1 criteria - so I'll also recommend looking at PowerScore bibles and/or Manhattan LSAT prep materials, should be you interested in self-study.

tomwatts wrote:

soj wrote:Criteria #4 (I think)

All the major test prep companies (including us) give you access to all of the released LSAT questions. If you've read any of my posts, you've read me write that. There's nobody who offers less or more, at least not among the big five.

I will also point out that our strategies work just as well as anybody else's. Preferring "effective methods" is all well and good, but it doesn't give you a reason to choose between companies. I got a 180 using Princeton Review methods. I'd call that effective. Others get similar scores with other companies' methods.

At any rate, there are at least 5 established companies that offer classroom courses with all of the released tests. That pretty much eliminates any use of criteria 2-4. Your location is probably the most important thing that you didn't mention here... but in your other topic you mention San Diego. I think we're running Ultimate LSAT down there, probably taught by Jennifer Wooddell; if you can get that, you should do it. She's been teaching with us for over 20 years and is ridiculously badass. The Ultimate LSAT course is 104 hours of class time (not including practice tests or available online content) for less than most other companies (forget the exact sticker price). So I'd heartily endorse that.

If you were somewhere else, my line on this might be different, and if you couldn't get Jennifer Wooddell, my line on this might also be somewhat different (depending on who the teacher is). But if that's your option, I'd say it's solid.

I also teach Ultimate LSAT in San Diego. I am also badass

soj wrote:Don't forget criterion #5 (should really be the most important one, except perhaps #1): Prefer effective methods.

Criteria #4 (I think) and #5 (definitely) disqualify PR.

I think tomwatts's 180 and my 179 both using TPR's methods render your analysis complete bullshit.

i took princeton review and testmasters. i strongly prefer testmasters. blueprint is good as well.

SanDiegoJake wrote:I also teach Ultimate LSAT in San Diego. I am also badass

Oh, right. You too.

Fair enough, I shouldn't judge a company's course by the company's two-year-old prep book.

Thanks for all the info. I haven't heard a lot about price, is that a no no on the forum? Anyhow, PR sounds good, and I'll definitely look into Blueprint and Testmasters. Wasn't there some bad litigation between the two, or was that just rumors? Anyhow, it sounds like they are running strong, so I'll be doing the research.

Thanks,
PL

EarlCat wrote:

soj wrote:Don't forget criterion #5 (should really be the most important one, except perhaps #1): Prefer effective methods.

Criteria #4 (I think) and #5 (definitely) disqualify PR.

I think tomwatts's 180 and my 179 both using TPR's methods render your analysis complete bullshit.

Flawed reasoning: that two data points are an accurate representation of the population. Maybe that's why you didn't get that 180...

birdlaw117 wrote:

EarlCat wrote:

soj wrote:Don't forget criterion #5 (should really be the most important one, except perhaps #1): Prefer effective methods.

Criteria #4 (I think) and #5 (definitely) disqualify PR.

I think tomwatts's 180 and my 179 both using TPR's methods render your analysis complete bullshit.

Flawed reasoning: that two data points are an accurate representation of the population. Maybe that's why you didn't get that 180...

your flaw is earl never said it's an accurate measure of the population.

flexityflex86 wrote:

birdlaw117 wrote:

EarlCat wrote:

soj wrote:Don't forget criterion #5 (should really be the most important one, except perhaps #1): Prefer effective methods.

Criteria #4 (I think) and #5 (definitely) disqualify PR.

I think tomwatts's 180 and my 179 both using TPR's methods render your analysis complete bullshit.

Flawed reasoning: that two data points are an accurate representation of the population. Maybe that's why you didn't get that 180...

your flaw is earl never said it's an accurate measure of the population.

Mmm... kind of. But fine, that two data points is enough to "render your analysis complete bullshit." Is that better?

ETA: I really didn't want to derail this thread. So I'll just say that I was not at all a fan of The Princeton Review book. However, I would guess that using a company's books to judge its class is not a very accurate way of doing this.

pennyLane8 wrote:Thanks for all the info. I haven't heard a lot about price, is that a no no on the forum? Anyhow, PR sounds good, and I'll definitely look into Blueprint and Testmasters. Wasn't there some bad litigation between the two, or was that just rumors? Anyhow, it sounds like they are running strong, so I'll be doing the research.

Thanks,
PL

The litigation is not a just a rumor - ex-Testmasters instructors left the company to start Blueprint, and there were issues about stealing info/copyright infringement/etc. I dunno what happened in the end, but I'm sure it wasn't pretty.

That said, TM specializes in the LSAT and was the first among all prep companies to offer appropriate materials & analyses for the exam. This is why you should consider both TM and BP, because TM came up with the industry standard and BP has comparable methods. When I was prepping, I also read the Powerscore books.

birdlaw117 wrote:Flawed reasoning: that two data points are an accurate representation of the population. Maybe that's why you didn't get that 180...

If the population in general had to score 179/180 for a method to be effective, nobody's would be. I would think that if a method were ineffective, it wouldn't be sufficient to get anyone to 179/180.

quick question and didn't feel it necessary to start a new thread. My Testmasters course starts Monday. Do i need anything for class such as notebooks, index cards, pens, and pencils? Or do they just provide everything.

JayTeeDee wrote:quick question and didn't feel it necessary to start a new thread. My Testmasters course starts Monday. Do i need anything for class such as notebooks, index cards, pens, and pencils? Or do they just provide everything.

If this is the diagnostic, you should be fine bringing nothing else (except maybe a watch). But if it's your first class, you should probably bring a notebook, pencil, and perhaps a snack for break time. I took the course two? years ago, but things probably haven't changed a ton.