how does society view the lsat? Forum

[hopper123]

Don't be dense. Everyone except Yale curves in some way, even if the curve is applied by outside sources such as employers.

We should all go to Yale!

[05062014]

I bet this thread will get more views than pithypikes study guide

[Nova]

I bet this thread will get more views than pithypikes study guide

Well done, Abdistotle.

[Mr.Binks]

Oh well if you're putting in effort to LSAT studying, there's no way you won't achieve your goal. This plan B talk was condescending and unreasonable.

Not sure if serious....

[05062014]

Personally, intense effort has directly correlated with lsat swag. killin Q's these days. I have only one plan. Plan A-bdistotle.

[Malakai]

They view it like you're a champ if you're studying many hours and doing well + shooting for a good school. They generally care less if you mention infrequent study and some shitty school as an 'ideal' goal. Like prestige in law, prestige of your ideal law school in the public eye does matter to at least some degree.

Good luck.

[05062014]

They view it like you're a champ if you're studying many hours and doing well + shooting for a good school. They generally care less if you mention infrequent study and some shitty school as an 'ideal' goal. Like prestige in law, prestige of your ideal law school in the public eye does matter to at least some degree.

Good luck.

Thank you my friend. Good luck to you too

[collegebum1989]

yesterday, while getting stitches on my finger at the local ER (sliced my finger open fixing my AC), the ER surgeon asked me what I was doing all summer. I told her I was studying for the LSAT and she asked me what my plans were if the LSAT did not work out. On other occasions, friends who were not studying for the LSAT reacted relatively dramatically when they heard I was studying for the LSAT, as if it was an exam to fear. Some say they're glad they pursued social science endeavors post-graduation instead of putting themselves through LSAT prep. People not studying for the test clearly respect it (aside from a few pre-med kids trying to boast about the difficulty of the rote memorization required to do well on the MCAT).

All I have are PT scores which I do take with a large grain of salt. However, the way the surgeon and my friends view the LSAT makes it seem as if succeeding on test day is an accomplishment that only a few can achieve, and even then, that it is far from a sure thing. Maybe I just come off as unintelligent, but I don't think that is it. Other than the lsat, no other pursuit of mine has really been viewed so critically before.

When the surgeon asked me what I would do if the LSAT did not work out, it caught me by surprise. I have not considered not doing sufficiently well enough such that I look to a career outside of law. I have wanted to be a lawyer since I was a little kid. I immediately responded, "I am gonna do well enough; all that matters at this point is how well." Is this an appropriate attitude to have? I think so.

Initially, she seemed taken aback by that comment but I seemed to gain her respect as the minutes passed for saying it. Apparently she told other nurses (some very attractive ones at that) and they gave me a collective good luck studying and 'you will do great' kind of goodbye as I was leaving. I felt encouraged, but simultaneously uneasy, as if I was now destined to try to climb Mount Everest or something.

Maybe I am looking for reasons to doubt myself and that is why this experience is somewhat getting to me. The plus side is that the fact that people view this exam as a huge challenge makes me feel reassured that the time spent is worth it to the outside world. This is not my sole reason for studying, but it certainly does help knowing that others can appreciate my goals, albeit in the form of fear and apprehension, lol.

So anyways, has anyone studying come across real life situations that made them view their LSAT prep efforts differently?

The mcat is more than rote memorization. It has lsat style logic and reasoning requirements plus mass amounts of rote memorization. It is orders of magnitude more difficult of a test.

Don't agree with this, I've taken both MCAT and LSAT, and I was also a science/engineering major. MCAT is mostly applications of memorized material. But all the information you need is in the specialized passages they present to you. As a test, the questions are less convoluted than LSAT questions. Meaning, they are not meant to trick you as much with the language.

What is most difficult about the MCAT is the amount of information and the breadth of the subjects required (bio, orgo, physics, chem, reading comp). I studied 7 weeks and got a 34, whereas I needed to study 5-6 months even to get into 170 scoring range on LSAT. LSAT is an aptitude test which has many internal learning habits which can't be learned directly, whereas the MCAT is a conceptual test which is more like a traditional test which tests your ability to understand fundamental scientific concepts.

[JazzOne]

yesterday, while getting stitches on my finger at the local ER (sliced my finger open fixing my AC), the ER surgeon asked me what I was doing all summer. I told her I was studying for the LSAT and she asked me what my plans were if the LSAT did not work out. On other occasions, friends who were not studying for the LSAT reacted relatively dramatically when they heard I was studying for the LSAT, as if it was an exam to fear. Some say they're glad they pursued social science endeavors post-graduation instead of putting themselves through LSAT prep. People not studying for the test clearly respect it (aside from a few pre-med kids trying to boast about the difficulty of the rote memorization required to do well on the MCAT).

All I have are PT scores which I do take with a large grain of salt. However, the way the surgeon and my friends view the LSAT makes it seem as if succeeding on test day is an accomplishment that only a few can achieve, and even then, that it is far from a sure thing. Maybe I just come off as unintelligent, but I don't think that is it. Other than the lsat, no other pursuit of mine has really been viewed so critically before.

When the surgeon asked me what I would do if the LSAT did not work out, it caught me by surprise. I have not considered not doing sufficiently well enough such that I look to a career outside of law. I have wanted to be a lawyer since I was a little kid. I immediately responded, "I am gonna do well enough; all that matters at this point is how well." Is this an appropriate attitude to have? I think so.

Initially, she seemed taken aback by that comment but I seemed to gain her respect as the minutes passed for saying it. Apparently she told other nurses (some very attractive ones at that) and they gave me a collective good luck studying and 'you will do great' kind of goodbye as I was leaving. I felt encouraged, but simultaneously uneasy, as if I was now destined to try to climb Mount Everest or something.

Maybe I am looking for reasons to doubt myself and that is why this experience is somewhat getting to me. The plus side is that the fact that people view this exam as a huge challenge makes me feel reassured that the time spent is worth it to the outside world. This is not my sole reason for studying, but it certainly does help knowing that others can appreciate my goals, albeit in the form of fear and apprehension, lol.

So anyways, has anyone studying come across real life situations that made them view their LSAT prep efforts differently?

The mcat is more than rote memorization. It has lsat style logic and reasoning requirements plus mass amounts of rote memorization. It is orders of magnitude more difficult of a test.

Don't agree with this, I've taken both MCAT and LSAT, and I was also a science/engineering major. MCAT is mostly applications of memorized material. But all the information you need is in the specialized passages they present to you. As a test, the questions are less convoluted than LSAT questions. Meaning, they are not meant to trick you as much with the language.

What is most difficult about the MCAT is the amount of information and the breadth of the subjects required (bio, orgo, physics, chem, reading comp). I studied 7 weeks and got a 34, whereas I needed to study 5-6 months even to get into 170 scoring range on LSAT. LSAT is an aptitude test which has many internal learning habits which can't be learned directly, whereas the MCAT is a conceptual test which is more like a traditional test which tests your ability to understand fundamental scientific concepts.

+1

Well said. MCAT questions and passages are far less convoluted than LSAT questions and passages.

[thelawyler]

A friend of mine that took both and is currently into one of the most selective md phd programs says that the lsat is a harder exam. I always thought he was crazy for saying it, but I suppose that if you've taken sciences courses for 4 years the mcat is less daunting than it looks for me

[hopper123]

A friend of mine that took both and is currently into one of the most selective md phd programs says that the lsat is a harder exam. I always thought he was crazy for saying it, but I suppose that if you've taken sciences courses for 4 years the mcat is less daunting than it looks for me

Damn right the LSAT is harder. MCAT is there to check if you aren't retarded.

[Nova]

This thread should be renamed "LSAT vs MCAT", or something like that.

[spleenworship]

This thread should be renamed "LSAT vs MCAT", killed with fire! , or something like that.

FTFY

[splitmuch]

yesterday, while getting stitches on my finger at the local ER (sliced my finger open fixing my AC), the ER surgeon asked me what I was doing all summer. I told her I was studying for the LSAT and she asked me what my plans were if the LSAT did not work out. On other occasions, friends who were not studying for the LSAT reacted relatively dramatically when they heard I was studying for the LSAT, as if it was an exam to fear. Some say they're glad they pursued social science endeavors post-graduation instead of putting themselves through LSAT prep. People not studying for the test clearly respect it (aside from a few pre-med kids trying to boast about the difficulty of the rote memorization required to do well on the MCAT).

All I have are PT scores which I do take with a large grain of salt. However, the way the surgeon and my friends view the LSAT makes it seem as if succeeding on test day is an accomplishment that only a few can achieve, and even then, that it is far from a sure thing. Maybe I just come off as unintelligent, but I don't think that is it. Other than the lsat, no other pursuit of mine has really been viewed so critically before.

When the surgeon asked me what I would do if the LSAT did not work out, it caught me by surprise. I have not considered not doing sufficiently well enough such that I look to a career outside of law. I have wanted to be a lawyer since I was a little kid. I immediately responded, "I am gonna do well enough; all that matters at this point is how well." Is this an appropriate attitude to have? I think so.

Initially, she seemed taken aback by that comment but I seemed to gain her respect as the minutes passed for saying it. Apparently she told other nurses (some very attractive ones at that) and they gave me a collective good luck studying and 'you will do great' kind of goodbye as I was leaving. I felt encouraged, but simultaneously uneasy, as if I was now destined to try to climb Mount Everest or something.

Maybe I am looking for reasons to doubt myself and that is why this experience is somewhat getting to me. The plus side is that the fact that people view this exam as a huge challenge makes me feel reassured that the time spent is worth it to the outside world. This is not my sole reason for studying, but it certainly does help knowing that others can appreciate my goals, albeit in the form of fear and apprehension, lol.

So anyways, has anyone studying come across real life situations that made them view their LSAT prep efforts differently?

The mcat is more than rote memorization. It has lsat style logic and reasoning requirements plus mass amounts of rote memorization. It is orders of magnitude more difficult of a test.

Don't agree with this, I've taken both MCAT and LSAT, and I was also a science/engineering major. MCAT is mostly applications of memorized material. But all the information you need is in the specialized passages they present to you. As a test, the questions are less convoluted than LSAT questions. Meaning, they are not meant to trick you as much with the language.

What is most difficult about the MCAT is the amount of information and the breadth of the subjects required (bio, orgo, physics, chem, reading comp). I studied 7 weeks and got a 34, whereas I needed to study 5-6 months even to get into 170 scoring range on LSAT. LSAT is an aptitude test which has many internal learning habits which can't be learned directly, whereas the MCAT is a conceptual test which is more like a traditional test which tests your ability to understand fundamental scientific concepts.

I guess I disagree about "internal learning habits which can't be learned directly." I guess some questions can be convoluted, but if you can eliminate the surperfluous then I think they are pretty damn easy. While the MCAT questions are not meant to trick you, many times the answers are structured to "trick" you if you make common careless mistakes.

For comparison, my cold diagnostic LSAT was in the mid 170s, but I had to work my ass off to get my MCAT score. To me, it comes down to if both tests were unlimited time, I'm not sure there's any reason for anyone to miss an LSAT question whereas I could stare at an MCAT question for hours and still have no idea what's right. I was pretty ardent in my opinion (see my first post) but the number of fellow dual test takers who disagree with me on here (and lack of any who agree) indicate that I probably should restrict my opinion to the difficulty the tests pose for me rather than generally.

[rad21]

You ought to get used to people having opinions/reactions (well informed or not) to your response to their asking you what you're doing with your life. Whether it's "studying for the LSAT," "in law school," etc., everyone seems to have an opinion. I think it's because it's something that's accessible to them. If you were any number of other professions that people don't really know anything about (e.g., investment banker), you'd probably get a, "oh, cool" and that would be the end of it. But with law, most people have been watching TV shows and movies about lawyers or the legal system their entire lives, so they tend to have some sort of opinion. Also, get ready for getting asked for legal advice from random people. But I think generally it's good-natured.

[hopper123]

yesterday, while getting stitches on my finger at the local ER (sliced my finger open fixing my AC), the ER surgeon asked me what I was doing all summer. I told her I was studying for the LSAT and she asked me what my plans were if the LSAT did not work out. On other occasions, friends who were not studying for the LSAT reacted relatively dramatically when they heard I was studying for the LSAT, as if it was an exam to fear. Some say they're glad they pursued social science endeavors post-graduation instead of putting themselves through LSAT prep. People not studying for the test clearly respect it (aside from a few pre-med kids trying to boast about the difficulty of the rote memorization required to do well on the MCAT).

All I have are PT scores which I do take with a large grain of salt. However, the way the surgeon and my friends view the LSAT makes it seem as if succeeding on test day is an accomplishment that only a few can achieve, and even then, that it is far from a sure thing. Maybe I just come off as unintelligent, but I don't think that is it. Other than the lsat, no other pursuit of mine has really been viewed so critically before.

When the surgeon asked me what I would do if the LSAT did not work out, it caught me by surprise. I have not considered not doing sufficiently well enough such that I look to a career outside of law. I have wanted to be a lawyer since I was a little kid. I immediately responded, "I am gonna do well enough; all that matters at this point is how well." Is this an appropriate attitude to have? I think so.

Initially, she seemed taken aback by that comment but I seemed to gain her respect as the minutes passed for saying it. Apparently she told other nurses (some very attractive ones at that) and they gave me a collective good luck studying and 'you will do great' kind of goodbye as I was leaving. I felt encouraged, but simultaneously uneasy, as if I was now destined to try to climb Mount Everest or something.

Maybe I am looking for reasons to doubt myself and that is why this experience is somewhat getting to me. The plus side is that the fact that people view this exam as a huge challenge makes me feel reassured that the time spent is worth it to the outside world. This is not my sole reason for studying, but it certainly does help knowing that others can appreciate my goals, albeit in the form of fear and apprehension, lol.

So anyways, has anyone studying come across real life situations that made them view their LSAT prep efforts differently?

The mcat is more than rote memorization. It has lsat style logic and reasoning requirements plus mass amounts of rote memorization. It is orders of magnitude more difficult of a test.

Don't agree with this, I've taken both MCAT and LSAT, and I was also a science/engineering major. MCAT is mostly applications of memorized material. But all the information you need is in the specialized passages they present to you. As a test, the questions are less convoluted than LSAT questions. Meaning, they are not meant to trick you as much with the language.

What is most difficult about the MCAT is the amount of information and the breadth of the subjects required (bio, orgo, physics, chem, reading comp). I studied 7 weeks and got a 34, whereas I needed to study 5-6 months even to get into 170 scoring range on LSAT. LSAT is an aptitude test which has many internal learning habits which can't be learned directly, whereas the MCAT is a conceptual test which is more like a traditional test which tests your ability to understand fundamental scientific concepts.

I guess I disagree about "internal learning habits which can't be learned directly." I guess some questions can be convoluted, but if you can eliminate the surperfluous then I think they are pretty damn easy. While the MCAT questions are not meant to trick you, many times the answers are structured to "trick" you if you make common careless mistakes.

For comparison, my cold diagnostic LSAT was in the mid 170s, but I had to work my ass off to get my MCAT score. To me, it comes down to if both tests were unlimited time, I'm not sure there's any reason for anyone to miss an LSAT question whereas I could stare at an MCAT question for hours and still have no idea what's right. I was pretty ardent in my opinion (see my first post) but the number of fellow dual test takers who disagree with me on here (and lack of any who agree) indicate that I probably should restrict my opinion to the difficulty the tests pose for me rather than generally.

Yes, I agree with you: restrict your opinion to the difficulty of the test to yourself as you are in the minority. I would find it unbelievable for you to stare at the phys section and not "get it." You can always solve something. Only the bio section, which requires memorization, might be stared at blankly because the answer doesn't come at you.

As for the LSAT, I bet there are kids who score a 180 who can stare at a question for a long time and still be unsure whether the answer is correct. Sometimes the answer choices are slightly ambiguous and no matter how hard you stare, you can choose the wrong one. Sheer probability is against you in this one...getting one answer wrong from 100-102 questions is quite high regardless of the test you are taking. And no I'm not contradicting myself, I just think you are incorrect to say that ample amount of time on the LSAT will give you a perfect score all the time. As for the MCAT, I don't think that the phys sci section is difficult to mess up...you can often "check" your answers unlike in the reading comprehension or even bio part.

[Dr. Dre]

bump

[wtrc]

Thx Dre

[senioritis13]

Anyone who has actually looked at both tests would agree that comparing the two exams is stupid and pointless.

I took both. I studied for the MCAT for a month and got a 36. That said, I also spent 3 years taking courses to give me a background in MCAT material, and I tutored organic chem and biology for a year and half, and had a fairly good understanding of the material before I even started studying. In addition to the month I spend studying, I also spent 3 years learning material.

When I took the LSAT, I studied for less than a month and took 4 PTs and still broke 160. I expect a score in the high 160's/low 170's for my retake. I know that I'm going to have to study all summer for it, but whatever, I could argue that I spent years prepping for the MCAT. Both tests are "learnable" but very difficult. Both of them. Saying that the MCAT is pure memorization (which, by the way, have you taken orgo or physics? or gen chem?) and easier than the LSAT just makes you sound offensive, pretentious, and generally just really ill informed lol.

[Micdiddy]

bump

Should we really sort through 9 pages of junk? Can't you necro and quote the good stuff at the same time?

[ManoftheHour]

It's like that one time on these boards when someone kept arguing a philosophy major was harder than physics

In that guy's defense, it's easier to get an A in physics than philosophy IMO. Philosophy TAs are such bullshit. The grading is so subjective.

But no. Phil is not a harder major than physics.

<--- Math minor and former bio major.

[suralin]

It's like that one time on these boards when someone kept arguing a philosophy major was harder than physics

In that guy's defense, it's easier to get an A in physics than philosophy IMO. Philosophy TAs are such bullshit. The grading is so subjective.

But no. Phil is not a harder major than physics.

<--- Math minor and former bio major.

I have this theory that the more "subjective" courses (e.g., philosophy, English lit.) are not that hard in that they do not require that much work to get an average grade--pretty easy to just bs a paper and get a low B--but are hard in that getting an A depends a lot on contingent factors beyond your control: how much your professor likes the way you write, how well the paper prompts align with your interests, etc. On the other hand, more "objective" courses (e.g., math, computer science) are not that hard to get an A in as long as you put in the hours and just get the material intuitively, whereas such courses are hard in that if you just don't get it at all (very commonplace in CS weeder courses), getting an average grade is hard even if you work your ass off.

<-- CS major and Philosophy minor.

[totoro]

I have this theory that the more "subjective" courses (e.g., philosophy, English lit.) are not that hard in that they do not require that much work to get an average grade--pretty easy to just bs a paper and get a low B--but are hard in that getting an A depends a lot on contingent factors beyond your control: how much your professor likes the way you write, how well the paper prompts align with your interests, etc. On the other hand, more "objective" courses (e.g., math, computer science) are not that hard to get an A in as long as you put in the hours and just get the material intuitively, whereas such courses are hard in that if you just don't get it at all (very commonplace in CS weeder courses), getting an average grade is hard even if you work your ass off.

<-- CS major and Philosophy minor.

Objective subjects are also harder in the sense that the knowledge builds on top of existing knowledge, and you continuously have to apply and incorporate new things you learn to existing principles. In a humanities class, you can get away only reading for the paper you're writing for. Also... many humanities professors let you rewrite papers or meet with them many times; while many science/math classes decide your grade by an 2-8hour exam that you can't see ahead of time.

[dw3]

The lsat is the most important thing if you are considering a legal career. It's that simple. Don't fool yourself into believing otherwise.

[nyjets2090]

I don't really distinguish too much between the humanities, there's a lot of overlap.

I've always viewed it as Humanities vs STEM majors, with STEM majors being a bit more difficult. Not too much, because I assume STEM majors are generally comfortable with the material they're studying; if they hated STEM and they sucked at it then I can't imagine why they'd major in it.

Just realized that last phrase is written in conditional logic, my LSAT prep is blending into other areas.