Top Law Schools

On Burning-out

Something I found incredibly useful for the LSAT preparation phase was David Shenk's book, "the Genius in all of us." I will be borrowing his words and his concepts extensively. If you're feeling discouraged or a bit down today, please feel free to read this. I hope it will give you an extra boost and hopefully it'll be worth your time. I am no pro, and I've got a long way to go, but I do think I understand the concept of failure rather well compared to myself 4 or 5 years ago.

I believe that it is crucial for most people who are truly aiming for a 180 to have some form of the mindset that Shenk describes in his book.

"Simply wanting it badly enough is not enough. Deliberate practice requires a mind-set of never, ever, being satisfied with your current ability. It requires a constant self-critique, a pathological restlessness, a passion to aim consistently just beyond one's capability so that daily disappointment and failure is actually desired, and a never-ending resolve to dust oneself off and try again and again and again."

Most people drill and do PTs to see how much they can get right. This is a weak mindset. Some people study to see how much they can get wrong. This is a less weak mindset. A small group of people will study to see how far they deviated from what they believe to be the optimal strategy and then launch an investigation as to why they deviated from perfection. This is the correct mindset. We need, as Shenk puts it, "pathological restlessness." We need "a passion to aim consistently just beyond [our] capability so that daily disappointment and failure is actually desired."

I study between 8-14hrs every day including sundays. I only study 8 hours nowadays because I've had a bit of a cold, but I must say that Shenk's words have helped me to find saneness within the pursuit of being insanely dedicated to exploring my limits, and within feeling utterly incapable at the end of each day, only to pick myself up and rise to the challenge the very next morning. (EDIT: I haven't been sick for a while now so I'm back to my 14-15 hours. If I take off my walks/eating-breaks/washroom-breaks/and go-to-buy-coffee breaks it's sitting at around 10-12hrs per day.)

I've been so encouraged by a few PMs that I decided to take some time to write about one thing that seems to be the biggest problem in the pursuit of excellence in any field - burning out too quickly. But before I start talking about what I believe the concept of "burning out" to actually be, I want to talk a bit more about Shenk's book, as I'm sure it will help someone in this world.

Greatness does not come easy. Even for those who are heralded as the pinnacle of all geniuses. Mozart once wrote to his father saying, "People make a great mistake who think that my art has come easily to me... Nobody has devoted so much time and thought to composition as I." Contrary to what Hollywood wants us to believe, the sexy story of a child being able to write amazing symphonies at a young age is simply inaccurate. Most critics agree that Mozart's Symphony no.29 is his first actual great piece. The works before that were just rearrangements of other people's pieces. How long before? 10 years. 10 years of hard work and only after that, did Mozart produce his first genius piece. I guess it takes a "genius" a long time to become an expert.

Hollywood would have us believe that some are born with the gift. Of course, through catharsis, we get to achieve two things while watching these movies: (1) we get to imagine how great it would be to be a genius (2) we get to embrace the concept of laziness and say that the reason why we are not experts is that we were not "born with it."

One of my favorite movies, "Good Will Hunting" embraces this sexy and inaccurate idea.

In this movie, Will is a genius and Skylar is a girl who goes to harvard. They are on a date and Skylar is perplexed by Will's ability to just finish her Harvard assignment in 30 minutes.

Skylar: How did you do that? Even the smartest people I know - and we do have a few at Harvard - have to study a lot. It's hard

Will: Do you play the piano...? Beethoven - he looked at a piano and he SAW music... Beethoven, Mozart, they looked at it and it just made sense to them.

Oh man. That's just sexy. Will is saying here that he just SEES chemistry, math, and physics. Maybe Will sees it. But he was probably wrong about not just Mozart, but also Beethoven.

"Neighbors of the Beethovens...recall seeing a small boy standing in front of the clavier and weeping. He was so short that he had to climb a footstool to reach the keys. If he hesitated, his father beat him. When he was allowed off, it was only to have a violin thrust into his hands, or musical theory drummed into his head. There were few days when he was not flogged, or locked up in the cellar. Johann also deprived him of sleep, waking him at midnight for more hours of practice."

And Beethoven was only 4 years of age. Only 4. 20 years later, Beethoven emerged as an expert.

One could name many great people who we wrongfully believe to have just "saw" the material, but i will name just 1 more that is truly inspiring to me. Michael Jordan.

Michael Jordan did not make it to his high school varsity team. As far as I'm concerned, my advice for every single person in this world who wishes to join the NBA would have been that you consider quitting before even starting, especially if you couldn't even make it to a high school team. I would have been wrong by a long shot.

Jordan was used to failure. He resented it. He always lost to his older brother Larry. The tale goes that Larry's basketball number was 45 and Jordan picked 23 with the significant meaning behind his choice of number; he wanted to be just a bit better than half of his brother's skill level. Isn't that just amazing? It turns out that Larry never made it to the NBA. Not even close. But Jordan... well I think we know about Jordan.

Everyone who has met Jordan and experienced his competitiveness knows that he is pathologically competitive. Carolina's coach Dean Smith said that while the coach wasn't present, many players resorted to their strengths in pick up games. Contrastingly, Jordan purposefully worked on his weaknesses. If you told him that his shots sucked, his shots became his strength after a year. If you told him he sucked at defense, then he became a great defenseman after a year. In his book, which I also recommend, there is a chapter on "No Compromises." He speaks of Tiger Woods.

After winning a big tournament, Woods did not party and was not hung over the next day. In fact, Woods was practicing the very next morning 6:00am. You cannot make compromises on your commitments. That was Jordan's message. The genius of all geniuses and the legend of all legendary players in basketball feels that you need to be insanely dedicated. Meanwhile, some kid on the street playing And-1 basketball takes a few days off because he feels like it. Think about that difference in dedication.

At fifty years of age, Jordan watches the NBA and still has his obvious competitive nature in him. He still screams at the TV screen saying things like, "LeBron? he's going left? Lebron? left? are you serious? he's gonna shoot then. LeBron can't drive left for the life of him." Why would a person, who has long retired, watch the game with so much competition within him, as if he is going to be playing against LeBron in the finals... tomorrow? Can we call this pathological dedication?

Now. Let's talk about burn-out. A couple people appreciated my post that I wrote in response to a thread called "My Tutor's Suggestion." I was told that my 8-14 hours of work every single day might lead to a burn-out several times now, and was asked how I deal with it.

I simply remind myself that those who I respect as geniuses of all time, did not burn-out and that it never came easy to them. I was not beaten to study the LSAT and I was never waken up at midnight to practice for hours. I never had to start at the age of 4 and was never deprived of every other element in life such as ... friendship, and so on. But If I want to achieve something of extreme difficulty, something's gotta give.

The geniuses took 10 years, even 20 years before they started getting recognized. We don't spend 10 years or 20 years on the LSAT and if we do, we can become like the LSAC dudes who actually write the test or like Mike Kim, who just wrote the LSAT Trainer and cowrote the Manhattan. (Mike. I have no clue how long you spent, but this was kind of a figure of speech I guess).

Finally I want to say a few more things about the concept of "Burning Out." This expression is another form of intellectualization. We say the expression "burning out" in an effort to replace it with the concepts of "losing motivation," "being weak," "quitting," "compromising our initial commitment." Doctors use the word "expired" instead of referring to their patients as "dead." I'm sure it keeps the emotions out of the way and the objectivity in there. But let me tell you something. You are compromising your commitment simply because of your mental schemas and the subjectivity within those schemas. Perhaps, after all, it is extremely important to keep the subjectivity IN your sentences. I will never Burn Out and if I do, I will never refer to it in that way. To me, I've made it a way of hiding behind the layers of ambiguity that we build, ironically with our intellectual minds, so that we can guard ourselves from having to admit that in plain truth, we became weak and that we decided to quit.

No. No quitting. The patient has not "expired." The patient "died." And while the doctor might benefit more from being able to move on and do his/her next job at ease, YOU should never move on and "burn out." Not if you're aiming for a 180. Or... just stop saying that you are aiming for it in the first place. (After all, I don't believe there's anything wrong with aiming lower than 180. It's completely respectable and realistic. But if you wanted to aim extremely high, I imagine something's gotta give).

I always wondered why 95% of the people in a class lecture in university aim for an A+. We all know only 5% of the people get that mark. Empty goals are...empty.

Now, here's what I think to be the best thing to imagine while prepping for LSATs. I've always thought that physical exercise was so much easier than mental exercises because I would always be well-aware of the fact that my body is obviously changing and improving. Well, it was surely a mental vacation when I found out that the brain actually changes when you exercise it. There are these things called "synapses" and when you study, you are actually expanding these synapses (which kind of look like branches) so that they connect to different neurons. (I forgot.. neurons or brain cells.. whatever).

The thought that what I do today will lead to a synapse expansion during my sleep time, is phenomenal. Yes. While, we sleep we will lose some of the synapses and gain some, depending on where we spent our attention. Your brain cannot consume all of the information around you. It is selective and you have the power to create the filters. Remember that the brain revolves around a "use-it or lose-it" principle, so it's incredibly important to use the LSAT parts of your brain so that you expand it as much as possibly every night while you sleep, and to lose as much of ... every other part of your brain! As crazy as it may sound, I chose to believe that occupying my brain with ONLY the LSAT materials and my greatest weakness within it, every single day, will result in my greatest synaptic loss in all other areas of life and greatest synaptic gain for my performance in LSATs. Some might think this is the true form of depression. Well that's your opinion, I guess. But I must hold on to my opinion stubbornly, or else I too might quit one day.

Your brain can be pushed every day at every single minute of your life without injuries. Your body can't. You'll have joint problems and all kinds of issues. Feeling brain-dead? This is the best time to push even more. You'll be programming your brain to expand those synapses related to your studies, and all of that hard work will pay off as you sleep and those synapses expand and expand.

I truly appreciated it when the LSAT Trainer got back to me when I PM'd him. He said that RC was not about taking in lots of information and more about knowing exactly what information needs to be taken in. This is exactly what I'm talking about. The expert knows how to set the filters and how to be selective. Selectivity always means that you start with deciding what you want to lose. Otherwise, how do you have room to decide what you want to fill in? I decided to lose everything to gain one thing.

Burn out you say? No. If you're talking to me, I prefer you simply say, "quit." And you see, the whole point of studying for LSATs is to push yourself to failure. Michael Jordan worked on only his weakness. So should you. When you work on your weaknesses and set aside your strength, you always feel like an idiot. I feel like an idiot every day. I have the urge to go back to the games that I can finish in 6 minutes and feel like a champ, but that's not what improvement or learning is about. The real question is: Do you have the drive to push yourself to failure every day?

With humility, long-suffering, and an insatiable desire for self-improvement, the concept of burning-out (to me at least) just seems like another great excuse and it really is a great reason as to why the LSAT curve (along with most other curves in life) have a bell-curve distribution. A good mark is a rare mark and long-term intense dedication is among the rarest attributes.

You "burn out" because you want to quit. It's called weakness and we all have moments of it. But you should've gone into the battlefield every single day knowing that you will confront failure, and that this is your primary objective. I'll end this unfortunately long piece of what I wrote with a poem from the movie "the grey." Please pay attention to the last two lines. The main characters prepares to confront his fears and have a final battle with the wolves that have been hunting him down. When he is confronted with a situation that seems to suggest nothing other than death, instead of giving up, he fights the good fight. When we are confronted with our version of death, (our failures), do we simply think to ourselves that we will die? Or will we put up a fight once more and say that even if we do die today, it will only be after we have first lived...?

Once more into the fray.
Into the last good fight I'll ever know.
Live and die on this day.
Live and die on this day.

I hope that I might have helped even just one person in this world who is embarking upon a similar journey as myself. I am not saying that having this particular mindset is either necessary or sufficient. But I imagine that for some people, it might be of help to them.

Ladies and gentleman, I am not as strong as how my belief systems are built out to be, but I will try to be strong once again, today.

Strength and Honor.

Btw I'm sorry it was long and I wasn't too interested in a blog, since I don't think I have what it takes to benefit people through something as extensive as a blog. Hopefully someone will find segments of what I said helpful. =)

Okay then. Back to LSATs!

Good work, I agree to some extent. I think burning out may be overrated, though the amount of hours you are putting in is astonishing, and potentially counterproductive. I think the idea of burning out depends upon the individual in question. There exist a number of points which strengthen your claim. You could fall back upon the idea that there exist a limited number of seats at each t14 and schools don't care about your personality, to some extent, only about your scores. You could also fall back upon the claim that this test has an enormous impact upon one's future, or that, referring back to the previous point, people are trying to take your seat. In addition, I suppose you could claim that good is not enough, ever, 90% is not enough, because someone else will put in 100% and take your opportunities in life away from you, thus you should not take breaks, you should devote 100% of your efforts 100% of the time. All of these ideas support the claim that you should disregard burn out and work through it. However, what is 100% for some, may not be 100% for others. What I'm getting at, is that if we assume that one should give studying their all, how do we define all? Is it just an amount of time, or an amount of time studied well? I think it is the latter. Furthermore, some people study well only when they have breaks to have fun, get hammered, visit family, etc. Thus, for these some people, myself included, breaks are beneficial, if not necessary. And the lack of such breaks can be counterproductive for the aforementioned amount of people.

I think you just have to be careful. If you're a social person who is used to going out often, or if you're used to working out often, or filling your free time in some other fun way, then in my opinion, the claim that one should occupy all of one's time, and thus exclude the above preoccupation, seems counterproductive. It completely depends upon the individual in question. I think a person does their best work, in this case studies well, when these preoccupations are included, but maybe you don't fit this mold.

I completely see what your saying. I don't think that my hours have anything to do with what is needed to do well. We can run along the x axis for as long as we want, but with a slope of 0, i do believe we'll just always be wasting our lives.

I completely believe in taking breaks, but my definition of breaks have changed as well. I used to think that I can only study 5 hours a day, and I must say that my concentration can actually be expanded. The struggle of learning the material is difficult, but the struggle of getting used to an endurance of concentration can also be expanded. I doubted it a lot in the beginning, and I knew that I was the (do it in 5 hours a day) type of guy, for all my life. It took a lot to whip it out of me, and I don't think everyone needs to try this. But it was an amazing set of personal victories to feel that those barriers I had imagined, some of them at least, were conquerable.

Seems like textbook monomania, read Moby Dick and tell me what happens to captain Ahab.

Very motivating and insightful post. I think everything you said is pretty much true. However burn out does exist. It happens when you suddenly push yourself too quickly. I don't think anyone can achieve significant change overnight. For instance, someone used to studying only 3 hours a day can't expect to suddenly start putting in 8 hours a day for a lengthy period of time. You'll "burn out." But if you slowly adapt, increase your goals and benchmarks in increments, you can eventually put in 8 hours, 10 hours, maybe even 14 hours a day.

Another way I see it is, if you're not working a full-time or part-time job, then you need to treat studying for the LSAT like a job.

Everything depends on individual circumstances. Burning out can also happen when there's a lack of balance between studying and whatever else. But like you said, for those that are extremely dedicated and passionate, the balance tips in favor of [insert whatever it is they're doing/dedicated to/passionate about]. I think Nikola Tesla is a prime example of this. If you really just aren't as dedicated and passionate about studying for the LSAT, it's entirely understandable and acceptable. It just means you'll have to adjust your studying schedule to that. On the other hand, that means you also can't expect yourself to be at 180 in a month.

Meegee i completely agree with what you said. And most of all i think its very important to remain realistic and embrace incremental (and oftentimes inconsistent) gains in our learning curves.

This post is silly and absurd. You do realize that burnout is usually used to describe a temporary phase, correct? That those who "burnout" don't quit, and usually just need a break? Burnout is a legitimate phenomenon, it affects people both physically and mentally, and to say that people who are not participating in constant, obsessive goal pursuit or who are experiencing exhaustion as a result of such pursuit are succumbing to weakness is ridiculous.

This post is just narcissistic drivel at best, and at worst, insulting to your fellow test takers.

Never knew burnout refers to a temporary phase and obviously never meant to offend you. Perhaps you would see there could be another perspective to this, and it really isn't anything about being narcissistic. Wasn't really my intention at all...

Studying 8-14 hours a day for the LSAT is stupidity. I studied an average of ~3 hr./day for close to 5 months, and was hitting 176-180 on every PT I took in the final month. Efficiency is the key word. I can guarantee all of the people you cite value efficiency above all else.

Studying 14 hours for material you could learn just as well in 3 is an absurd waste of time. Being hell-bent on getting a 180 is an absurd waste of time (Yale's 75th LSAT is 176. Anything above that is meaningless for anything but bragging rights. And living like a monk for months to earn something with no practical use outside of ego-stroking is idiotic).

And just as a side-note: Your writing is hideously overwrought. You are on an anonymous internet message board trying to offer practical advice. Leave the thesaurus and the psychobabble in the bottom drawer.

Edited

It's about studying smarter, not harder.

It's about both. But for sure. . If you work hard and never attack your weaknesses then it is all just a waste of time.

This might work for you (though I really doubt it), but I can assure you it would be a terrible idea for at least 90% of students.

Reframe wrote:This might work for you (though I really doubt it), but I can assure you it would be a terrible idea for at least 90% of students.

I'd definitely agree with you and further what you said by assuming that 90% is probably an understatement. I have been finding a lot of benefits from using an intense approach and i only meant to write down what i was thinking and trying out. I do see im experiencing quite a lot of varying responses.

If something about it doesnt work out i want to keep tls posted on why i failed in that attempt. Until then, i will try to keep up the overall approach and see how ive done.

If anyone is spending longer hours than 3 hours per day like some of the previous 170+ folks that posted a reply please feel free to pm me. Thanks: )

you might do quite well on the LSAT, but it won't be because of this schedule. if you need a schedule like this to take the LSAT, you're ceiling is definitely lower than 175+ and you just aren't going to break that, sorry.

it's a fairly easy test for most people that score 175+. they don't score that well because they studied 14 hours a day. they scored that well because they are smart, were able to "figure out" the test, and studied hard for a reasonable amount of time (6-8 hours for 3-4 weeks).

i don't know anybody who "needed" the type of time you are describing to get into that elite score range you are targeting. i guess it can help a mediocre LSAT taker improve, but if that's where you are then 180 should not be your goal.

newsflash: 175+ on the LSAT, or even 180 is far from the level of excellence of a michael jordan. the "michael jordan" equivalent in law is the top student at a top school who gets to the top of his career. a 180 on the lsat is more comparable to winning your state high school basketball championship (precisely what you said Jordan couldn't do)...

soo yea, good luck, and don't take yourself so seriously.

I approach the test trying to learn the patterns but i'll see where it takes me. I think its very interesting a topic to talk about the concept of a ceiling. on one hand i believe that some ppl pick up skills faster than others. On the other hand, im not quite sure if this can always be due to natural talent. By any measures, I'm a good example of a person who should not be able to hit 175+.

Im curious to see where this leads and i imagine that the difficulties that i will face will, for the most part, be similar to the difficulties faced by those who d-tested similar to me.

6 - 8hrs for only a month and 175 plus is truly impressive to me. I must say that these are the people who are very much developed in a certain set of reasoning skills and reading skills already. I wonder if all of this can be attributed to genes and dna and how much is learned from an earlier age. And if this is the case, ive always also wondered how much ive fallen behind compared to these folks. Iss it something i must have learned at a young age or can it be done now? Im trying to test these questions out and learn things for myself. Thanks for the reply!

kiyoku wrote:Your brain can be pushed every day at every single minute of your life without injuries. Your body can't. You'll have joint problems and all kinds of issues. Feeling brain-dead? This is the best time to push even more. You'll be programming your brain to expand those synapses related to your studies, and all of that hard work will pay off as you sleep and those synapses expand and expand.

I know research has shown the brain is like a muscle, in that your capacity to focus and sustain difficult mental work can be increased with mental exercise. However, I think you may be overstating the bolded. Source?

Overall, and despite scientific realities, I'm always a fan of this sort of attitude. As a practical matter, it almost always seems to help me rather than hurt, but I suspect that's because my default worth ethic is TTTshitville and a "pathological restelessness," as that scientist-wannabe journalist put it, simply puts me at par with other reasonably hardworking people. Hence, getting a little crazy and obsessive about weaknesses and performance bears less of a risk of burnout or mental fatigue (which, from my limited understanding is a real neurological possibility) for me than it would for others with already satisfactory work ethics. So with that long caveat, I approve your message-- strength and honor.

c3pO4 wrote:newsflash: 175+ on the LSAT, or even 180 is far from the level of excellence of a michael jordan. the "michael jordan" equivalent in law is the top student at a top school who gets to the top of his career.

I think there probably isn't a Michael Jordan equivalent in law. Maybe of you're the consensus GOAT SCOTUS justice or something after serving for decades. It certainly wouldn't have anything to do with the LSAT, though.

There is a Michael Jordan in the field of law and his name is Jeff Douglas, champion defender of the first amendment.

TheMostDangerousLG wrote:This post is silly and absurd. You do realize that burnout is usually used to describe a temporary phase, correct? That those who "burnout" don't quit, and usually just need a break? Burnout is a legitimate phenomenon, it affects people both physically and mentally, and to say that people who are not participating in constant, obsessive goal pursuit or who are experiencing exhaustion as a result of such pursuit are succumbing to weakness is ridiculous.

This post is just narcissistic drivel at best, and at worst, insulting to your fellow test takers.

+1

I hope OP's personal statement doesn't read like their post, but something leads me to believe that's unavoidable.

This thread makes me chuckle to myself, especially the first few sentences.

Tiger Woods might not have gone out drinking after winning a competition and woken up with a hangover...but he still gave in by sleeping with over 100 women. Some people give in and quit their commitments different ways.
Aka take out the part about Tiger til he returns to form.

myscoreonmysleeve wrote:This thread makes me chuckle to myself, especially the first few sentences.

Agreed

Overall, I believe there's a lot of truth in what the OP wrote, and I really enjoyed this post.

However, I do agree with DD's caveats, particularly these:

Daily_Double wrote:I think burning out may be overrated, though the amount of hours you are putting in is astonishing, and potentially counterproductive. I think the idea of burning out depends upon the individual in question...Furthermore, some people study well only when they have breaks to have fun, get hammered, visit family, etc. Thus, for these some people, myself included, breaks are beneficial, if not necessary. And the lack of such breaks can be counterproductive for the aforementioned amount of people.

I think you just have to be careful. If you're a social person who is used to going out often, or if you're used to working out often, or filling your free time in some other fun way, then in my opinion, the claim that one should occupy all of one's time, and thus exclude the above preoccupation, seems counterproductive. It completely depends upon the individual in question. I think a person does their best work, in this case studies well, when these preoccupations are included, but maybe you don't fit this mold.