Top Law Schools

Hey All!,

Just wondering but have any of you 170+ scorers worked at a prep company and taught the LSAT for money, in

A) As you were currently a 1/2/3L?
B) Summers of your 1/2/3L if you couldn't find a job?
C) Taken a gap year to make money, or deferring for a year to make money?

It just seems from what ive seen, that test companies pay pretty dang well, and if you could take a year off and save up even like 15k and then go to LS, that it would be a great idea.

Any thoughts?

I hired and trained teachers (as well as taught and wrote curriculum) for a major test prep company for several years. While some do pay a good hourly rate, you're probably overestimating the amount of money that you can make teaching for a company.

Here are some things to take into account and make sure you research before making a decision:

-A lot of companies have moved most of their classes online. That means more students per class and/or video lessons, so that there are fewer teaching slots available.

-Even where companies are still running multiple live classes, the number of those classes is limited and they usually take place primarily (or only) evenings and weekends, limiting the number of hours you can teach in a given week.

-Pay rates vary wildly from one company to another, and sometimes the advertised rate is a rate for classroom hours only; the many hours you spend preparing for class, talking to students outside class, etc, may not be compensated or may be compensated at a much lower rate.

-Most test prep companies have strict non-compete agreements, meaning that you would not be able to fill in hours by teaching for more than one company or tutoring on the side if you were employed by one. Often, these prohibit you from working for a competitor or performing competing work for a year after termination, so if you teach one class, hate it and want to switch, you probably won't be able to.

That's not to say that you can't make it work, but make sure that you have a clear understanding of the unpaid or lower-rate hours required and how many class hours are likely to be required before signing on.

TLSanders wrote:I hired and trained teachers (as well as taught and wrote curriculum) for a major test prep company for several years. While some do pay a good hourly rate, you're probably overestimating the amount of money that you can make teaching for a company.

Here are some things to take into account and make sure you research before making a decision:

-A lot of companies have moved most of their classes online. That means more students per class and/or video lessons, so that there are fewer teaching slots available.

-Even where companies are still running multiple live classes, the number of those classes is limited and they usually take place primarily (or only) evenings and weekends, limiting the number of hours you can teach in a given week.

-Pay rates vary wildly from one company to another, and sometimes the advertised rate is a rate for classroom hours only; the many hours you spend preparing for class, talking to students outside class, etc, may not be compensated or may be compensated at a much lower rate.

-Most test prep companies have strict non-compete agreements, meaning that you would not be able to fill in hours by teaching for more than one company or tutoring on the side if you were employed by one. Often, these prohibit you from working for a competitor or performing competing work for a year after termination, so if you teach one class, hate it and want to switch, you probably won't be able to.

That's not to say that you can't make it work, but make sure that you have a clear understanding of the unpaid or lower-rate hours required and how many class hours are likely to be required before signing on.

I have similar experience to TLSanders and her (his?) post is right on.

Just to add on, these non compete clauses are generally very difficult to enforce, and are mostly put in to scare tutors. In a number of states, they are nearly unenforceable except for equity holders. Most states have some sort of reasonableness standard, which would generally mean that a multi million dollar company wouldn't get to claim that a former part-time employee making $50 an hour off of craigslist represents unfair competition.

But yeah I'm afraid the days of living the ease life, making a living wage teaching twentyish hours a week eight months a year are pretty much gone except for a very lucky few. Too many good books, good online classes, good forums like this one, etc., coupled with fewer people gunning for law school means the LSAT tutoring golden age is over.

anon sequitur wrote:Just to add on, these non compete clauses are generally very difficult to enforce, and are mostly put in to scare tutors. In a number of states, they are nearly unenforceable except for equity holders. Most states have some sort of reasonableness standard, which would generally mean that a multi million dollar company wouldn't get to claim that a former part-time employee making $50 an hour off of craigslist represents unfair competition.

But yeah I'm afraid the days of living the ease life, making a living wage teaching twentyish hours a week eight months a year are pretty much gone except for a very lucky few. Too many good books, good online classes, good forums like this one, etc., coupled with fewer people gunning for law school means the LSAT tutoring golden age is over.

I think a lot of people are still looking for tutors. You just may not be able to find tutoring jobs teaching classes with major companies as easily.

Many students are moving towards self prep with one of the methods you mentioned + a few sessions with a tutor. Ends up cheaper than a classroom course, and usually more effective.

Graeme (Hacking the LSAT) wrote: Many students are moving towards self prep with one of the methods you mentioned + a few sessions with a tutor. Ends up cheaper than a classroom course, and usually more effective.

I'm not so sure about that. Do you have a source for this?

papercut wrote:

Graeme (Hacking the LSAT) wrote: Many students are moving towards self prep with one of the methods you mentioned + a few sessions with a tutor. Ends up cheaper than a classroom course, and usually more effective.

I'm not so sure about that. Do you have a source for this?

No. No one has a source for any LSAT prep advice, apart from personal anecdotes. No one's done any studies, and it's rather difficult to disentangle causation from correlation.

But classes tend to teach towards the middle, where most students are. Doing self prep forces you to make a good study plan. You're the one accountable for your own success either way, but there's no hiding from it when you self-study.

I've heard from a lot of students who took courses, then only figured it out with one of the self-study methods above. Though I suppose I'm not likely to hear from students who took a course and then didn't need self study.

Note that I think the first part (self-study) is more useful than the second part (tutor) even though tutors cost more.

Graeme (Hacking the LSAT) wrote:

papercut wrote:

Graeme (Hacking the LSAT) wrote: Many students are moving towards self prep with one of the methods you mentioned + a few sessions with a tutor. Ends up cheaper than a classroom course, and usually more effective.

I'm not so sure about that. Do you have a source for this?

No. No one has a source for any LSAT prep advice, apart from personal anecdotes. No one's done any studies, and it's rather difficult to disentangle causation from correlation.

But classes tend to teach towards the middle, where most students are. Doing self prep forces you to make a good study plan. You're the one accountable for your own success either way, but there's no hiding from it when you self-study.

I've heard from a lot of students who took courses, then only figured it out with one of the self-study methods above. Though I suppose I'm not likely to hear from students who took a course and then didn't need self study.

Note that I think the first part (self-study) is more useful than the second part (tutor) even though tutors cost more.

I know a couple of the test prep companies will tell you how much improvement they see, how many people retake the course, etc.

I thought you might have looked at some research about how well prep companies do vs. self prep for standardized tests in general.

It was a silly thing to say IMHO, when you admit that no one really knows.

papercut wrote:

Graeme (Hacking the LSAT) wrote:

papercut wrote:

Graeme (Hacking the LSAT) wrote: Many students are moving towards self prep with one of the methods you mentioned + a few sessions with a tutor. Ends up cheaper than a classroom course, and usually more effective.

I'm not so sure about that. Do you have a source for this?

No. No one has a source for any LSAT prep advice, apart from personal anecdotes. No one's done any studies, and it's rather difficult to disentangle causation from correlation.

But classes tend to teach towards the middle, where most students are. Doing self prep forces you to make a good study plan. You're the one accountable for your own success either way, but there's no hiding from it when you self-study.

I've heard from a lot of students who took courses, then only figured it out with one of the self-study methods above. Though I suppose I'm not likely to hear from students who took a course and then didn't need self study.

Note that I think the first part (self-study) is more useful than the second part (tutor) even though tutors cost more.

I know a couple of the test prep companies will tell you how much improvement they see, how many people retake the course, etc.

I thought you might have looked at some research about how well prep companies do vs. self prep for standardized tests in general.

It was a silly thing to say IMHO, when you admit that no one really knows.

The standard claim for just about every method is +10 points. But there's causation correlation. When you take a course, you are:

* Taking a course, AND
* Studying for 20+ hours for several weeks
* Taking a fresh test, then taking multiple timed tests

What caused the improvement: the course, the practice, or the exposure? Or something else?

No one knows. The only way to "know" something like this is to do a controlled study. And no one would fund a controlled study on the optimal LSAT prep methods.

You're right that it's a silly thing to say, but the level of uncertainty I'm talking about applies to every bit of advice people give on this board. It's all anecdotal. No one really knows. And yet, the advice still seems to be useful for people. Anecdotes aren't useless, they're just not certain either.

but the level of uncertainty I'm talking about applies to every bit of advice people give on this board.

That's not really true. I think there is a difference between most of the advice on this board and what seemed to me at first to be your self serving guess about what works better.

There is a lot of settled opinion on LSAT prep that has more certainty. Like, learn a bit of formal logic, find the conclusion before you think about strengthening/weakening an argument, do 5 section practice tests, don't skim the RC passages, and so on.

Sorry to go off topic so hard.

papercut wrote:

but the level of uncertainty I'm talking about applies to every bit of advice people give on this board.

That's not really true. I think there is a difference between most of the advice on this board and what seemed to me at first to be your self serving guess about what works better.

There is a lot of settled opinion on LSAT prep that has more certainty. Like, learn a bit of formal logic, find the conclusion before you think about strengthening/weakening an argument, do 5 section practice tests, don't skim the RC passages, and so on.

Sorry to go off topic so hard.

Oh, I meant "advice about prep methods". I should have been more precise. I mean "Manhattan vs. powerscore" "7Sage vs. velocity", "blueprint online vs. classroom" and any of the countless comparisons you see on here.

But you do have the right instinct to note an opinion potentially tainted by self-interest. That's not why I said it though; I get very few tutoring students from TLS. Most find my site through google. Anyway, as I said above, I think the self-study part is the most important part.

Alright, back to topic Maybe lets PM if we continue the discussion.

My main point was that there's definitely still space in the market for LSAT tutors. Indeed, the high rates existing independent tutors charge is strong evidence there's room for competitors.

Graeme (Hacking the LSAT) wrote:

papercut wrote:

but the level of uncertainty I'm talking about applies to every bit of advice people give on this board.

That's not really true. I think there is a difference between most of the advice on this board and what seemed to me at first to be your self serving guess about what works better.

There is a lot of settled opinion on LSAT prep that has more certainty. Like, learn a bit of formal logic, find the conclusion before you think about strengthening/weakening an argument, do 5 section practice tests, don't skim the RC passages, and so on.

Sorry to go off topic so hard.

Oh, I meant "advice about prep methods". I should have been more precise. I mean "Manhattan vs. powerscore" "7Sage vs. velocity", "blueprint online vs. classroom" and any of the countless comparisons you see on here.

But you do have the right instinct to note an opinion potentially tainted by self-interest. That's not why I said it though; I get very few tutoring students from TLS. Most find my site through google. Anyway, as I said above, I think the self-study part is the most important part.

Alright, back to topic Maybe lets PM if we continue the discussion.

My main point was that there's definitely still space in the market for LSAT tutors. Indeed, the high rates existing independent tutors charge is strong evidence there's room for competitors.

Ah yeah then I agree.