Top Law Schools

i scored a 179 on the lsat (was cheated out of a point by a shitty proctor who was too stupid to read a clock correctly)
taught lsat from june 2012 until august 2014
ITT i candidly answer your questions about the lsat business (not answering questions like "how do you do snakes and lizards?")

i'm no veteran like jeffort
but i learned a few things along the way
and i'm willing to talk completely openly, since i'm not working anymore

ask any questions you have about the lsat business, including (but not limited to) info about courses, finding tutors, fair rates, third party materials, upselling, how much students improve, habits and traits of good/bad students, self-study vs course vs tutor, remote learning, and what i think of the industry in general

1) What do you think of the industry in general

2) What's the most significant improvement you've seen

3) Do you think everyone has a ceiling or can this test be gamed completely

CardozoLaw09 wrote:1) What do you think of the industry in general

2) What's the most significant improvement you've seen

3) Do you think everyone has a ceiling or can this test be gamed completely

1) it's a slimy industry
lot of snakes who are taking advantage of people
charging rates that are unconscionable

the lsat isn't rocket science
students are in awe of the top scorers, thinking there's some secret sauce
but in reality it's just work ethic, proper materials, analysis, and intellect
tutors/teachers can make the process more efficient by pointing you in the right direction (especially on the analysis part)
but we're all massively, massively overpaid

i also have the view that if a student is walking into a wood chipper, you have an obligation to tell them
most of my students were great, but there were always a few who clearly weren't going to make it
in the last half a year or so i taught, i told a lot of students they should reconsider going to law school and turned them away
i'd show them LST and statistics about the legal market
i'm glad i saw the light near the end, but i still deeply regret encouraging some people to go to law school when i started out
many tutors won't say anything discouraging, of course, because to them you're just a paycheck

the companies are much much worse than the independent tutors
i interviewed for varsity tutors
they charge an arm and a leg for tutoring
i interviewed with them, 179 scorer with a teaching background
i get passed over because i won't agree to 20 an hour
they'd rather go with the 164 scorer with no teaching background who will go down to 18
never sign up for courses/tutoring from one of the big companies unless that company is named powerscore, blueprint, or manhattan

2) the most significant improvement i've ever seen

i'm very proud of the work i did with two of my students in particular
they were both scoring in the 150s and were trying to get into TTs
i convinced both of them to postpone the lsat and put in serious hours
and they both ended up in the high 170s

of course, i take only very very limited credit for their success
they were both highly motivated people

it's funny, bc i had a lot of students talk a big game about how they were going to put in monster hours and how motivated they were and how law was their passion, etc
but most of my top scorers just shut up and worked

3) work ethic is key here
a lot of my students from directional state school and crappy gpas blew my hyp students out of the water
not just a few, a lot

sure, there is a ceiling
some people are never going to hit 150, or 160, or 170
there is some natural ability involved
not everyone can get a top score

but there are also a lot of people who underestimate themselves
i went to a bottom of the barrel state school and got a crap gpa in a music major
it was completely unfathomable to me that i'd get a 99.9th percentile score until i put in the serious hours and got it

Brut wrote:it's funny, bc i had a lot of students talk a big game about how they were going to put in monster hours and how motivated they were and how law was their passion, etc
but most of my top scorers just shut up and worked

This seems credited for almost any discussion of the LSAT I've ever seen (not the "how do you do game x" discussions; just the "what do I need to do to get into HYS" discussions).

Brut wrote:2) the most significant improvement i've ever seen

i'm very proud of the work i did with two of my students in particular
they were both scoring in the 150s and were trying to get into TTs
i convinced both of them to postpone the lsat and put in serious hours
and they both ended up in the high 170s

of course, i take only very very limited credit for their success
they were both highly motivated people

it's funny, bc i had a lot of students talk a big game about how they were going to put in monster hours and how motivated they were and how law was their passion, etc
but most of my top scorers just shut up and worked

How long, on average, did it take those who were scoring in the 150s to reach the 170s? I'm assuming it was variable from student to student, but did you notice any general trends? 4-5 months? 6?

Thanks for answering our questions on this thread, really appreciate it.

Just have a quick question:

In your opinion, what's the best way to tackle the RC portion of the exam? And how can one score consistently well on this section (-2 or below) like many people do in LG?

Which companies do you think provided the best prep materials for students of yours looking to speed up LG's? I've read some of the guides posted throughout TLS, but am interested in your opinion.

I'm part way through Manhattan's guide now, and I had finished PSLGB earlier, but still having serious issues getting past the third game within the 35 minutes -- which I'm sure u know makes for a real drag on the overall score.

Brut wrote:never sign up for courses/tutoring from one of the big companies unless that company is named powerscore, blueprint, or manhattan

What's up with Testmasters?

Appreciate the answers Brut

179orBust wrote:Thanks for answering our questions on this thread, really appreciate it.

Just have a quick question:

In your opinion, what's the best way to tackle the RC portion of the exam? And how can one score consistently well on this section (-2 or below) like many people do in LG?

I am struggling with reading comp as well- more specifically taking on the more difficult passages in the 8 minutes and 45 seconds time requirement. I get done reading the passages by the 4 minutes, but I cannot knock out the questions quick enough. Any advice?

Also, any advice on knocking out the real difficult logical reasoning questions?

Brut specifically said that questions should be about the business of LSAT tutoring, not specific questions like "how do you do this type of problem." The stickied posts at the top of this forum, the search function, or--if you're at a total loss--making your own topic on a question would be better.

Yet if Brut wishes to answer these, then I'll just shut the hell up.

Brut wrote: it's funny, bc i had a lot of students talk a big game about how they were going to put in monster hours and how motivated they were and how law was their passion, etc
but most of my top scorers just shut up and worked

This is GREAT takeaway! It should be obvious to preppers, but I feel it is too often lost.
Some people put in an intense week of 40+ hours then take weeks off and wonder what went wrong when they didn't perform well.
Other people spend every day going to the library but spending more time on Facebooking (or TLSing ) than prepping.

When it comes the LSAT, there really is no substitute for hard work. Your stories affirm this.
The last couple months, I've half-assed my way from my diagnostic to scoring 165+. I was going to sit in September, but I had an honest conversation with myself earlier this month and realize that I have actually been quite lazy. If I could get 165+ being lazy, then I can surely get to 170+ in December if I change my study habits and work diligently. It's way easier to be complacent, than to be honest about the amount of effort you're putting in and working to rectify that.

Thank you for doing this, Brut.

mud415 wrote:How long, on average, did it take those who were scoring in the 150s to reach the 170s? I'm assuming it was variable from student to student, but did you notice any general trends? 4-5 months? 6?

completely varied
it's not just about reaching the 170s but staying there consistently
and for that, i'd say five or six months is about average
one of the students i mentioned above who got in the high 170s prepped for nine months, but did fewer hours per week bc of work and school

hopeboaltberkeley wrote:Which companies do you think provided the best prep materials for students of yours looking to speed up LG's? I've read some of the guides posted throughout TLS, but am interested in your opinion.

I'm part way through Manhattan's guide now, and I had finished PSLGB earlier, but still having serious issues getting past the third game within the 35 minutes -- which I'm sure u know makes for a real drag on the overall score.

imo, powerscore has the best strategies for lg
however, their way of doing relative ordering is wonky, i'd use manhattan's tree diagrams instead

manhattan is also good but i hate their approach to in/out for various reasons
all of which i'm too lazy to get into right now

ultimately, see what works for you
one reason i don't like the big companies is that they're selling you on the full package
you use their strategy for necessary assumptions, and for hybrid games, and for reading comp, etc
a lot of students do better if they can pick and choose
when i taught students a technique, if they really weren't getting it i'd show them a different approach
a good tutor should have the flexibility to do that

anonygate wrote:

Brut wrote:never sign up for courses/tutoring from one of the big companies unless that company is named powerscore, blueprint, or manhattan

What's up with Testmasters?

i just don't have any experience with testmasters
whereas i've had a chance to look through ps/mlsat/bp materials

the only thing i can say about testmasters is that i got a lot of clients who have taken it, moreso than any of the other courses
but idk if that's meaningful, since idk if that means they're not preparing students well or it's just a really popular course in my area

cool thread. I still tutor, but I don't mind talking shit about the industry because I'm not interested in using TLS as a way to get clients.

Most of my students are wasting their (or their parents) money. I tell everyone that they have to do a huge about of work, they all agree, but 80% of them do little or nothing outside of our sessions.

1) On top of putting in the hours, what kind of mindset should a person prepping for the LSAT have? Positive? Deeply critical of oneself?

2) What are your thoughts of students who plateau in a score range (i.e. low 160s) for an extended period of time (a month)? Is this indicative of his/her score ceiling?

h3jk5h wrote:1) On top of putting in the hours, what kind of mindset should a person prepping for the LSAT have? Positive? Deeply critical of oneself?

2) What are your thoughts of students who plateau in a score range (i.e. low 160s) for an extended period of time (a month)? Is this indicative of his/her score ceiling?

1) both
prepping doesn't have to be torture
it's exciting to be doing well and making tangible progress
but you have to hold yourself accountable too
if you're not following through, you have to be hard on yourself
speaking of which, after this post i need to immediately stop procrastinating on tls and get back to studying

2) i've had plenty of students make improvements after stagnating for a month
it comes down to the student
for example, a student at ~168 for a month who's getting slaughtered on grouping games is probably someone with room to improve
a student hitting ~168 who just can't read quickly enough to get through the fourth passage, i'd say their improvement may be more limited
ultimately, you have to analyze your pts, break down your strengths and weaknesses
whether it's a pacing issue or a problem with your strategy or a lack of drilling
you have to take the time to sort out where the issue actually lies and tackle it head on

Which companies employ those scoring below 170.

What do you think would be better

1) buying a test prep course like blue print
or
2) buying all the various questions and books that you think are good and self studying?

Also, on the off chance you can offer advice on someone whose stuck with LG.

I really have drilled games, a lot. But for whatever reason my game breakdown will go: 2 games perfect. 1 game i'll miss 1 or 2 questions. 1 game i'll miss like 3 or 4 questions. It's beyond frustrating, and even worse because when I redo the game i'll easily -0 it!

Seoulless wrote:Which companies employ those scoring below 170.

kaplan?

gnomgnomuch wrote:What do you think would be better

1) buying a test prep course like blue print
or
2) buying all the various questions and books that you think are good and self studying?

Also, on the off chance you can offer advice on someone whose stuck with LG.

I really have drilled games, a lot. But for whatever reason my game breakdown will go: 2 games perfect. 1 game i'll miss 1 or 2 questions. 1 game i'll miss like 3 or 4 questions. It's beyond frustrating, and even worse because when I redo the game i'll easily -0 it!

i always told students that (for the most part) you won't learn anything from a test prep company you couldn't learn through self-study

sure, courses can help for those who need a certain structured environment
but the lack of personalization makes it inefficient, the class will crawl through areas you find easy, and will fly through things you really need more time on
and for the most part courses are one-size-fits-all
that's not to say people haven't done well with courses, but i'd contend that many or most of them would have done just as well or better with self-study
it's hard for me to imagine a situation in which i would actively recommend someone take a course

tutors can help make the process a little more efficient by diagnosing problems and knowing how to resolve them
but again, it is not worth what people pay
for the most part, you won't learn anything you couldn't from a book
95% of it is contingent on the work students put in on their own anyways
if some hypothetical student has very ample financial resources and there's a reputable, experienced tutor in the area, sure, knock yourself out
but people think it will make more of a difference than it actually does

Brut wrote: tutors can help make the process a little more efficient by diagnosing problems and knowing how to resolve them
but again, it is not worth what people pay
for the most part, you won't learn anything you couldn't from a book
95% of it is contingent on the work students put in on their own anyways
if some hypothetical student has very ample financial resources and there's a reputable, experienced tutor in the area, sure, knock yourself out
but people think it will make more of a difference than it actually does

As a tutor, I agree. Mostly, it's the work you do as a student. Pricing is typically based on scarcity, rather than value. Most high scorers can go to T14 then work as a lawyer, so why would they tutor? And for someone like me, I do a lot of other business stuff that's higher value to me, so I just tutor one day a week. I charge more than I did when I went independent four years ago, but I doubt I'm much better.

Probably best value for money is to catch someone good on the way up, before they have other options. Rule of thumb is, if you've heard of someone independently (Steve from LSAT Blog, Nathan Fox in SF, Ben Olson in DC, me, Jonathan who works with 7Sage, and a few others) then they will be rather expensive. If you've heard of them, then LOTS of people have heard of them, so they have to raise their rates to cope with demand. Quality is likely good too, but it may not be as good as someone local charging $70 and who is a gifted natural teacher. On the other hand, someone who doesn't have a following is also more likely to suck. Being a known name sets a floor on quality: someone is likely to be at least pretty good, but you know nothing beyond that.

As a counterpoint to all this, I remember Mike Kim talking about seeing tutors generate an almost unfair advantage for students. I suspect he had some specific tutors in mind. LSAT expertise and teaching expertise are not the same thing.

Someone's who's systematized LR is worth their weight in gold. By this I mean someone who's figured out all the dozens of ways LR questions are tricky, and made practice sets for them. I'm not sure this person exists, but I'm sure there are some people who can produce pretty consistently good results because they've figured out some special way to teach.

Levels of teaching:

1. Doesn't understand test, can't explain concepts well
2. Understands test, can't explain concepts well
3. Understands test, can explain concepts well
4. Understands test, can explain concepts well, can diagnose what concepts are missing
5. Understands test, can explain concepts well, can diagnose what concepts are missing, can lay out a roadmap for learning those concepts

Level 5 is pretty damn rare, at least on certain sections. LG is easy, parts of LR are easy, parts are hard. RC is hard all around.