Law School Discussion

LSAT Preparation => Studying for the LSAT => Topic started by: Fisher on December 06, 2015, 07:02:48 PM

Title: .
Post by: Fisher on December 06, 2015, 07:02:48 PM
deleted

Title: Re: .
Post by: Citylaw on December 08, 2015, 11:25:09 AM
I think there about 50 services out there.

I know a lot of people use Kaplan now.

However, don't put to much faith in a LSAT program, it can't hurt you, but the main thing is showing up to take the test. I don't know how many people put it off for years and in this day and age the vast majority if not all schools only take your highest score.

Therefore, you should study for the LSAT for a few months and take it. If it isn't the score you want you can retake, but odds are once you have a score you will just apply to law school and take the first step towards your legal career.

Good luck.
Title: Re: .
Post by: EarlCat on December 10, 2015, 02:39:09 PM
What matters is the instructor, not the company.
Title: Re: .
Post by: Citylaw on December 10, 2015, 03:40:11 PM
Truth.

In a way that is even true about law school or any form of education really.

A great teacher is awesome and memorable. I know from elementary school all the way through law school I had some great teachers and some s**t ones.

The great ones help you succeed regardless of the company, school, etc they teach at.

Title: Re: .
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on December 10, 2015, 04:54:52 PM
What matters is the instructor, not the company.
Same difference unless its in person (and not just the "in person" with video to watch either)
Aren't most online now anyways?
Title: Re: .
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on December 10, 2015, 04:57:59 PM
Truth.



The great ones help you succeed regardless of the company, school, etc they teach at.

The "great ones" tend to gravitate towards the better companies/schools (both as profs and students)
We all know "that one guy" who was a genius but had to stay at community college to take care of dieing granma
or "that one guy" who got into IVY due to his rich connected uncle, but barely passed.

But overall certain places are better off FOR A REASON.
Title: Re: .
Post by: EarlCat on December 15, 2015, 06:50:49 PM
I don't think your analogy holds. No prep company can afford to be as selective as an Ivy when hiring instructors. There's no element of prestige and no tenure to lure the best and the brightest. And, unlike professors, the shelf-life of an LSAT instructor tends to be very very short (people good at the LSAT are also good at getting into top schools, becoming lawyers, and making a lot more money than anyone teaching prep classes). Prep companies thus tend to find themselves desperate for a warm body to stick at the front of the classroom.

Really experienced instructors with, say, 5-10 years experience under their belts are few and far between regardless what company you're looking at. No matter how good Such-and-Such LSAT Prep, Inc. might be, you don't want to be in a class taught by a newbie.
Title: Re: .
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on December 16, 2015, 01:10:53 AM
I don't think your analogy holds. No prep company can afford to be as selective as an Ivy when hiring instructors. There's no element of prestige and no tenure to lure the best and the brightest. And, unlike professors, the shelf-life of an LSAT instructor tends to be very very short (people good at the LSAT are also good at getting into top schools, becoming lawyers, and making a lot more money than anyone teaching prep classes). Prep companies thus tend to find themselves desperate for a warm body to stick at the front of the classroom.

Really experienced instructors with, say, 5-10 years experience under their belts are few and far between regardless what company you're looking at. No matter how good Such-and-Such LSAT Prep, Inc. might be, you don't want to be in a class taught by a newbie.
An extra dollar an hour is all it takes
Title: Re: .
Post by: Citylaw on December 16, 2015, 10:12:24 AM
Yea I don't know if LSAT instructor is the dream position of someone capable of killing it on the LSAT. If someone can pull a 170 on the LSAT and get into Harvard Law they will can probably do better than being an LSAT instructor.
Title: Re: .
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on December 16, 2015, 11:13:37 PM
Yea I don't know if LSAT instructor is the dream position of someone capable of killing it on the LSAT. If someone can pull a 170 on the LSAT and get into Harvard Law they will can probably do better than being an LSAT instructor.
This is one of those "How the hell did we get here" moments

Scroll up and watch how this devolved into what you are now thinking it is.

But yeah, if you are going to do (whatever the thing is in question) anyways, there will always be places that attract better talent. Just will. (even if it just means the less sucky of the suckers or whatever, who cares-the pool that they are hiring from, whatever)
Title: Re: .
Post by: EarlCat on December 23, 2015, 09:13:35 AM
Yea I don't know if LSAT instructor is the dream position of someone capable of killing it on the LSAT. If someone can pull a 170 on the LSAT and get into Harvard Law they will can probably do better than being an LSAT instructor.

Financially, no doubt.

there will always be places that attract better talent. Just will. (even if it just means the less sucky of the suckers or whatever, who cares-the pool that they are hiring from, whatever)

Some companies might recruit higher scorers than others, but that doesn't necessarily translate into better instructor.

In the 10 years I've been around this business, of the top five best instructors I've met, none are employed by a test company.
Title: Re: .
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on December 23, 2015, 07:40:36 PM
Yea I don't know if LSAT instructor is the dream position of someone capable of killing it on the LSAT. If someone can pull a 170 on the LSAT and get into Harvard Law they will can probably do better than being an LSAT instructor.

Financially, no doubt.

there will always be places that attract better talent. Just will. (even if it just means the less sucky of the suckers or whatever, who cares-the pool that they are hiring from, whatever)

Some companies might recruit higher scorers than others, but that doesn't necessarily translate into better instructor.

In the 10 years I've been around this business, of the top five best instructors I've met, none are employed by a test company.
You are viewing it from the wrong angle. SOMEONE HAS TO BE "better" (even if we're talking special Olympics here)
Title: Re: .
Post by: EarlCat on December 23, 2015, 09:07:51 PM
Why does someone have to be better? Based on what? Instructors choose companies for a whole slew of reasons, most of which have nothing to with who's "better" (whatever that means). Maybe their office is in a convenient location. Maybe they've got a presence on such-and-such campus. Maybe it's the company they happened to prep with. Maybe the admin assistant is cute.

All the companies use real LSAT questions. All their classes are about how to work through said questions. All the companies have techniques developed by high-scorers (all of whom borrowed their techniques from other high-scorers who work for other companies).

At the end of the day, it's the individual instructors that make the difference, not the people who happen to write their checks.
Title: Re: .
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on December 24, 2015, 10:36:47 AM
Why does someone have to be better? Based on what? Instructors choose companies for a whole slew of reasons, most of which have nothing to with who's "better" (whatever that means). Maybe their office is in a convenient location. Maybe they've got a presence on such-and-such campus. Maybe it's the company they happened to prep with. Maybe the admin assistant is cute.

All the companies use real LSAT questions. All their classes are about how to work through said questions. All the companies have techniques developed by high-scorers (all of whom borrowed their techniques from other high-scorers who work for other companies).

At the end of the day, it's the individual instructors that make the difference, not the people who happen to write their checks.
The same theory applies to cooley vs Harvard I guess.........
Title: Re: .
Post by: EarlCat on December 24, 2015, 10:48:56 AM
As I said earlier in this thread, law schools (which hire career academics and offer six-figure salaries, tenure, prestige, etc.) and test prep companies (which hire part-time schmucks who happen to be good at filling in bubbles and have nothing better to do before flying off to grad school) aren't at all analogous.
Title: Re: .
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on December 24, 2015, 06:52:34 PM
As I said earlier in this thread, law schools (which hire career academics and offer six-figure salaries, tenure, prestige, etc.) and test prep companies (which hire part-time schmucks who happen to be good at filling in bubbles and have nothing better to do before flying off to grad school) aren't at all analogous.
so all bar prep companies are of equal value is what you are saying?
None are better than others?
If instructors are the variable, lets remove them from the equation. Online only lsat prep. Are all still equal? is any the best or the worst?