Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - EarlCat

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 219
1
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LSAT Score Theory
« on: January 02, 2016, 05:38:01 PM »
Um, this makes no sense. Can you define what exactly it means to "make it"?

Ummm...make 1 million dollars??? :)

You don't need to take the LSAT to do that. Scoring higher than 160 is likely to set you back about a quarter mil anyway. :)

2
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LSAT Score Theory
« on: January 02, 2016, 01:53:39 PM »
Um, this makes no sense. Can you define what exactly it means to "make it"?

3
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LSAT Score Theory
« on: January 02, 2016, 09:28:07 AM »
"Make it" where?

4
Studying for the LSAT / Re: .
« 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.

5
Studying for the LSAT / Re: .
« 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.

6
Studying for the LSAT / Re: .
« 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.

7
Studying for the LSAT / Re: .
« 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.

8
Studying for the LSAT / Re: .
« on: December 10, 2015, 02:39:09 PM »
What matters is the instructor, not the company.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 219