« on: January 16, 2004, 12:51:26 PM »
I too took Kaplan the first time around for LSAT prep and was rather unhappy with the results. I scored 159 on my diag, and by the end of the course was scoring 167--a score I would have been perfectly happy with. I scored 154 on the October 2002 test and was rather upset.
For this December's test, I took P. Review, and started out with a 158. I worked that up to a 164, and scored 165 on the real thing. I will say my teacher (Farb Nivi if anyone else has taken him) was exceptional and probably much better than average even for a P. Review teacher, and that helped a lot too.
Princeton Review's methods are much more effective in my estimation. Some of the simpler and more effective ones were not even mentioned at Kaplan, and like I said, they weren't exactly rocket science. Also, Kaplan teaches a method for args that says the first 10 on a section are easiest (which is true), the next ten are more difficult (which is true), but that the last 5-6 are again easier (which is false). They like to have you do 1-10, followed by 21-#X, and then 11-20. That's fine, but why would you throw the hardest ones in the middle? (It is undeniable that the sections get harder as you go along, as opposed to a breakup Kaplan claims). That is just one flawed method Kaplan employs.
So, in short, Kaplan is not good and P. Review is.