Quote from: snobord99 on April 20, 2005, 02:57:03 AMif u EVER get a chance to sit in on or take a class by robin...TAKE IT...he just did our diag 2 review and it was INCREDIBLE the amount this man knows about the lsat and the logic used on it...i cant imagine ANY instructor coming anywhere near that (assuming tm instructor)...not only does he teach it in a way that i believe ANYONE can understand, he does it passionately which i dont think u can pass on to any instructor...too bad it was a one time thing...High performance and insight are not the same thing. If he does have the most insight, I doubt it’s because he took the test 25 times. I’m sure there are many LSAT instructors out there who could have the same “record” as robin if they were inclined to sit for 25 LSATs. Also, it’s possible that the person with the most LSAT insight has never sat for the test.Finally, high performer doesn’t necessarily translate to good instructor (although snobord99 seems to think he is).
if u EVER get a chance to sit in on or take a class by robin...TAKE IT...he just did our diag 2 review and it was INCREDIBLE the amount this man knows about the lsat and the logic used on it...i cant imagine ANY instructor coming anywhere near that (assuming tm instructor)...not only does he teach it in a way that i believe ANYONE can understand, he does it passionately which i dont think u can pass on to any instructor...too bad it was a one time thing...
High performance and insight may not be identical, but I suspect they're pretty highly correlated. If you can do that well, you probably understand the logical relationships involved. I agree. However, the claims “one probably understands the logical relationships” and “one probably has the most understanding and insight of the test” vary significantly in strength. Also, if the relationship between his performance and insight is merely a correlation, then there’s no reason to mention his “record”. If you are willing to say that insight and high performance are not identical, then you would probably agree that if there were a relationship between the two other than correlation, it would probably be that insight implies high performance (not the other way around). I realize that your claim, “If you can do that well, you probably understand the logical relationships involved” sounds like you want to claim that high performance implies insight. However, I suspect you would agree that everyone who has great insight will perform well but not everyone who performs well has great insight (By great insight, I mean having a theoretical knowledge of the test such that one could break it down into its various parts, describe the purpose of each part, describe how they relate to each other, describe how they relate to the whole, and then explain how one can achieve a high score using this knowledge…or something like that). So, mentioning his “record” won’t tell us if he has the most insight.
The insight/ability, I think, is largely inherent. However, the fact he's taken the test numerous times shows his score was not a fluke, and also underscores his commitment to understanding the exam. If that is the case, to the degree it is inherent, prep courses are not helpful. I’m sure his high scores are not flukes and that he is committed to taking the exam.
(I'm not sure if there really are "many" instructors who could've gotten that many perfect scores. Most LSAT instructors never get a perfect score, after all. Most never crack the 99th percentile, and those that do are usually in the low 170's.) What you say is likely to be true of the first or second time most instructors take the test. However, I find it quite reasonable to believe that if all of the instructors were to take it 25 times, many would have results similar to robin’s.
You're correct that those with the "most" insight (like the creators) may never have sat for the test. (I note this in my post.) However they're also probably not teaching. Barring those involved in the creation of the test, my point still stands that it is possible for someone (even an instructor) to have never taken an official administration of the test and still have the most insight.
Finally, it's true that high performance doesn't NECESSARILY translate to good instruction. But most students do seem to think Singh is a good teacher, for what that's worth. I already acknowledged that.
Perhaps a less controversial statement would be that as far as LSAT instructors are concerned, Singh has apparently demonstrated more aptitude in terms of performance/understanding the exam than any other instructor.Perhaps, but I would say that he merely has the most demonstrations of high performance on official test administrations (something I believe many could achieve if they were so inclined). However, it could be that someone else has demonstrated more understanding through class instruction.