Law School Discussion

.

EarlCat

  • ****
  • 2082
  • i'm in ur LSAT blowin' ur curve
    • View Profile
    • EarlDoesLSAT.com
Re: .
« Reply #10 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.

Re: .
« Reply #11 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)

EarlCat

  • ****
  • 2082
  • i'm in ur LSAT blowin' ur curve
    • View Profile
    • EarlDoesLSAT.com
Re: .
« Reply #12 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.

Re: .
« Reply #13 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.........

EarlCat

  • ****
  • 2082
  • i'm in ur LSAT blowin' ur curve
    • View Profile
    • EarlDoesLSAT.com
Re: .
« Reply #14 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.

Re: .
« Reply #15 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?