LSAT scores from 142 to 173
Starting from this past Saturday all the way up until today, I've been receiving phone calls from my former LSAT students. I wish they were calling me because I'm genuinely fun to speak with, but alas they only call to talk about the LSAT.
My students' scores ranged from 142 to 173. Here's several observations about the students who scored in the two extremes.
The person who scored a 142 came to me with a 137. The person who scored a 173 came to me with a 158.
The person who scored a 142 did not take the test too seriously. The person who scored a 173 was hungry to do well on this test.
The person who scored a 142 studied for 2 months, and didn't do any of the assignments. The person who scored a 173 studied for 6 months, and went over all the assignments + practice tests 3 times.
The person who scored a 142 believed that only geniuses do well on the LSAT. The person who scored a 173 believed that ANYONE can do well on the LSAT.
The person who scored a 142 is unsure about law school. The person who scored a 173 knows for certain that law school is the next step.
These observations are NOT absolute. It's simply interesting for me to compare and contrast because both students are almost identical in background, personality and the approximate time they started studying for the LSAT.
Labels: LSAT
posted by Mystery @ 11:14 AM
5 Comments
5 Comments:
Good points. The LSAT can be studied for. This has actually been a matter of controversy for some time. There have been acusations that those with the money/resources to use study aids do better on the test and thus we have financial discrimination built into the admissions process. To this I add that most public libraries at least have the latest Kaplan books and there are tons of old LSAT exams out on the internet. You can study for free if you want to. The key is you have to want this. It has to be something that you are willing to prepare for.
I am going to have to disagree with you on this. The simple fact is that I took the LSAT very seriously; I studied for over 1 year and I still came out with a 142. Of course, there might have been some things that I wanted to do differently looking back on the situation, but you do not address the fact that some people are just not good at standardized tests. In any case, I'm not discouraged from going to law school at all; I graduated from a top public university with honors. So, you have to take into consideration additional factors before arguing that anyone can do well on this exam.
Neal,
I think you're correct to point out that some people are "just not good at standardized tests." Some people get nervous, and despite their obvious intelligence, they under-perform. While some people just don't jive well with multiple-choice questions.
As I mentioned, on this particular post, my observations aren't "absolute;" just merely interesting.
My comments are meant to encourage those who feel that the LSAT is "only for natural test-takers!" The LSAT can be studied for, and I witnessed hundreds of students obtain great LSAT scores with due diligence and effort.
BTW, I think it's great that you aren't discouraged from going to law school.
David,
It's good to know that some students are performing better on the LSAT with hard work and diligence. Sometimes I think that the LSAT is for naturally good test takers, and I do not totally know if the methods that are taught by courses are the right approach.
I have always had difficulty with the logic games. Now, I know what you are thinking, the logic games are the most teachable section of the LSAT, and I would agree. However, I went through every game on all of the 50 tests, while learning all of the nuances, etc. I just blanked out when I got the real test. Nothing changed from my LSAT course with regard to this; I blanked out on the first section.
In my opinion, the LSAT is worthless. If you want to be a lawyer you go to law school, despite where you get in. But, it's also a new age now, the market is saturated the competition is keen. Making a decision to go 100K into debt will greatly affect the rest of your life.
I agree that the LSAT is teachable and I'm sure students improve! For me, the LSAT destroyed me as a person, it made me feel like I was dumb and retarded, it made me feel like I am different from other people.
I will not let this affect my future! The LSAT is garbage and performance on it does not measure performance in law school; consistency and work ethic should also have merit. Thanks for your comment and, believe me, I have told schools how I feel about standardized testing, and I have told them that I have a poor record with them. Unfortunately, for me, since I'm not a minority, I won't even get into summer programs before real law school starts. I did get into Cooley, though.
Best,
Neal
It's interesting that an LSAT teacher would reference factors that co-occured with the score of 173 as either necessary or sufficient for that score, when those factors could be neither. In other words, it's entirely possible that the attitude of optimism and determination in no way affected the performance level of this student, much as it is possible that doing the exercises outlined, and repeating as much multiple times, may have contributed little. The real question is (and one that can't be answered using your sample set) whether this 173 student could have achieved the same score while doing considerably less, even exactly what the student scoring a number of deviations worse did.
I think we can all agree that any skill can benefit from rehearsal and intelligent study, and the LSAT is no exception. It is imperative, however, as authoritative mentors, that we not trick our students into believing that the missing ingredient is motivation – there are limitations, though one can never be entirely certain exactly what those limitations are, thankfully, even after concerted effort to discover them.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home