Advice on test preparation

[Aristes]

I'm taking the LSAT in September. I took the GRE about a five years ago and did very well on it, but the two tests are not exactly the same. As I understand it, there is a large section of the LSAT that assesses problem solving. Almost like a logic puzzle book. Any advice from folks on this one? I almost didn't create a thread on this issue, but this is the sort of anonymous place to ask a question that could come in handy for this. I'm thinking about buying an LSAT preparation book. I was hoping that someone might have taken the test and have some decent insight into how I can improve my chances.

[Azure79]

Never took the LSAT, but whenever I take standardized tests, I usually concentrate more on practicing a lot of actual problems than studying the strategies for different sections. This is under strict time limits like an actual test. I find that if I solve a lot of problems, most of the problems on the actual test feel very familiar so I do well.

 

My sister is taking the test in June, and she was able to get a whole mountain of past tests when she took a review course. I think they might be available from whatever testing authority manages the LSAT. Not sure. She went through them like actual tests with time limits. She didn't seem to find the logical thinking part too hard and had more trouble with the critical reasoning section.

 

My strategy would be practice and repetition under strict time limits.

 

Hope you do well.

[Hurlshort]

Good luck! I don't even know what the LSAT is. I can go over all the teacher credential tests, that's about it (MSAT, CSET, CBEST, RICA)

[Aristes]

I think I took the CBEST also, but I can't remember. I know that it's pretty much required for teaching in California these days, but I actually hate teaching school aged kids. I love 'em, but I hate having to reign 'em in. Sometimes, I think teaching k-12 is more about law enforcement than teaching. Of course, that's not to put down teachers. I have a lot of respect for them.

 

Oh, and I bought the book that the LSAC publishes and that includes the a number of practice tests.. I agree, my blue friend, taking the test with as many of the same conditions as possible is the best way to go. I can probably find more practice tests online also.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Aristes

[Humodour]

hf gl dd

[Aristes]

dd? What the hell kind of advice is that? Krezack, you nut, did you just tell me "don't die?"

[Walsingham]

Dying isn't likely to be helpful.

 

My advice:

 

1. Get plenty of rest before the test. And physical exercise.

2. Learn a centring techique to keep calm and focussed just before and during the test.

3. Read some basic pschology on psychometric testing. It may help you feel more in control. Because psychometric testing is inherently pfoo.

[Aristes]

Actually, I really flubbed it in naming this thread since I was also interested in things like my letters of recommendation and the like. For example, I was thinking of including 2 letters from folks who can attest to my academic background and 1 who can attest to my volunteer work. And the person who can attest to my volunteer work is also the head of a public organization so he goes to Washington DC each year, etc. I don't know if that's a good strategy, but I constantly hear about how Law Schools like to diversify their student population. I was hoping that the fact that I've done so much volunteer work might make up for the fact that I've basically been doing what I wanted without much drive towards any one thing for the past several years.

 

Applying for things like Law School are a real bummer, but I know I'll enjoy the experience, even if it's just the academic part of it.

[Maria Caliban]

Applying for things like Law School are a real bummer, but I know I'll enjoy the experience, even if it's just the academic part of it.

 

And many of the other students will likely be douches.

 

5. On the popular children's television show, there are four little animals that make up the “Creature Buddies” are digitally animate. Since that means that they can't make a live stage performance, while the Creature Buddies are on tour, each is represented by a puppet that is operated by a chief and an assistant puppeteer.

 

The Creature Buddies are a: Dragon, Gorilla, Kangaroo, and Tiger.

The Creature's Names are: Audrey, Hamish, Melville, Rex

The Chief Puppeteers are: Ben, Jill, Paul and Sue

The Assistant Puppeteers are: Dave, Gale, Pam and Tom

 

Melville isn't the puppet who is operated by Sue and her assistant Pam.

Hamish's chief puppeteer (who is not Jill) is assisted by Tom.

Ben is in charge of the dragon, but Jill doesn't have anything to do with the kangaroo.

Dave is the assistant puppeteer for the tiger.

Rex, whose chief is Paul, isn't the gorilla (who's name is not Melville).

 

What is the name of the Dragon?

 

A. Audrey

B. Hamish

C. Melville

D. Rex

E. Dave

 

 

And yes, you should practice the test and take prep courses if available.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Maria Caliban

[Humodour]

Daaaaave is a good name for a dragons.

[Enoch]

I have taken the LSAT. Scored somewhere in the 162-ish range in late 2002, on way too little prepartation. (Literally, I checked out a review book from the public library and spent about 4 hours reading it the night before the exam. I do NOT recommend this course of action. I was happy at the top-30ish law school where I ended up, but I feel like I could've done significantly better on the test.)

 

First off, don't do this at all unless you have a plan. Law school is expensive, and while taking on six figures of debt based on the assumption that "lawyers make a lot of money" might have generally worked out OK during the boom years, the reality is much different now. Currently, the legal job market sucks-- major law firms are laying off associates by the dozen, and all these newly canned associates are crowding out recent graduates in the search for jobs at smaller firms and government agencies. It's even tough to get public interest work. Lots of top firms have deferred their incoming new associates for a year, essentially paying them a fraction of what would be their salary to not come into work, provided that they go get a public interest job to gain some experience in the interim. Because the public interest organizations can get top-flight new lawyers to work for free, their incentive to hire new grads for pay has diminished considerably. The current oversupply of lawyers might turn around in the next 4 years before you would be graduationg, but there's no guarantee of that. So my first bit of advice is to think long and hard about what you're going to get out of law school and what it's going to cost you. Also, even in the boom years, paying for full-price tuition at a third-tier law school is rarely worthwhile.

 

In that vein, scholarships are good, as is in-state tuition at public law schools. (Even if you're out of state, you can usually qualify as a state resident after the first year.) If you're not at a top-14 law school, there really isn't any reason why you should be paying full price and expecting to get a decent return on your investment. Working while in law school can be done, and can certainly help defray costs. But if you do, be aware that: 1) it will hurt your grades, and 2) it will probably exclude you from extracurriculars like law review and moot courts. Both of these factors (grades and especially law review participation) are pretty major influences on the job offers you can get right out of law school. Also, the ideal law school job is one that is flexible enough that you can drop it entirely for a week or two of crunch time at the end of the semester.

 

 

Anyhow, the LSAT. Go to a public library and skim over whatever study guides they have there. Then buy a copy of the one you like best. The good ones give strong explanations of why certain things are on the test, how the test writers come up with the "wrong" answers intended to deceive you, etc. They should also come with a number of practice tests. (EDIT: they write new editions of them every year, which is stupid because the test doesn't change much. You can save some money if you can find an older edition that hasn't been written on excessively.) After you feel like you understand the basic structure of the thing, do a practice test. The LSAT has more time pressure than any other standardized test I have taken (the GREs were an absolute breeze by comparison), so be sure you get used to doing the test sections in the timeframes described. Review your practice tests and try to understand why your answers weren't always what the test writer was looking for. Repeat this process as appropriate until the exam date is close. Now, this is all assuming that you have the self-discipline necessary to set aside the required time and do the preparation, even if you have a new videogame or there's something good on TV. If this is not the case, I would reluctantly recommend signing up for one of those expensive instructor-led classes.

 

On the day of the test, speak to nobody at the test site. Be well rested, well fed, and as calm as you can reasonably manage, but don't be social with the other test takers. Invariably, 80% of the people there will be either acting way too overconfidently (which can get you freaked out) or exuding pure panic (which can get you freaked out). Ignore them entirely.

 

 

Other than that, I really don't have much insight on how law schools make admissions decisions, other than that their thinking is way too dependent on "numbers" factors (LSAT, undergraduate grades, other post-graduate degrees, demographics, and prestige of schools you've attended) that they use to game the US News rankings.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Enoch

[Aristes]

Thanks for the practice question, Maria. Sadly, I couldn't finish it in the time alotted.

 

Sober advice from you, Enoch. I've already paid for the LSAT, so I am taking it. My choices of Law Schools really boil down to UCLA and UCI. Since the whole process of testing and applying for law school is not particularly expensive, I can't see a reason not to do so. What to do if I'm accepted is the only question. After all, if my very narrow choices for law school don't pan out, there isn't any choice on that front. Your wise words really strike at the heart of the matter. Is it worth it?

 

I'm 40 years old and I've basically spent my entire life doing nothing. I've had jobs or not as the whim struck me and wandered a lot. I really need to find a profession and do something worthwhile for someone. Even if some of the work might be mind-numbingly boring, I might be able to render good service as a lawyer, and so I've long thought about doing it. My academic background is solid and there should be some opportunity to use a law degree where I currently live because, frankly, I'm not moving. My wife is settled here and there's a good chance this is going to be where I live for the rest of my life. If that weren't the case, I'd have continued on in the academic field of my choice a long time ago.

 

So, this is one of those big life journey questions, which makes me all soft hearted for all you anonymous folks giving me your e-support. Awwww

 

If anyone has any pointers for the sorts of things that might help me on the admissions front, I'd greatly appreciate it.

[Enoch]

Well, don't panic on the timing for the logic game questions like that. Usually, the test will set out a scenario, then ask about a half-dozen questions based on it. So, the time you spend diagramming the setup will put you over the recommended allotment for Q5, but will save you time on Qs 6-10.

 

I will say that UCLA and UCI are both very selective, high-quality programs. (Well, UCI is new, so it's tough to judge it just yet, but it's certainly starting out on the right foot in terms of selectiveness!) If you can get into either of those schools, you should feel pretty good about your chances of getting decent work after you're done.

[Walsingham]

I didn't settle into my career until quite late in life either. Apart from listening to Enoch, which is always wise, I suggest you do it from first principles.

 

1. What kind of day is your perfect day?

2. What kind of person has that sort of day

3. Become that person

4. Don't hanker after alternatives once you make your plan, and let nothing stand in your way

[Guard Dog]

I know this is a little OT but I'm curious what everyone thinks. Is there a real difference between an accredited degree (a law degree for the sake of argument) from some small no name school like Austin Peay University and a big name like Rutgers for example? I'm exempting Ivy League for obvious reasons. I've found that at least as far as engineering degrees go unless it came from Cal Tech, MIT, or Georgia Tech a degree from one school is treated much the same as another.

[Aristes]

I think it probably depends on the field and then maybe the specialty within the field. It might also depend on what you intend to do with the degree. For instance, if you get an advanced math degree with the intention of teaching high school, it might be different than if you intend to use it in the private sector. You might even want to be a college professor.

 

For my purposes, I don't care about big named colleges so much as colleges that I can reasonably attend without killing myself or my marriage driving there daily. I also have to get a degree in a field that does demand teaching at several different universities over the years, fighting for a job. My true academic love it simply out of my grasp, which is a killer, but I can still do something productive that has an academic feel to it, you know?

[Gorth]

Welcome to the club of doers of deeds Aristes. Let the dreamers have their dreams

 

[Walsingham]

Being any sort of research analyst is partly academic and it pays quite well. Your teaching skills could come in hand explaining stuff to clients. I'd recommendd commercial intelligence. Plenty of cash if you can get into the right firm.

 

 

I did some quasi-private eye work too. I'd steer clear of journalism, though. Huge amounts of balls, and you're too old for that.

[Enoch]

I know this is a little OT but I'm curious what everyone thinks. Is there a real difference between an accredited degree (a law degree for the sake of argument) from some small no name school like Austin Peay University and a big name like Rutgers for example? I'm exempting Ivy League for obvious reasons. I've found that at least as far as engineering degrees go unless it came from Cal Tech, MIT, or Georgia Tech a degree from one school is treated much the same as another.

It depends on what you want to do with it. First off, for law degrees, most states will only allow graduates of ABA-accredited law schools to take their bar exam. So that puts a floor on it right there. (Note to Ari: CA is an exception in that they do allow an alternate procedure for students at non-accredited law schools to take the Bar. This is one of the reasons why CA has one of the lower Bar passage rates in the country.) Second, lawyers are generally status-junkies, and may lawyers are very reluctant to hire people who just graduated from a school they've never heard of. While the top-20 or so law schools (definitely the top-14, which collectively remain the same 14 schools in various orders for every single year since USNAWR started their rankings decades ago) are known nationwide, with smaller schools, you probably want to practice within the area where that school is reasonably well known. For example, graduates of lower-tier law schools here in DC like American U., Howard U., and Catholic U. still do pretty well in finding jobs in DC. They may not get a sniff up in New York, but most DC lawyers know a few grads from theses schools whose work they respect, which tends to open minds a lot in spite of what the newsmagazines might say.

 

I suspect that this is more true in the relatively subjective fields than it is in more scientific ones. Multi-variable calculus classes probably follow very similar curricula all over the country regardless of who is teaching it and where, while the varying quality of instructors for, say, First Amendment law, would tend to make a more significant difference.

 

And, the caveat here is that, once you have 5 or so years of experience, nobody cares where you got your degree from-- they just want to know what you've been doing since then. (Alternately, once you get a post-graduate degree, nobody cares where you got your undergraduate.)

 

 

One other side note: my dad is a Rutgers alum!

[Aristes]

Yeah, my Aunt graduated from Berkley, and she's an insuferable fool who only stays off the government dole by the largess of my family.

[Hurlshort]

Your family has a largess? Sweet!

 

This university question comes up a lot in my area, since we have the rather famous Stanford nearby. But being the Silicon Valley, the engineering department at San Jose State is pretty dang reputable. So you have a lot of posturing between engineers who went to Stanford and those who went to SJSU.

[Aristes]

Your family has a largess? Sweet!

 

yeah, we keep it in the garage. It's not much of a largess. Only as much as a middle class family can afford.

 

I don't really care about posturing. I just want a good enough university to get a job. ...And all of this supposes that I am accepted and can handle the workload. Keep your fingers crossed.