Subscription pricing
Anyone else get an undergrad degree in something other than philosophy? I know this test doesn't require outside knowledge, but I'm sure knowing some aspects of formal logic definitely helps. Any thoughts on this? If anyone sought outside logic sources, what were some good books you've read?
1
36 comments
Psych and Lit major. I had no experience with formal logic until the LSAT. I decided to take a 1st year level course in logic and found myself dividing my time between that and my LSAT studies. There was very minimal crossover and I had to keep 2 different notation systems in mind. Fortunately, I had an excellent instructor and truly enjoyed doing proofs.
@tylerdschreur10199 said:
Just curious, anybody have theories about why the average score for prelaw is so low? Obviously prelaw as a ug major is no physics or engineering (excuse my biased but accurate generalization ?) in terms of rigor, but i wouldnt expect it to be soooo low.
It is a self-selection problem. You have to be fairly dedicated to pursuing a career in law to pursue it from a degree that does not obviosly feed into law, especially if there are more obvious paths. That dedication is reflected in more time spent studying for the test. On the other hand when your major is literally pre law many people are going to apply to law school regardless of whether they are really committed to studying for the LSAT.
It also seems like the only option. If a major with some other opportunity finds that they are bad at the LSAT they can choose to forego law school and go into the/a career which their major naturally would lead them towards. What are pre law students going to do if they are PTing poorly. They are going to take the test and apply anyway.
@tylerdschreur10199
Just curious, anybody have theories about why the average score for prelaw is so low? Obviously prelaw as a ug major is no physics or engineering (excuse my biased but accurate generalization ?) in terms of rigor, but i wouldnt expect it to be soooo low.
Wheres that data point found? I don't see it here
https://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source/data-(lsac-resources)-docs/2015-16_applicants-major.pdf
Just curious, anybody have theories about why the average score for prelaw is so low? Obviously prelaw as a ug major is no physics or engineering (excuse my biased but accurate generalization ?) in terms of rigor, but i wouldnt expect it to be soooo low.
@shaw5563 said:
I was a philosophy major, so take my advice with a grain of salt. But, a great book to pick up that will help you to think logically is What is the Name of this Book by Raymond Smullyan. It's sort of an easy way to get a recreational dose of logic and puzzle solving when you need it. The logic puzzles start simple and by the end you learn aspects of Godel's proof. My friend was a math tutor, and she used it to help her students learn logic. Another option would be to pick up an informal logic book, which is much more valuable than a formal logic book.
I got a nice little read titled "Logic" A complete introduction. I couldn't help myself, sorry guys. Anyway it had a girthy chapter on informal logic which I liked. The book basically teaches the same stuff, but it calls the different propositions/elements different names. Like, instead of sufficient and necessary elements, the book calls them antecedents and consequents. Same meat, different bun.
@acsimon699 said:
A 162 diagnostic? That's incredible. I don't understand how some people have such great diagnostics lol. It must be genetic.
Blush thank you! Honestly I'm not sure, I was surprised and happy with that diagnostic obviously. I actually opted to not buy the LSAT course because of it. But I experienced a complete inability to improve my score in the time I was working on it, so that speaks to how difficult the test is to learn. I think I could've benefited from the course, but by the time I realized that it was too late to worry about for this application cycle.
I was a philosophy major, so take my advice with a grain of salt. But, a great book to pick up that will help you to think logically is What is the Name of this Book by Raymond Smullyan. It's sort of an easy way to get a recreational dose of logic and puzzle solving when you need it. The logic puzzles start simple and by the end you learn aspects of Godel's proof. My friend was a math tutor, and she used it to help her students learn logic. Another option would be to pick up an informal logic book, which is much more valuable than a formal logic book.
@shaw5563 said:
My undergrad is in business. I'm not sure it helped specifically, but I think any kind of formal post secondary education requires attention to detail (carefully reading and understanding what is being asked), and critical thinking that will help on the LSAT! My diagnostic was 162 and after 8 weeks of practice, my score didn't change much but my timing improved. I wrote the Dec test, and I expect that I will get what I was PT-ing at.
A 162 diagnostic? That's incredible. I don't understand how some people have such great diagnostics lol. It must be genetic.
My undergrad is in business. I'm not sure it helped specifically, but I think any kind of formal post secondary education requires attention to detail (carefully reading and understanding what is being asked), and critical thinking that will help on the LSAT! My diagnostic was 162 and after 8 weeks of practice, my score didn't change much but my timing improved. I wrote the Dec test, and I expect that I will get what I was PT-ing at.
Lol @zmeeker91389 "...extra minute to pee" that literally made me chuckle out loud. During the December test I had to pee right in the middle of section 2 BADLY.
I'm a biology major (which has been relatively useless in this LSAT journey) but my friends in computer science seem to have a really great grasp on logic in a way that is super relevant to the LSAT, which surprised me. So computer science seems to be a relatively useful degree in regards to the LSAT.
Or maybe my subjects are just LR naturals!
@hiraextr666 said:
I had a single formal reasoning philosophy class as a methods requirement for my major. It might have been useful in that learning it relied mainly on repitition(a learning technique which foolproofing has copied and taken to an extreme), however it did not provide any noticeable boost to my LSAT taking ability.
In an utterly expected development it turns out that studying the actual LSAT remains the best way to prepare for the LSAT.
I would take exception with one thing @zmeeker91389 says though. It think reading a lot in undergrad or life to the point where you cab read dense material quickly is a major advantage on the LSAT. I never struggled with reading comp or LR and part of the reason for that was that my major was reading intensive and so I was both swimming in time compared to some people and in the practice of evaluating long arguments.
Having to read dense materials during UG, particularly those I found mostly uninteresting, was definitely something I feel helped me.
Someone here probably said it before, but subject matter knowledge or at least familiarity helps. I'm an Accounting major and have worked in industry for the last 5 years, never took a logic course at university. I found the questions about companies and profits/losses naturally much easier than the science or literature ones.
I'm reading Tolstoy on my down time to boost my comfort level with dense text.
I had a single formal reasoning philosophy class as a methods requirement for my major. It might have been useful in that learning it relied mainly on repitition(a learning technique which foolproofing has copied and taken to an extreme), however it did not provide any noticeable boost to my LSAT taking ability.
In an utterly expected development it turns out that studying the actual LSAT remains the best way to prepare for the LSAT.
I would take exception with one thing @zmeeker91389 says though. It think reading a lot in undergrad or life to the point where you cab read dense material quickly is a major advantage on the LSAT. I never struggled with reading comp or LR and part of the reason for that was that my major was reading intensive and so I was both swimming in time compared to some people and in the practice of evaluating long arguments.
@zmeeker91389 said:
I was a Phil major with all As and one B+ in my major at a UC school. It didn't help me at all on the LSAT other than the fact that I'm able to read quickly (doesnt mean i'm retaining all info). Having an extra minute to pee at the end of one section didnt improve my score whatsoever. I'm not sure what people who say otherwise think that an undergrad philosophy major entails. My knowing about the history of philosophy and being able to discuss metaphysical other worlds really does not benefit me in life at all other than I can bullshit my way through a paper pretty easily and it's developed my analytical personality. Being able to analyze various sides of a problem doesnt help you nail down an A/B/C answer on a standardized test. Formal logic is much different than LSAT logic. As is repeated through the 7sage course - you really have to let go of your outside knowledge and just learn the test.
Couldn't agree more with the bolded. The LSAT's logic is technically formal logic, but I feel like the way you're taught about it and how to use it in university is a bit different. It makes sense since the test isn't supposed to favor any one particular background/major.
I was a Phil major with all As and one B+ in my major at a UC school. It didn't help me at all on the LSAT other than the fact that I'm able to read quickly (doesnt mean i'm retaining all info). Having an extra minute to pee at the end of one section didnt improve my score whatsoever. I'm not sure what people who say otherwise think that an undergrad philosophy major entails. My knowing about the history of philosophy and being able to discuss metaphysical other worlds really does not benefit me in life at all other than I can bullshit my way through a paper pretty easily and it's developed my analytical personality. Being able to analyze various sides of a problem doesnt help you nail down an A/B/C answer on a standardized test. Formal logic is much different than LSAT logic. As is repeated through the 7sage course - you really have to let go of your outside knowledge and just learn the test.
Much appreciated team! I just wanted to make sure I wasn't leaving any rocks unturned when it came to prepping for this exam.
Music major here. Never studied anything close to formal logic. Although music is deeply mathematical and involves a lot of recognizing patterns and... well, I could go off about the more technical aspects. But that aside, it might be helpful to have formal logic training but it’s definitely not necessary. 7sage’s curriculum has all the training you need specifically to the test. I haven’t used much for outside resources and have been steadily improving (started at 155, recent PTs around 167 and climbing). Once you know the basics, it’s just a matter of practice (hey, also like music! Haha)
@jkatz1488955 said:
@acsimon699 said:
Also, law schools seem to look favorably on philosophy majors. That's because it's a rigorous major with a lot of analytical writing.
I was under the impression major is a very minor soft.
Everything is "a very minor soft" compared to LSAT score and GPA in the vast majority of cases. Once you have both of those things squared away, though, softs become much more important.
@jkatz1488955 said:
@acsimon699 said:
@jkatz1488955 said:
@acsimon699 said:
@jkatz1488955 said:
I think prior exposure to formal logic isn't that useful.
That being said, if you've ever seen question appeal responses, it's clear that the test writers are philosophy grads. I guess being able to think like the test writers is helpful.
Being a philosophy major definitely helps with the LSAT. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant.
Look at the average LSAT score by major. If it was helpful, wouldn’t you expect a much higher average?
Pretty sure philosophy majors have the second highest average LSAT score, per major. Physics is #1, I believe, but that probably more to do with fewer physics majors taking the LSAT.
Also, philosophy majors do not learn the LSAT in undergraduate. The LSAT is an undertaking all of its own, and not every college graduate, regardless of major, has what it takes to effectively study the LSAT.
No the first result from a google search is wrong
https://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source/data-(lsac-resources)-docs/2015-16_applicants-major.pdf
I looked at your source and you may want to take another look. It shows exactly what I would expect it to show. ~1800 philosophy majors applied with a mean LSAT around 158, which is ridiculous when you compare the total number of applicants to other majors. Far fewer science majors, ~200-300 or far fewer applicants per science major, applied to law school, but their mean LSAT score was higher--so what?
Classics majors had a mean LSAT of about 161, which is better than all other majors except Mathematics. What does this say about the rigor of a Classics major?
@acsimon699 said:
Also, law schools seem to look favorably on philosophy majors. That's because it's a rigorous major with a lot of analytical writing.
I was under the impression major is a very minor soft.
@acsimon699 said:
@jkatz1488955 said:
@acsimon699 said:
@jkatz1488955 said:
I think prior exposure to formal logic isn't that useful.
That being said, if you've ever seen question appeal responses, it's clear that the test writers are philosophy grads. I guess being able to think like the test writers is helpful.
Being a philosophy major definitely helps with the LSAT. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant.
Look at the average LSAT score by major. If it was helpful, wouldn’t you expect a much higher average?
Pretty sure philosophy majors have the second highest average LSAT score, per major. Physics is #1, I believe, but that probably more to do with fewer physics majors taking the LSAT.
Also, philosophy majors do not learn the LSAT in undergraduate. The LSAT is an undertaking all of its own, and not every college graduate, regardless of major, has what it takes to effectively study the LSAT.
No the first result from a google search is wrong
https://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source/data-(lsac-resources)-docs/2015-16_applicants-major.pdf
Also, law schools seem to look favorably on philosophy majors. That's because it's a rigorous major with a lot of analytical writing.
@jkatz1488955 said:
@acsimon699 said:
@jkatz1488955 said:
I think prior exposure to formal logic isn't that useful.
That being said, if you've ever seen question appeal responses, it's clear that the test writers are philosophy grads. I guess being able to think like the test writers is helpful.
Being a philosophy major definitely helps with the LSAT. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant.
Look at the average LSAT score by major. If it was helpful, wouldn’t you expect a much higher average?
Pretty sure philosophy majors have the second highest average LSAT score, per major. Physics is #1, I believe, but that probably more to do with fewer physics majors taking the LSAT.
Also, philosophy majors do not learn the LSAT in undergraduate. The LSAT is an undertaking all of its own, and not every college graduate, regardless of major, has what it takes to effectively study the LSAT.
@acsimon699 said:
@jkatz1488955 said:
I think prior exposure to formal logic isn't that useful.
That being said, if you've ever seen question appeal responses, it's clear that the test writers are philosophy grads. I guess being able to think like the test writers is helpful.
Being a philosophy major definitely helps with the LSAT. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant.
Look at the average LSAT score by major. If it was helpful, wouldn’t you expect a much higher average?