Diagnostic

Andrew Alterio

I am just finishing up the logic games section of the core curriculum. I have not taken a cold diagnostic yet and have tried a couple times, only to realize I know nothing about the vast majority of the stuff on the actual exam. I only know principles that were taught. Should I continue to go through the syllabus and finish so that it actually makes sense? I feel like I'm just guessing on my diagnostic and I don't know how much help that score will serve me. Thanks!

OlamHafuch

The only purpose in taking a diagnostic is to give you a benchmark, so that you can measure how much you've improved. If that information is of no use to you, then by all means, skip it.

10000019

@uhinberg said:
The only purpose in taking a diagnostic is to give you a benchmark, so that you can measure how much you've improved. If that information is of no use to you, then by all means, skip it.

I disagree. When time is limited, the diagnostic test can help you decide what areas to focus on. I skipped the RC portion of the CC based on my diagnostic score.

Leah M B

Yeah, I think it's important to see where you start from so you can see where you need to improve the most. The diagnostic is supposed to be completely foreign to you and difficult. It has no bearing on where you'll end up, but it helps to know exactly where you start from. It's supposed to be cold and done before you really know the test, so I recommend doing it now before you go further in the CC. It's of course not mandatory (none of this is! haha), but it's just helpful to see where you start from. And so that later, you can see the fruits of all your hard work.

Sprinkles

I personally did not take a diagnostic. While I understand the notion for taking one, I did not find it necessary because I planned on learning everything from scratch anyway and as others stated, the test is supposed to be foreign. I basically humbled myself from the beginning and focused on fundamentals. You are supposed to improve from all angles on the LSAT, I don't know anyone who scores in the higher percentiles right off the bat. I think you're ok with not taking a diagnostic, @"Leah M B" is right when she said it's not mandatory

Alex

@"Drew Alterio" said:
I am just finishing up the logic games section of the core curriculum. I have not taken a cold diagnostic yet and have tried a couple times, only to realize I know nothing about the vast majority of the stuff on the actual exam. I only know principles that were taught. Should I continue to go through the syllabus and finish so that it actually makes sense? I feel like I'm just guessing on my diagnostic and I don't know how much help that score will serve me. Thanks!

One of the things people are overlooking when they tell you not to take a diagnostic is that part of the reason a diagnostic is so important is because we need to get a good idea of how this test works...

It's very hard to study for something so abstract if you don't know how all the moving parts come together. Taking a diagnostic will give you a good sense of what to expect so you can better appreciate what you are learning and think of it in a realistic context.

I'd recommend taking one.

Sprinkles

@"Alex Divine" said:

@"Drew Alterio" said:
I am just finishing up the logic games section of the core curriculum. I have not taken a cold diagnostic yet and have tried a couple times, only to realize I know nothing about the vast majority of the stuff on the actual exam. I only know principles that were taught. Should I continue to go through the syllabus and finish so that it actually makes sense? I feel like I'm just guessing on my diagnostic and I don't know how much help that score will serve me. Thanks!

One of the things people are overlooking when they tell you not to take a diagnostic is that part of the reason a diagnostic is so important is because we need to get a good idea of how this test works...

It's very hard to study for something so abstract if you don't know how all the moving parts come together. Taking a diagnostic will give you a good sense of what to expect so you can better appreciate what you are learning and think of it in a realistic context.

I'd recommend taking one.

I don't think you need to take an entire LSAT to tell you that this exam is extremely strenuous and requires a lot of skill to master. You can easily do that by listening to a webinar of a Sage. To me, the "diagnostic" should come after you complete the core curriculum which will then determine furthermore what you should focus on moving forward. Doing drills under timed conditions are far more useful than a cold diagnostic.

Alex

@Sprinkles said:

@"Alex Divine" said:

@"Drew Alterio" said:
I am just finishing up the logic games section of the core curriculum. I have not taken a cold diagnostic yet and have tried a couple times, only to realize I know nothing about the vast majority of the stuff on the actual exam. I only know principles that were taught. Should I continue to go through the syllabus and finish so that it actually makes sense? I feel like I'm just guessing on my diagnostic and I don't know how much help that score will serve me. Thanks!

One of the things people are overlooking when they tell you not to take a diagnostic is that part of the reason a diagnostic is so important is because we need to get a good idea of how this test works...

It's very hard to study for something so abstract if you don't know how all the moving parts come together. Taking a diagnostic will give you a good sense of what to expect so you can better appreciate what you are learning and think of it in a realistic context.

I'd recommend taking one.

I don't think you need to take an entire LSAT to tell you that this exam is extremely strenuous and requires a lot of skill to master. You can easily do that by listening to a webinar of a Sage. To me, the "diagnostic" should come after you complete the core curriculum which will then determine furthermore what you should focus on moving forward. Doing drills under timed conditions are far more useful than a cold diagnostic.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree. It's not just about knowing the exam is strenuous or requires a lot of skill. I think those should be assumed. And I don't think you can fully appreciate the nuances or have a realistic sense of the context of the LSAT from a webinar. To me, the diagnostic should come before you begin your studies----which is why JY included it in the beginning of the CC----so you can appreciate how the test is ultimately going to be. I don't necessarily think you'll get the same experience from doing drills under timed conditions. I think taking a diagnostic before you begin your studies is the best way to understand how you'll be applying what you're learning. While timed sections may be good a facsimile, I'm not sure they would be more useful for the reasons I've laid out above.

I do, however, think there's a good argument about not taking a diagnostic if it's going to demoralize you so much that it affects your studying. I don't necessarily agree with that view of things, but I can certainly see the merit behind it.

In any case, I think there's more to taking a diagnostic than giving yourself a benchmark or gauging how strenuous the test is. I think it's a valuable and useful exercise that gives beginners an idea of the context in which the questions will be asked. In turn, I think this ultimately translates into being better able to appreciate and later apply what you're learning.

Sprinkles

@"Alex Divine" said:

@Sprinkles said:

@"Alex Divine" said:

@"Drew Alterio" said:
I am just finishing up the logic games section of the core curriculum. I have not taken a cold diagnostic yet and have tried a couple times, only to realize I know nothing about the vast majority of the stuff on the actual exam. I only know principles that were taught. Should I continue to go through the syllabus and finish so that it actually makes sense? I feel like I'm just guessing on my diagnostic and I don't know how much help that score will serve me. Thanks!

One of the things people are overlooking when they tell you not to take a diagnostic is that part of the reason a diagnostic is so important is because we need to get a good idea of how this test works...

It's very hard to study for something so abstract if you don't know how all the moving parts come together. Taking a diagnostic will give you a good sense of what to expect so you can better appreciate what you are learning and think of it in a realistic context.

I'd recommend taking one.

I don't think you need to take an entire LSAT to tell you that this exam is extremely strenuous and requires a lot of skill to master. You can easily do that by listening to a webinar of a Sage. To me, the "diagnostic" should come after you complete the core curriculum which will then determine furthermore what you should focus on moving forward. Doing drills under timed conditions are far more useful than a cold diagnostic.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree. It's not just about knowing the exam is strenuous or requires a lot of skill. I think those should be assumed. And I don't think you can fully appreciate the nuances or have a realistic sense of the context of the LSAT from a webinar. To me, the diagnostic should come before you begin your studies----which is why JY included it in the beginning of the CC----so you can appreciate how the test is ultimately going to be. I don't necessarily think you'll get the same experience from doing drills under timed conditions. I think taking a diagnostic before you begin your studies is the best way to understand how you'll be applying what you're learning. While timed sections may be good a facsimile, I'm not sure they would be more useful for the reasons I've laid out above.

I do, however, think there's a good argument about not taking a diagnostic if it's going to demoralize you so much that it affects your studying. I don't necessarily agree with that view of things, but I can certainly see the merit behind it.

In any case, I think there's more to taking a diagnostic than giving yourself a benchmark or gauging how strenuous the test is. I think it's a valuable and useful exercise that gives beginners an idea of the context in which the questions will be asked. In turn, I think this ultimately translates into being better able to appreciate and later apply what you're learning.

Ehh I don't know about all that. You're definitely holding the diagnostic at a higher standard than it should be. Almost everyone sucks at the LSAT at first,it's fine. If you want to take a diagnostic to see what you're essentially against, that's fine. But a diagnostic in no way , especially when taken before any studying, will give you a representation of what you will be up against come game day. At least it shouldn't. And yes, many people hold their diagnostic score at a high standard when beginning to study. I've heard numerous times from people who say "ah yeah I got a 140 diagnostic. I'm sure I can only jump 10 points from this. " And it results in the person not giving their shot at the LSAT a fair one. So if someone decides to take a diagnostic, they should remember all these points before moving forward.

Alex

@Sprinkles said:

@"Alex Divine" said:

@Sprinkles said:

@"Alex Divine" said:

@"Drew Alterio" said:
I am just finishing up the logic games section of the core curriculum. I have not taken a cold diagnostic yet and have tried a couple times, only to realize I know nothing about the vast majority of the stuff on the actual exam. I only know principles that were taught. Should I continue to go through the syllabus and finish so that it actually makes sense? I feel like I'm just guessing on my diagnostic and I don't know how much help that score will serve me. Thanks!

One of the things people are overlooking when they tell you not to take a diagnostic is that part of the reason a diagnostic is so important is because we need to get a good idea of how this test works...

It's very hard to study for something so abstract if you don't know how all the moving parts come together. Taking a diagnostic will give you a good sense of what to expect so you can better appreciate what you are learning and think of it in a realistic context.

I'd recommend taking one.

I don't think you need to take an entire LSAT to tell you that this exam is extremely strenuous and requires a lot of skill to master. You can easily do that by listening to a webinar of a Sage. To me, the "diagnostic" should come after you complete the core curriculum which will then determine furthermore what you should focus on moving forward. Doing drills under timed conditions are far more useful than a cold diagnostic.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree. It's not just about knowing the exam is strenuous or requires a lot of skill. I think those should be assumed. And I don't think you can fully appreciate the nuances or have a realistic sense of the context of the LSAT from a webinar. To me, the diagnostic should come before you begin your studies----which is why JY included it in the beginning of the CC----so you can appreciate how the test is ultimately going to be. I don't necessarily think you'll get the same experience from doing drills under timed conditions. I think taking a diagnostic before you begin your studies is the best way to understand how you'll be applying what you're learning. While timed sections may be good a facsimile, I'm not sure they would be more useful for the reasons I've laid out above.

I do, however, think there's a good argument about not taking a diagnostic if it's going to demoralize you so much that it affects your studying. I don't necessarily agree with that view of things, but I can certainly see the merit behind it.

In any case, I think there's more to taking a diagnostic than giving yourself a benchmark or gauging how strenuous the test is. I think it's a valuable and useful exercise that gives beginners an idea of the context in which the questions will be asked. In turn, I think this ultimately translates into being better able to appreciate and later apply what you're learning.

Ehh I don't know about all that. You're definitely holding the diagnostic at a higher standard than it should be. Almost everyone sucks at the LSAT at first,it's fine. If you want to take a diagnostic to see what you're essentially against, that's fine. But a diagnostic in no way , especially when taken before any studying, will give you a representation of what you will be up against come game day. At least it shouldn't. And yes, many people hold their diagnostic score at a high standard when beginning to study. I've heard numerous times from people who say "ah yeah I got a 140 diagnostic. I'm sure I can only jump 10 points from this. " And it results in the person not giving their shot at the LSAT a fair one. So if someone decides to take a diagnostic, they should remember all these points before moving forward.

I'm not sure I'm holding it to any standard? I also think it gives you a great representation of what you will be up against on game day; a timed LSAT.

Again, I definitely agree with some of the criticisms against taking one, but I think the pros ultimately outweigh any of the negatives. Then again, I'm no expert so I just put my faith in the 7Sage system and it has us taking a diagnostic so I assume there's good reason.

p.s. I've missed you @Sprinkles. Glad to have ya back

samantha.ashley92

You may be surprised by how many questions you get right in a specific section. For me, my diagnostic was -4 RC (I was very surprised) and -20 on LR. If LR wasn't coincidentally taught before RC, I would have skipped right to LR and started there. I only say that because I am somewhat crunched for time, and clearly, LR is my priority. That being said, you know how you are best motivated. If you think that you aren't going to get a good score on the diagnostic, and that is going to discourage you from trying your best, skip it. If you think it will just show you where you are, but it won't affect your motivation (or it will in a positive way), go for it.

btate87

I sort of dipped my toes in the LSAT waters by buying the SuperPrep book, and working through all three tests with "soft" timing on LR/RC and no timing whatsoever on LG (Definitely don't recommend that to anyone as it's a waste of three tests and those games are HARD). But I never had any desire to even know the score for those. Once I started studying in earnest I had a pretty solid handle on what the test was, though, and some ideas about what I was most apprehensive about. Because of that I never took a full diagnostic before CC. I think it depends on how you are as a learner. For me, my background is in music performance and education. If someone gives me a piece of music, I can tell right away if it's sight readable or if it's something that I'm going to be working on for hours and hours. If it's the latter, I would never dive in and try to play it at a performance speed - it's literally the worst thing you can do. To me that mindset carries over into not doing a diagnostic test with no prep. Coming to the LSAT cold, it made zero sense to me to attach a score to my performance when I didn't know the test. Starting off with the mindset of "I scored X for a diagnostic," I would inevitably look at what average score increases are and, at least subconsciously, feel like there was a ceiling I was trying to break through. However, if someone really gets into the statistics and wants to see the improvement, then I completely understand the drive to do a cold diagnostic. You just have to judge what fits your style of learning and studying.

studyingandrestudying

I really like what @btate87 said.