Why Practice Test on Things You Haven't Even Studied

toughchoice

I am just starting the course and targeting the June or December LSAT.
I have a question that may seem trite, but goes to the heart of learning. Why in the world would we be asked to take a practice test (at the beginning of the course) on concepts many of us have never studied? Do you take a logic exam on the first day of class in philosophy? Do you take a geometry "practice test" on the first day of class? I get the measuring "baseline", but shouldn't your baseline be AFTER you have taken the course material ? Your improvement from there is what matters, not from what you walk in with.
I'm just curious as to the reasoning. It makes no sense to me but perhaps I am missing something.

Pacifico

It is to give you a sense of what the final task is overall so you can maintain some sense of the big picture as you progress through the curriculum and understand the role of each piece as you put it all together. Also, if you happened to be a a unicorn and got a 165+ on your diagnostic you could probably skip most of the curriculum all together since you probably would only have issues with LG so you could drill that for a bit and then go take the test.

noobie1

The purpose of the initial diagnostic is to have an initial baseline reference point that you can use to track your improvement resulting from taking this course. I'm not sure what kind of reference point you would be gathering if you take the diagnostic after the course is complete. That being said, nothing is stopping you from taking a PT right after completing the course.

toughchoice

Just seems strange to me that in learning something new you would take a complete test that covers everything.
I studied for a financial designation. It was a 3 yr process, each level building on the next. The 3 or 4 comprehensive final practice exams each year, were after all the coursework was done. That measured how much you were progressing with your knowledge. It didn't matter to me what knowledge (or lack thereof) I came with - it is what I had at the end that mattered.
I think I'll take Noobie1's suggestion and skip the PT's until it is all over - but DEFINITELY follow the BR once I get there.
No matter - just curious as to what the specific reason was. I appreciate the feedback. Thank you.

Pacifico

One thing you'll learn in your studies is that arguments by analogy are fertile ground for flawed reasoning when not executed properly. What is true of apples is not necessarily true of oranges. So just because you haven't done this in previous studies doesn't mean it isn't helpful here. Furthermore, this is not like a college class on philosophy, it is a curriculum to build skills for a specific test and the vast majority of people find that it is helpful to take a diagnostic test to familiarize themselves with the entire scope of the test in a mere three hours before devoting months of their lives to studying before they ever see a PT again. Finally, it helps to give people proper respect for the test so they don't take it lightly just because they have been successful at standardized tests in the past. But hey, you do you. Good luck and let us know if you have any questions as you go through the curriculum.

runiggyrun

Of course you wouldn't take an Ancient history test before studying ancient history, because the point of the course would be mostly to learn some facts. You would, however go through some kind of baseline skill testing when joining a sports team, so both you and the coach would know where you're starting from and what needs most work. The LSAT is more like the latter, it's not so much a test of knowledge, but a test of skill - some people come in with more skill in certain areas, so they will need to focus less on those.
Also, the point about "just so you know what the LSAT is about" is a great one. Having taken a PT gives you both a general framework where you can mentally fit the pieces of the curriculum and an idea of how much work it's going to take to get where you need to be.

LSATisland

@toughchoice Besides for reasons mentioned above, a diagnostic test also reveals where you should be focusing your energy. People have different natural or developed skills, and one person's easiest section (e.g. LR) might another's hardest. You're right that it goes to the heart of learning: testing oneself to find deficiencies and correcting them. (I might add that hardest/easiest sections might change during prep. People often improve quickest in LG, and can learn to enjoy it (like a puzzle), but future practice tests will reveal such changes.)

Another aspect is probably the sense of achievement people (and I should add test prep companies) can feel when they look back on the progress they made.

Nicole Hopkins

@Pacifico said:
Finally, it helps to give people proper respect for the test so they don't take it lightly just because they have been successful at standardized tests in the past.

Oh yes. This. Absolutely.

toughchoice

I appreciate the comments and feedback. Thank you.

Nicole Hopkins

@toughchoice I know one thing for certain. No one regrets taking a real diagnostic. But the folks (my clients and others) who do NOT definitely do.

cjones76

I like the baseline as it shows accomplishment. While it was a slow progression it helps me feel better every time I move further from that. For some the LSAT can be a long journey and looking back it shows how my hard work has paid off and that studying can lead to improvement.

twssmith

@cjones76 said:
For some the LSAT can be a long journey and looking back it shows how my hard work has paid off

I didn't take a true diagnostic and regret it.