Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.5K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 191 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 31 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 641 Technical Problems
- 287 Off-topic
Related Discussions
73 Likes
Why 'Knowledge' Is Not Enough
Jonathan Wang
Yearly Sage ⭐
***Some background here before we start. I love to write, and I don't get to do it enough. I also happen to have a little knowledge about the LSAT and law school admissions generally. With JY’s blessing, I have decide that I will scratch my writing itch on a semi-regular basis by posting long-form blog-style pieces on the forums. For those of you who have the patience to read the huge post that follows, I hope you find it helpful! If you have a topic that you’d like to see me write about, feel free to PM me. And please, discuss the piece freely in the comments below, especially if you disagree – I love to hear other viewpoints and am happy to engage in respectful and reasoned discourse.
I took a linear algebra class in my third year of college.
For those of you who are backing away from me slowly like I’m some kind of alien, relax. It was a required class to ‘upgrade’ my in-progress B.A. in Economics (my second major) into an in-progress B.S. in something known as “Management Science” (a.k.a. “sorry, we don’t actually have an undergrad business major at UC San Diego, so take this thing instead and have fun explaining it to people for the rest of your life").
Well, despite my lack of enthusiasm for math-related things, I actually did pretty well. Actually, enough with the false modesty. I crushed Math 20F. I ANNHILATED it. I studied like a dog for that class, and I earned a solid A competing with a class full of legitimate engineers and hard science majors. And as a result, I couldn’t forget some of that stuff if I tried. If you give me an hour, my old textbook, and some leeway to swear loudly and rapidly, I would probably be able to do 99% of the things we covered in that class right this instant. I’d be rusty, but it’d all come rushing back before too long. I am firmly, and probably forever will be, in the “I know how to do this” camp.
That said, let’s say you had to take a linear algebra exam right this instant, in test conditions similar to your standard college math class testing environment, and if you failed it you’d be forced to listen to Nickelback for 96 hours straight. BUT, you’re allowed a ringer – someone to take the test for you. Knowing what you know about my linear algebra background, would you trust me to take it for you?
No?
Ladies and gentlemen - that, right there, is the difference between knowledge and mastery.
I’ve taken on a lot of what I call “brush-up” students in my time as a tutor – people who have prepped previously and come to me seeking further refinement of their skillset. And no matter where they are on the scoring scale at that particular moment, there is one phrase that inevitably sees the light of day:
“I know how to do everything. I just have (insert issue here)”
Timing is the most common one, but the reasons really run the gamut. Point is, there’s always something holding back the student, and it never seems to be their knowledge. And you know what? They’re usually right. Now let’s be clear - nobody I’ve ever worked with has ever had perfect theoretical knowledge of the test. But, that’s never stopped anyone from missing questions that they really should not have missed given their level of theory knowledge. So it’s not their knowledge that’s holding them back (or at least, not JUST their knowledge). It’s their MASTERY of what knowledge they do have, or lack thereof.
See, here’s the thing about the LSAT. It’s not just a skills test. It’s not much of a knowledge test either. And actually, if you looked at a bunch of 165-168 scorers and compared them to a bunch of 172-175 scorers, I don’t think you’d see all that much difference from a theoretical knowledge perspective. To score past the mid-160s, you simply have to know certain things – how to translate conditional statements, what your valid argument forms are, common methods of reasoning and flawed methods of reasoning to watch out for, how to tackle the various different question types, and so on. And to a large extent, you need to be fluent in them (i.e., no wracking your brain for 5 minutes before “A some B -> C = A some C” comes out; heck, even 5 seconds is probably a few seconds too long).
The difference is in the details - in how fast the 173+ kids are at breaking apart arguments and identifying methods of reasoning; in how razor sharp their instincts are, allowing them zero in on the relevant issues quickly despite unfamiliar context; in how seamlessly and effortlessly theory is invoked at the appropriate time, every time. It’s like magic – the theory just appears when it’s needed, and is tucked safely out of mind when it’s not, ready to be invoked again on a moment’s notice. These kids always seem to look at the right rules in LG, to find the right sentence to refer to in RC, and generally are just humongous walking jealousy magnets. Hell, I’ve been jealous of some of my more advanced students – I couldn’t do some of what they’re capable of when I was taking this thing. And you ask yourself – HOW? How can I be like them? (Pro tip: it's not sacrificing goats. Not that I would know anything about that. Uhh, moving on.)
It’s not that these kids have perfect LSAT knowledge – usually far from it. But, they apply their valid argument forms like you would answer 2+2. They translate conditional statements across groups like you would count to 10. They can give examples of common flawed methods of reasoning in their sleep (and probably do so on a semi-regular basis). And it’s all done with meticulous attention to detail, utterly consistently, almost instinctively. That’s what it means to be a master of a concept. Now, you don’t have to be a master at everything to score decently - most people aren't - but you do need to be a master at SOME things. Those "some" things are usually the core fundamentals. And when you can rattle off ten different phrasings of an A -> B statement off the top of your head; when you can recite the 9 valid and 7 invalid argument forms by heart and articulate the reasoning when pressed; when you reach the point where you will never ever screw up a contrapositive again - when you can do those things, you're on your way.
Put another way - a lot of people are probably capable of doing something right, whatever it may be. But only a select few people in any context are good enough at something that they are literally incapable of doing it wrong. Which camp are you in? And which camp do you expect to see populating the top 1% of an already self-selected sample?
So the next time you hit a wall and get frustrated with your (lack of) progress, ask yourself whether you would really trust yourself to be able to articulate 100 questions worth of LSAT logic if Nickelback torture was the price of failure. With stakes that high, the answer will almost always be ‘no’, but that’s okay. Find out what you’re unsure of, and work on it. Don’t stop until you can do the basics in your sleep, even if it does take some loud swearing and possibly kicking your little brother in the shins in the meanwhile (blame it on me if you need to, I can take the hit). And then, once you’re done with one thing, move on to the next. Slow and steady really, truly does win the race.
Take the time to truly master the basics and you will be rewarded.
I took a linear algebra class in my third year of college.
For those of you who are backing away from me slowly like I’m some kind of alien, relax. It was a required class to ‘upgrade’ my in-progress B.A. in Economics (my second major) into an in-progress B.S. in something known as “Management Science” (a.k.a. “sorry, we don’t actually have an undergrad business major at UC San Diego, so take this thing instead and have fun explaining it to people for the rest of your life").
Well, despite my lack of enthusiasm for math-related things, I actually did pretty well. Actually, enough with the false modesty. I crushed Math 20F. I ANNHILATED it. I studied like a dog for that class, and I earned a solid A competing with a class full of legitimate engineers and hard science majors. And as a result, I couldn’t forget some of that stuff if I tried. If you give me an hour, my old textbook, and some leeway to swear loudly and rapidly, I would probably be able to do 99% of the things we covered in that class right this instant. I’d be rusty, but it’d all come rushing back before too long. I am firmly, and probably forever will be, in the “I know how to do this” camp.
That said, let’s say you had to take a linear algebra exam right this instant, in test conditions similar to your standard college math class testing environment, and if you failed it you’d be forced to listen to Nickelback for 96 hours straight. BUT, you’re allowed a ringer – someone to take the test for you. Knowing what you know about my linear algebra background, would you trust me to take it for you?
No?
Ladies and gentlemen - that, right there, is the difference between knowledge and mastery.
I’ve taken on a lot of what I call “brush-up” students in my time as a tutor – people who have prepped previously and come to me seeking further refinement of their skillset. And no matter where they are on the scoring scale at that particular moment, there is one phrase that inevitably sees the light of day:
“I know how to do everything. I just have (insert issue here)”
Timing is the most common one, but the reasons really run the gamut. Point is, there’s always something holding back the student, and it never seems to be their knowledge. And you know what? They’re usually right. Now let’s be clear - nobody I’ve ever worked with has ever had perfect theoretical knowledge of the test. But, that’s never stopped anyone from missing questions that they really should not have missed given their level of theory knowledge. So it’s not their knowledge that’s holding them back (or at least, not JUST their knowledge). It’s their MASTERY of what knowledge they do have, or lack thereof.
See, here’s the thing about the LSAT. It’s not just a skills test. It’s not much of a knowledge test either. And actually, if you looked at a bunch of 165-168 scorers and compared them to a bunch of 172-175 scorers, I don’t think you’d see all that much difference from a theoretical knowledge perspective. To score past the mid-160s, you simply have to know certain things – how to translate conditional statements, what your valid argument forms are, common methods of reasoning and flawed methods of reasoning to watch out for, how to tackle the various different question types, and so on. And to a large extent, you need to be fluent in them (i.e., no wracking your brain for 5 minutes before “A some B -> C = A some C” comes out; heck, even 5 seconds is probably a few seconds too long).
The difference is in the details - in how fast the 173+ kids are at breaking apart arguments and identifying methods of reasoning; in how razor sharp their instincts are, allowing them zero in on the relevant issues quickly despite unfamiliar context; in how seamlessly and effortlessly theory is invoked at the appropriate time, every time. It’s like magic – the theory just appears when it’s needed, and is tucked safely out of mind when it’s not, ready to be invoked again on a moment’s notice. These kids always seem to look at the right rules in LG, to find the right sentence to refer to in RC, and generally are just humongous walking jealousy magnets. Hell, I’ve been jealous of some of my more advanced students – I couldn’t do some of what they’re capable of when I was taking this thing. And you ask yourself – HOW? How can I be like them? (Pro tip: it's not sacrificing goats. Not that I would know anything about that. Uhh, moving on.)
It’s not that these kids have perfect LSAT knowledge – usually far from it. But, they apply their valid argument forms like you would answer 2+2. They translate conditional statements across groups like you would count to 10. They can give examples of common flawed methods of reasoning in their sleep (and probably do so on a semi-regular basis). And it’s all done with meticulous attention to detail, utterly consistently, almost instinctively. That’s what it means to be a master of a concept. Now, you don’t have to be a master at everything to score decently - most people aren't - but you do need to be a master at SOME things. Those "some" things are usually the core fundamentals. And when you can rattle off ten different phrasings of an A -> B statement off the top of your head; when you can recite the 9 valid and 7 invalid argument forms by heart and articulate the reasoning when pressed; when you reach the point where you will never ever screw up a contrapositive again - when you can do those things, you're on your way.
Put another way - a lot of people are probably capable of doing something right, whatever it may be. But only a select few people in any context are good enough at something that they are literally incapable of doing it wrong. Which camp are you in? And which camp do you expect to see populating the top 1% of an already self-selected sample?
So the next time you hit a wall and get frustrated with your (lack of) progress, ask yourself whether you would really trust yourself to be able to articulate 100 questions worth of LSAT logic if Nickelback torture was the price of failure. With stakes that high, the answer will almost always be ‘no’, but that’s okay. Find out what you’re unsure of, and work on it. Don’t stop until you can do the basics in your sleep, even if it does take some loud swearing and possibly kicking your little brother in the shins in the meanwhile (blame it on me if you need to, I can take the hit). And then, once you’re done with one thing, move on to the next. Slow and steady really, truly does win the race.
Take the time to truly master the basics and you will be rewarded.
Comments
@brna0714 You can PM Jon!
Legendary. And, full of practicalities that firm up the ground for walking in hope. There is too little of this kind of wisdom across the LSAT universe. Too much of the "4 months to victory" claptrap that, while it might describe the experience for some, fails to deliver the "bad" (but really, good) news you've presented here. The bad news is, it's really quite simple (that it might really just take a damn long time to max out your potential—longer than you think you have). The good news is, it's really quite simple (the tools are readily available, especially given 7sage's price point and affordability of the best materials, and the reality that commitment to fundamentals will yield rewards in the long term).
No easy 10-steps to success; but a much surer course for whom those programs have failed to deliver.
Giving this awesome post a good bump.
Thanks @SerenityFalcon ! That was really a really good read.
You can feel free to take the Nickelback linear algebra exam for me. I struggled through Calc 3 and 4.0'd it recently enough to take the 96 hours and run rather than studying math for many many times longer. And who knows, you might pull it out.
That said I do think that the idea of gaining flawless almost instinctual knowledge of the LSAT is helpful to getting a tip top score.
Thank you for that!
A brave soul! Misguided, but brave. Prepare your eardrums...
Great post!!
Good effin' post!
You can’t build a two story house without a solid foundation. Thank you for the humbling post. I needed this.
Love this post (though I struggled with having to even read the words linear algebra multiple times. Yuck.)
this is awesome
bless your soul
bink