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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.