Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 111 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
- 636 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
1 Like
Vice article -- LSAT with no prep
xtinextine
Member
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3kvv3n/i-took-the-lsat-with-zero-preparation
Came across this earlier today and thought I'd share. Interesting outside perspective of what we've all been doing for months.
If a 158 was essentially his diagnostic, he'd do well after some 7-Sage fool-proofing!! (Also, I want to know how he did on judicial candor lol)
Comments
There was someone on the reddit lsat forum who claimed her boyfriend got a 172 without studying. Could be a troll but she kept asking questions about where he could apply to get full scholarships.
Wow. If it's legit, that's kind of amazing. Hard to believe, but I guess anything is possible...
@xtinextine The guy for Testmasters has over a dozen perfect scores. I guess the sky is the limit? haha
The sky is always the limit.
On the other hand I think that when analyzing a diagnostic, it really depends what sections the person is missing in.
Mine without studying was a 168. But, the really promising part which made it worth retaking the 172 I got a few weeks later on the February test was that nearly all my mistakes in PT's came from logic games. Imagine my delight in discovering that there was literally a foolproofing method for the one section I struggled with.
The writer of the vice article seemed to be describing the same sort of pattern. The other four sections were naturally easy to the writer, but with games he wrestled with the first game for most of the test before scrambling to try to get an answer to the rest. Imagine if the writer missed 20 questions on games (I missed 10 LG questions on my diagnostic). He could foolproof that down to 0 or 1 and be sitting in really promising shape. It does sort of make sense that a journalist would be good at reading and spotting logical errors. We would have an even better idea if he told us his score breakdown by section.
I think with a heavy enough background in reading and evaluating arguments in text like my majors have given me and presumably like the journalist has gotten, it is like you have already prepped for RC and LR.
If someone also say had a background in formal logic, puzzles, or computer science it's not impossible to imagine them excelling on games right from the beginning too. I don't see why a 172 diagnostic would be unbelievable.
It's not necessarily that the people scoring well on diagnostics are smarter or better suited to the test (though they may be), but that their lives and/or careers have already served as a natural form of prep.
@"Seeking Perfection" I agree! Outside skills/interests definitely play a part in reading/analyzing passages. I think in the article he actually mentioned that he felt would perform well on RC because of his journalism career.
And me too! One of my majors was history, so I find it easier to tune in to passages about historiography because it's relatable. I also had an anthropology minor with a focus on bio so I find /some/ of the science passages manageable because of it. RC is still difficult, but at least I can easily feign an interest lol. It's much harder to stay focused on passages about lichens and vasopressin.
You're all assuming he didn't lie about his actual score...
158 isn't a far fetched diagnostic but you are right
Right, I definitely don't think it's a far fetched diagnostic. But it would be a shame for someone to see this and be discouraged by it when there is a possibility that the author is not being truthful about his actual score.
True, I guess I assumed journalistic integrity. #fakenews ? (hopefully not)
Well, it is Vice and it's a column based on one's personal experience...
158 is not an unreasonable diagnostic score, but after studying for this test I have become really skeptical of all who proclaim "oh I took the LSAT on a whim and got a 160." Hearing these stories does nothing to help those studying and struggling to achieve their goal score.
Also, the author indicates he spent 10 mins on the first question of the LG section and had to rush through the rest. Meaning, he had to have scored very well on both LR sections and RC in order to get close to 160 after presumably bombing the LG section, unless he got really lucky.
Honestly I just thought the article was interesting commentary (his descriptions of other test takers and the comments from the LSAC president). I'm not sure what he'd really get out of lying, but of course it's possible.
I don't see how someone who hasn't had past experience with somethi
Did you have previous experience with anything similar to the logic games? I don't see how anyone can do okay in that section without some previous experience.
I don't buy the "I took a philosophy course" or "I'm STEM we're good at this" justification. I remember my first time on LG, I tried to solve the programs as if I were writing a program (I had pseudo-code on my paper). Yeah I got the right answer, but the time ran out after the first game.
@amedley88
After studying for this test I am increasingly aware of the fact that it tests an attainable set of skills not simply intelligence or ability.
The fact that a journalist has obtained some of those skills through the course of his work shouldn't offend us. I don't think it offers us that much of value though other than that reading and critically thinking about newspaper and journal articles might be a useful way for those studying to blend studying with fun. But, that's already a common recommendation for those struggling with reading comp and prepping for a long time. Nonetheless, I don't see why it would be discouraging.
If you don't trust his word and think he is fabricating his 158 then just ask him to send you a copy of his score report. He does not have any of the usual privacy based reasons to refuse. You might even be able to confirm our suspicions that he is already competent at the RC and LR sections and just has logic games standing between him and a great score. Maybe, he could even edit his conclusion to note that games (his worst section) are the most easilly improvable through intensive studying.
I wasn't saying I started out good or even okay at games. To the contrary it was my weakest section by far. I was nearly perfect on LR and RC to start.
I didn't have much experience. I had taken a formal logic and reasoning course and was just starting to take a Python class(my only programming class), but neither of those really prepare you enough for games. It's not like I aced the games section the first time. I missed 10. The first question of almost every section is doable without formal diagramming. On top of that I knew about contrapositives, Demorgan's Law, how conditionals and biconditionals function as logical operators, and some other things. One of the games was a single layer sequencing game which I got completely right, if slower than I should have. Beyond that I might have got a tad lucky to get -10 which wasn't good. Three weeks of games and PTs later when I tested for yhe first time I had to blindly guess on part of the last game which fueled me to foolproof them for my September retake.
That said even though I didn't, people definitely can do well on the section to start with. I only listed computer science because I know at my school they get exposed to pretty advanced logic classes in addition to all the programming classes which are problem based.
My sister only missed two questions on her first and only games section after watching me struggle with them for months before my retake. She's definitely not interested in law, but was just curious about the part of the test I was studying constantly. She only did that section so I can't say what her over all score would have been. Additionally, she had seen me do and redo a bunch of them while mumbling to myself (whatever educational value that has). She used to like Sudukos and other puzzles when she was little so I guess it was just up her alley.
I have read online and had no reason to question about several other people who were pretty much perfect at games from the start. It is a learnable skill like the critical reading and thinking in RC and LR. Why be shocked that some people(albeit fewer than the other sections) have already aquired it to some degree when they start?
I'm not shocked at all, but I'm maintaining a degree of skepticism! That's all...
I guess I'm just not maintaining any skeptisism. I just don't see the motive for a journalist to lie and claim a 75th percentile score. I'd like to think that in their meaningless fluff pieces journalists are mostly honest.
If I did doubt it though, I would ask him to post the score report since he has no reason to lie about it.
I guess I can concede that there might be a very narrow window of skepticism where I would be willing to post about it, but not ask for proof...
Interesting tidbit from the article: https://www.lsac.org/aboutlsac/pressreleases/khan-academy-lsat-prep
I was extremely surprised by the statement: > Which led me to feel my 158, while respectable, doesn't make me a prodigy.
If most people can get a +10 with studying that would get you a 168. It isn't TOTALLY unrealistic for a 158 cold
I took the September test with my only studying being taking the free prep test months earlier and ended up with a 163 (-12 on LG) so I don't find the article that surprising. That being said, I definitely got lucky with some guesses on the LG section.
I really don't think the writer is lying about his score. I'm a journalist and when I decided I was going to take the LSAT/apply to law school I mentioned it on social media and one of my friends, a fellow journalist/writer, said "Oh, RC and LR will be super easy for you since you're a writer." (She too recently decided to pursue law and had already taken the LSAT). I was skeptical but so far those are the sections I rarely miss any questions when I do practice tests. I think they're skills we sort of pick up along the way in our jobs so we're more prone to understanding those questions. Logic games on the other hand...kill me.
My primary concern with this article wasn't the reported score being truthful or not.
Rather, it was the representatives from LSAC and Washington that treated the test as if it was based mainly on aptitude, and little time should be spent studying. Sounds like a ploy to get more people to register and take the LSAT (LSAC getting additional $$$), as well as for "lesser-tier" schools to boost their application totals and enrollment so they can, you guessed it, get more money. Sends a terrible message to readers who don't look into it any further and compromise their financial well-being.
When I first took the LSAT (three times, 23 years ago!) I was naive and didn't even know you were supposed to study for them. Never even occurred to me LOL. Anyway, my scores were 159, 161, 160 (I was frustrated by this because back then they averaged them). Anyway. Maybe ignorance is bliss and you rely on instinct more?
For perspective, my diagnostic this past May was a 155. With a LOT of studying, I'm now up to mid-160s.
I hate to think what my score could have been back then, when I was apparently smarter, had I studied
This paragraph, quoting the president of LSAC, is shocking and disturbing:
Testy told me she too once took the LSAT, though she doesn't remember her score. Unlike many of today's students, she didn't spend months studying. "Honestly, I didn't even know at the time people did that." She says LSAC actually worries test-takers spend too much time preparing. It suggests students familiarize themselves with the test and the rhythm of the questions and maybe take an online course.
This is what I've been saying for months: These LSAC people think they're giving an aptitude test (which is really the only way the test could be predictive anyhow), but they've failed miserably, b/c the test is eminently learnable, and in no way tests aptitude. The emperor has not clothes. @"Cant Get Right" Love to hear what you have to say about this, b/c you took issue to what I wrote a while back that the LSAT is meant to be an aptitude test.
Do you care to flesh out this only way the lsat being an aptitude test is the only way it could be predictive argument more?
It seems to me that law school performance is likely a function of both ability and dedication. If the LSAT is a test of how well people harness their natural talents through hardwotk and dedication, why couldn't it be predictive? Are we assuming that the people who don't bother to prep significantly for the test which determines what las school they attend for how much money will suddenly prep equally in law school to those who dedicated months or years to the test?
I wouldn't say the test in no way tests aptitude. Some people have a much easier/harder time improving than others. It's just not solely aptitude.