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
- 28K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.1K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 27 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
- 37 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
- 285 Off-topic
Related Discussions
1 Like
So I'm not a philosophy major...
Logic Gainz
Alum Member ⭐
Anyone else get an undergrad degree in something other than philosophy? I know this test doesn't require outside knowledge, but I'm sure knowing some aspects of formal logic definitely helps. Any thoughts on this? If anyone sought outside logic sources, what were some good books you've read?
Comments
Ok not one either but really only some formal logic learned in UG courses help. Lots of teaching methods incorporate it in their methods of teaching so you will pick it up anyway. Lots of people taking this test never took a logic course in their life. I learned some formal logic through Philosophy in UG and honestly forgot most of it when I first started studying for LSAT
Previous Economics/Philosophy major here. It helps, but not as much as one may think. That said, it was nice coming in knowing the language of formal logic and how to read an argument! LR was definitely my best section off the jump. But I plateaued fairly quickly, and much of what I learned didn't seem to help me all that much.
For outside logic reading, I'm a fan of Genssler's "Introduction to Logic" or Paul Tomassi's "Logic" -- both are pretty easy to understand and can help give you understand logic at a deeper level.
That said, don't feel like you need to consult outside logic sources. JY's lessons on logic are second to none and much easier to understand than anything in these books will be. I think these books may be something to skim after you've completed the CC more out of curiosity. The logic on the LSAT is about as basic as it gets, so don't feel like you need to be some sort of logician to do well.
In sum, I'm not quite sure I'd recommend outside logic reading unless you're curious or super interested in the deeper "why" behind the logic lessons.
Here's a logic riddle for you to figure out
Yeah; I mean, I think knowledge of propositional logic (i.e., 0-order logic) might help but really the benefits of formal logic are probably more indirect than anything with respect to the LSAT. Of course, the contrapositive is second nature if you've already taken a course, but little else is of direct benefit (perhaps with parallel reasoning questions on the LR as well as translations?). Certaintly, you're better off sticking to the curriculum for quantification than trying to delve into 1st order logic which introduces the notion of models as well as an assignment functions (introduced to provide a compositional interpretation of formulas that may involve non-vacuous quantification). Even that short description should give you pause about the worth of trying to delve into formal logic when all you want is to improve on the LSAT. Cheers--A.c.S
I think proper writing courses executed well provide a bigger boost to LSAT preparedness than does introductory undergraduate logic. I tutored logic, and while I'm sure it helped, nothing kicked my ass more than a philosophy seminar.
I was a political science and criminal justice major in college, and I was totally lost when I first started studying.
I know some philosophy students who had no idea what the LSAT was doing when first starting to study. I think philosophy helps in the same way just reading lots of dense things will help and that's about it. I think the logic of the test is just very different from what most people are used to, including philosophy majors.
also
rec--> C or SI
BOOM
Chemical engineering major here! I took 1 logic class my whole entire undergrad so my first ever diagnostic test was really bad. Like shamefully bad. The only thing I feel like I had good grips on was the Logic Games, other than that, I was confused. I had no idea that you cant bring outside assumptions. I am still somewhat struggling with this specially when it comes to science stimulus in LR. An example of this is a strengthening/flaw question where one of the choices is talking about a control group . In my science mind, it would strengthen the claim or point out the flaw but since the stimulus doesnt talk about it, its wrong... ive been trained to think this way so jumping from one spectrum (engineering) to the next (law) is a huge leap.
I know i really need to build my logical reasoning foundation, so I am starting the 7Sage course. I am viewing LR as the main foundation that will have a trikle down effect on the RC as well.
I think prior exposure to formal logic isn't that useful.
That being said, if you've ever seen question appeal responses, it's clear that the test writers are philosophy grads. I guess being able to think like the test writers is helpful.
I was an Economics major (switched from Biochemistry after freshman year) -- never took a class on logic, though I had a couple math classes that required formal proofs. My diagnostic was really low
But on the aspect of outside knowledge other than logic, I strongly believe a general understanding of and exposure to a variety of subjects helps.
I watched a lot of science documentaries (NOVA, Scientific American Frontier, etc.), read news articles and opinion pieces, took a ton of different subjects I didn't really "need" in high school, and listened to podcasts throughout college (Planet Money, other NPR/WNYC shows). In general, I'm an avid reader. Still, I don't have a super "deep" understanding of all the topics I've read, but I've never had that, "oh no, a science passage", or "crap, the stimulus is super meta" reaction that I realize some other people get when facing unfamiliar topics. Just knowing that I've read stuff like this before and I can read and comprehend it again now, on this test, is game-changing for me.
Poli sci major but I tried a logic course because I knew I needed it. The course went super fast and I just wasn’t grasping it. I dropped the class around midterms. Wish I had done better in the course becatse I’m sure it would’ve been a tremendous help.
Being a philosophy major definitely helps with the LSAT. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant or in denial. Philosophy helps to change the way our brains process information, which is essentially what the LSAT asks/forces us to do in order to get that shiny LSAT score we all want.
Still, if you want to do well on the LSAT and you don't have prior experience with philosophy, that's okay. You shouldn't take a course in formal logic to help you with the LSAT. The best way to get better at the LSAT is to study the LSAT. It's important to know the ins and outs of basic formal logic, but all the formal logic you need to do well on test day is in the Powerscore Bibles.
Look at the average LSAT score by major. If it was helpful, wouldn’t you expect a much higher average?
Pretty sure philosophy majors have the second highest average LSAT score, per major. Physics is #1, I believe, but that probably more to do with fewer physics majors taking the LSAT.
Also, philosophy majors do not learn the LSAT in undergraduate. The LSAT is an undertaking all of its own, and not every college graduate, regardless of major, has what it takes to effectively study the LSAT.
Also, law schools seem to look favorably on philosophy majors. That's because it's a rigorous major with a lot of analytical writing.
No the first result from a google search is wrong
https://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source/data-(lsac-resources)-docs/2015-16_applicants-major.pdf
I was under the impression major is a very minor soft.
I looked at your source and you may want to take another look. It shows exactly what I would expect it to show. ~1800 philosophy majors applied with a mean LSAT around 158, which is ridiculous when you compare the total number of applicants to other majors. Far fewer science majors, ~200-300 or far fewer applicants per science major, applied to law school, but their mean LSAT score was higher--so what?
Classics majors had a mean LSAT of about 161, which is better than all other majors except Mathematics. What does this say about the rigor of a Classics major?
Everything is "a very minor soft" compared to LSAT score and GPA in the vast majority of cases. Once you have both of those things squared away, though, softs become much more important.
Music major here. Never studied anything close to formal logic. Although music is deeply mathematical and involves a lot of recognizing patterns and... well, I could go off about the more technical aspects. But that aside, it might be helpful to have formal logic training but it’s definitely not necessary. 7sage’s curriculum has all the training you need specifically to the test. I haven’t used much for outside resources and have been steadily improving (started at 155, recent PTs around 167 and climbing). Once you know the basics, it’s just a matter of practice (hey, also like music! Haha)
Much appreciated team! I just wanted to make sure I wasn't leaving any rocks unturned when it came to prepping for this exam.
I was a Phil major with all As and one B+ in my major at a UC school. It didn't help me at all on the LSAT other than the fact that I'm able to read quickly (doesnt mean i'm retaining all info). Having an extra minute to pee at the end of one section didnt improve my score whatsoever. I'm not sure what people who say otherwise think that an undergrad philosophy major entails. My knowing about the history of philosophy and being able to discuss metaphysical other worlds really does not benefit me in life at all other than I can bullshit my way through a paper pretty easily and it's developed my analytical personality. Being able to analyze various sides of a problem doesnt help you nail down an A/B/C answer on a standardized test. Formal logic is much different than LSAT logic. As is repeated through the 7sage course - you really have to let go of your outside knowledge and just learn the test.
Couldn't agree more with the bolded. The LSAT's logic is technically formal logic, but I feel like the way you're taught about it and how to use it in university is a bit different. It makes sense since the test isn't supposed to favor any one particular background/major.
I had a single formal reasoning philosophy class as a methods requirement for my major. It might have been useful in that learning it relied mainly on repitition(a learning technique which foolproofing has copied and taken to an extreme), however it did not provide any noticeable boost to my LSAT taking ability.
In an utterly expected development it turns out that studying the actual LSAT remains the best way to prepare for the LSAT.
I would take exception with one thing @"surfy surf" says though. It think reading a lot in undergrad or life to the point where you cab read dense material quickly is a major advantage on the LSAT. I never struggled with reading comp or LR and part of the reason for that was that my major was reading intensive and so I was both swimming in time compared to some people and in the practice of evaluating long arguments.
Someone here probably said it before, but subject matter knowledge or at least familiarity helps. I'm an Accounting major and have worked in industry for the last 5 years, never took a logic course at university. I found the questions about companies and profits/losses naturally much easier than the science or literature ones.
I'm reading Tolstoy on my down time to boost my comfort level with dense text.
Having to read dense materials during UG, particularly those I found mostly uninteresting, was definitely something I feel helped me.
I'm a biology major (which has been relatively useless in this LSAT journey) but my friends in computer science seem to have a really great grasp on logic in a way that is super relevant to the LSAT, which surprised me. So computer science seems to be a relatively useful degree in regards to the LSAT.
Or maybe my subjects are just LR naturals!
Lol @"surfy surf" "...extra minute to pee" that literally made me chuckle out loud. During the December test I had to pee right in the middle of section 2 BADLY.
My undergrad is in business. I'm not sure it helped specifically, but I think any kind of formal post secondary education requires attention to detail (carefully reading and understanding what is being asked), and critical thinking that will help on the LSAT! My diagnostic was 162 and after 8 weeks of practice, my score didn't change much but my timing improved. I wrote the Dec test, and I expect that I will get what I was PT-ing at.
A 162 diagnostic? That's incredible. I don't understand how some people have such great diagnostics lol. It must be genetic.
I was a philosophy major, so take my advice with a grain of salt. But, a great book to pick up that will help you to think logically is What is the Name of this Book by Raymond Smullyan. It's sort of an easy way to get a recreational dose of logic and puzzle solving when you need it. The logic puzzles start simple and by the end you learn aspects of Godel's proof. My friend was a math tutor, and she used it to help her students learn logic. Another option would be to pick up an informal logic book, which is much more valuable than a formal logic book.
Blush thank you! Honestly I'm not sure, I was surprised and happy with that diagnostic obviously. I actually opted to not buy the LSAT course because of it. But I experienced a complete inability to improve my score in the time I was working on it, so that speaks to how difficult the test is to learn. I think I could've benefited from the course, but by the time I realized that it was too late to worry about for this application cycle.
I got a nice little read titled "Logic" A complete introduction. I couldn't help myself, sorry guys. Anyway it had a girthy chapter on informal logic which I liked. The book basically teaches the same stuff, but it calls the different propositions/elements different names. Like, instead of sufficient and necessary elements, the book calls them antecedents and consequents. Same meat, different bun.
Just curious, anybody have theories about why the average score for prelaw is so low? Obviously prelaw as a ug major is no physics or engineering (excuse my biased but accurate generalization ?) in terms of rigor, but i wouldnt expect it to be soooo low.
@tylerdschreur10
Wheres that data point found? I don't see it here
https://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source/data-(lsac-resources)-docs/2015-16_applicants-major.pdf
It is a self-selection problem. You have to be fairly dedicated to pursuing a career in law to pursue it from a degree that does not obviosly feed into law, especially if there are more obvious paths. That dedication is reflected in more time spent studying for the test. On the other hand when your major is literally pre law many people are going to apply to law school regardless of whether they are really committed to studying for the LSAT.
It also seems like the only option. If a major with some other opportunity finds that they are bad at the LSAT they can choose to forego law school and go into the/a career which their major naturally would lead them towards. What are pre law students going to do if they are PTing poorly. They are going to take the test and apply anyway.
Psych and Lit major. I had no experience with formal logic until the LSAT. I decided to take a 1st year level course in logic and found myself dividing my time between that and my LSAT studies. There was very minimal crossover and I had to keep 2 different notation systems in mind. Fortunately, I had an excellent instructor and truly enjoyed doing proofs.