test prep companies

[interestedintacos]

I've noticed something I think should be discussed, and hopefully it could help some test takers.

There are two fundamental approaches to the LSAT: the syntactical approach and the understanding/comprehension/semantics approach. Getting a really high score involves both.

The syntactical approach tells you to operate mechanically (like a software program) and apply various tricks in order to find the correct answer. This is what I've seen in the vast majority of test prep materials, especially Powerscore. I suppose the idea is to rigorously apply various shortcuts in order to find correct answers quickly, with or without actually understanding (the semantic part) the logic behind them. They pretty much give you a set of instructions to follow just like what someone would put into a software program.

In fact, you could easily draw up an entire plan based on their materials. Take LR:
1. Identify question stem based on key words from their list
2. Apply particular method based on particular question stem (if the stem is identified as "parallel reasoning," choose the parallel reasoning method and proceed, for instance)
3. Eliminate answer choices based on common incorrect answers including phrases/easily identifiable types of errors
4. Choose from remaining contenders again based on breaking the stimulus and/or answer choices into parts

Now granted, certain question types don't really have a syntactical strategy because they're just too difficult to break down in that way (which helps prove the point I'm going to make), although sometimes test prep companies try to come up with a method that usually ends up being of little value.

Now think about it. If a syntactical approach as I've explained were the best way to mold your mind to the LSAT, someone could come up with a software program that would get 180 every time. Recently IBM designed the Watson supercomputer/software to take on the game Jeopardy. It's had medium success. It's remarkable because Jeopardy involves a lot of tricky elements of language (some questions involve puns, etc.--it's not just about facts). But compared to the LSAT, Jeopardy is NOTHING. An LSAT software would probably top out at 150, if that. FOR THE SAME REASON, you will top out at a medium level if you are only learning the LSAT with a syntactical approach.

Luckily, it's very hard for us to do syntactical things without starting to pick up on the semantics (i.e. use test prep companies methods without actually understanding the reasons for answers being correct). But if you endeavored to really get into these methods from some of the test prep companies, you would be missing the main point of the LSAT and one thing that is necessary for you to get a top score: understanding/comprehension.

No amount of these test prep companies will ever make up for true understanding, and in fact, I think these methods, when overemphasized, do the exact opposite of what they're supposed to do: they slow you down. You have a choice: either spend a lot of time trying to become like a computer to the point where the method is so deep into you that you can act mechanically relatively quickly OR work on actually understanding the logic behind the LSAT, which will ultimately open the door to the highest level of success.

With all that said, it should be noted that syntactical methods will always be part of the test, and the particularly useful methods ought to be learned to the point where they are intuitive (because they won't be useful if you apply them slowly). In fact, sometimes syntactical methods will get you correct answers where your understanding/comprehension may have failed you. A number of times I've faced difficult questions I don't understand, and by using the syntactical methods I learned from the test prep companies I was able to find the correct answer. But my main approach was attempting to actually understand the material; only when it failed did I resort to a syntactical approach.

My MAIN POINT: Syntactical methods are necessary BUT NOT sufficient for getting a top score (170+). This might seem obvious, but I think this point could be lost on some students of the major prep companies.

And to apply this insight to the other sections of the test:

LOGIC GAMES:
The logic games section appears to be an entirely syntactical section. That's why the test prep companies are the most successful in teaching it. You can look at a game, see whether it's grouping, linear, etc., and then apply a method the test prep companies have designed step by step. Eventually this becomes intuitive and the common inferences and strategies necessary to solve questions become easier. However, in my opinion, AGAIN, even for this section, understanding is necessary to get consistently perfect scores. Not only that--I think understanding may even improve your score MORE than syntactical methods! Students who "internalize" the variables/limitations/action (really understand it) outperform students rigidly applying syntactical methods every time. The methods may help as an introduction, but ultimately really understanding the relationships between variables and constraints is the key to success. An example of a method that would help: Mechanically draw a diagram based on the test prep co. methods, but then don't go directly to the questions. Pause and analyze the diagram so you can actually understand what's going on. Then go to the questions. Test prep companies may tell you to do this when it comes to searching for inferences, but I don't think they do a good enough job of emphasizing actual understanding/comprehension of what's going on.

READING COMPREHENSION:
The insight I've shown illustrates why test prep companies are usually inefficient at teaching the reading comprehension section. It's not that students can't improve. Of course they can! But improving probably requires, more than any other section, real understanding/comprehension. Nevertheless, someone applying syntactical methods could still get a number of questions right (just like the other sections), but wouldn't get the highest scores. They could, for instance, get a lot of the more specific factual questions correct and fail on harder questions like extrapolation/extension questions.

In a way, all the sections of the test are really like reading comprehension even if it doesn't appear that way. It makes sense considering the test makers are trying to test your ability to understand complex material. They're also trying to test those abilities under an extreme time limit, which is why syntactical methods are also necessary, but again, not sufficient.

One last thing: One might object to what I'm saying by pointing out the test prep companies (at least some of them) spend time trying to teach you the fundamentals behind things like conditional reasoning. But I've found that many of those particular guides also use syntactical methods, which can be harmful. No syntactical method will ever compete with true understanding. True understanding is more fundamental to success on this test, and that can probably be applied to any category (whether it's learning conditional reasoning or conquering logic games).

[noah]

interestedintacos, you've got such interesting ideas - and far beyond tacos.

I agree, a formulaic approach only takes you so far. I won't speak about other companies, but in general, "refugees", (students who come to us after taking other companies courses), say that our approach is more streamlined and intuitive. We work on teaching what actual top-scorers do - and that's not applying a long set of rules and steps.

The hard part, from a curriculum-developers point of view, is how to teach someone to think cleaner. It's obvious that one can force a set of steps into someone's mind - and we believe that fails at a certain point). So, how do you get someone to think better so that they can "get" arguments, etc.? I think the primary key is the hard and well-structured work on the student's part. The other part that works for some, and here's where we come in, is a stimulating interaction with someone who understands the test. We think that a teacher can help a student think for themselves - and think faster and clearer - if the teacher teaches through questioning, debate, etc., not just through lectures, explanations, and low-level questions (i.e. questions that don't make you think hard).

This is turning into some serious self-promotion, so I'll sign off now!