Strategizing for the LSAT

Posted on by zot

Even though I’m leaving for the Peace Corps in August, I’m taking the LSAT soon, and the GRE a bit later. I’ve been thinking of applying to law school for a while now, and it would be good to be able to do so easily when I get back. With not a lot of other stuff going on as the date for my peace corps departure draws closer, I’ve had a significant amount of time to study for the LSAT and work on improving my score.

I began by taking a couple of tests to get a baseline. There are two test that you can download from the LSAT website. I ordered The Next 10 Actual Official LSAT Prep Tests as well as Powerscore’s Logic Games Bible and Logic Reasoning Bible. Powerscore has an edge on other LSAT prep providers because they actually license the old test questions from the LSAT for use in studying.  I also ordered 9 of the most recent unbundled prep tests (Prep Tests 42-51).

My initial strategy was rather unstructured, starting with taking the oldest tests first and working through the Logic Games Bible simultaneously. Two important things helped me add some points to my score. The first is that while the LG Bible system is excellent, it is easy to spend too much time on the initial setup of the game and waste time. The system itself also takes getting used to. My first few tests using that system I was consistently five to 10 minutes over the time limit. However, by reducing the time I spent trying to draw inferences in the initial game, I was able to significantly reduct my time.

I also began keeping track of my scores in each section. In the beginning I missed roughly six problems in each logic games section, three or four in each reasoning section, and four in each reading section. After working through the LG Bible and simply practicing with the reading section, I’m down to missing one in each.

Improvements in the reasoning section were more difficult to come by. I began by working through the Logic Reasoning Bible while continuing to take tests, but wasn’t seeing much improvement. After a week of that, I postponed taking tests for a week to focus exclusively on the LR Bible. This focus on strategy for the reasoning section allowed me to reduce the number of missed problems in each reasoning section by one or two. The best part about this is that I get a double bonus for my work in this section because there are two reasoning sections on each test.

I also set up a spreadsheet of each problem in the reasoning sections, classifying it according to the LR Bible categories and indicating if I got it right. This has allowed me to focus more heavily on those categories of questions I get wrong most often.

My overall strategy hasn’t been particularly complicated: find the areas where I do the most poorly and focus on them. As these areas improve and returns to effort decrease, shift to the new worst area. I see several other things as having made a big difference as well. Working through each bible before rather than in tandem with working through prep tests is when I saw the biggest increases in my score. Additionally, I choose not to focus heavily on time after my first couple of tests. While time is an essential aspect of the LSAT, I think getting the process down in the beginning allows for substantial increases in speed later on. By focusing on time early on, you cheat yourself of a full analysis process for each problem. Simple repetition is a big factor as well. At this point I’ve taken thirteen tests, and I’ve noticed patterns that allow me to move more quickly and confidently in answering each question.

With one more week to study and eight more prep tests, I’m hoping to increase that a few more points before I take the test on June 17th.

There is other interesting stuff on LSAT strategies from sites such as the forums at top law schools and the LSAT Discussion forums.

The whole process has been an interesting experiment in testing how trainable standardized tests are. I tend to blow of studying for standardized tests, and haven’t ever studied for a standardized test as methodically or thoroughly as this one. As a consequence I expected this test to be rather trainable, as I’ve always thought about standardized tests. While my score has certainly improved, it has not been as large and improvement or as easy a process as I expected it to be. Does this mean that the LSAT is a good measure of a person’s skills in reading comprehension and logic? Is the GRE or the SAT a corresponding good measure of general knowledge? Does the MCAT accurately measure scientific knowledge?

I’ve always held that standardized tests were somewhat bogus, and I still think that as a measure of intelligence they are quite lacking. But perhaps if their scores are taken with a grain of salt, that is, with the recognition that they are only measuring the specific skill set associated with answering the types of questions on the test, they can be a useful tool for evaluating potential students.

In the end, the test’s usefulness as a predictor of student success seems dependent on how well the activities of students are similar to the test taking process. In law school the LSAT is supposed to be an excellent measure of student success. But is this because the people who do well on the test are simply good at taking tests, since in law school grades are dependent on your final? I worry that we correlate intelligence with test-taking ability, when the reality is almost certainly more subtle.

Anyway, I will have to present some data on my score improvement after the thing is done with.

Good luck to the rest of you test takers, and to you non-test takers trying to make your way.

Thinking About User Interface

Posted on by zot

Every now and then I hear about some linux distribution and end up switching my install to play with it.  I’ve recently moved to Archlinux, which is a minimalist distribution aimed at installing only the basics and letting you proceed from there.  So now I’m in the process of designing my desktop, and it’s got me thinking about how to most efficiently organize my desktop.

The Design Process

I have to begin by asking myself how I use my computer. From there, does it make sense to have an icon-based desktop (I click icons to start programs) or a menu-based desktop (I click a menu that lists my programs that I select)?  Do I want files on my actual desktop, or is it better if it is kept clean?  Do I want a taskbar?  What kinds of information do I want continually displayed?

Regardless of whether I’m using icons or menus, I usually put the programs I use most often in the easiest place to access.  But I realized that the ease of starting a program shouldn’t be based just on how often I use it, but also on how often I close and restart it during a typical session.

For example, I use a web browser basically every time I start a session.  But I also never close it once it’s open.  So while the number of times that I start the web browser is higher than any other program, the number of times per session is relatively low, and in fact, is basically one.

In contrast, I use the terminal often, but not every session.  However, any session that I do use a terminal typically involves multiple terminals and, rarely, closing terminals and starting another one.  So while my frequency overall is lower than for my web browser, my frequency per session is much higher.  The same goes for quick note takers such as tomboy, or quick text editing such as gedit.

So this time around I am organizing my menu in such a way that a terminal, tomboy, gedit, and maybe firefox are at the top of the menu, while my other programs are buried in the typical sub-menu structure under headings like “office”.  The same most-often used programs will get the key shortcuts, along with a generic “run” box.

Why menus instead of icons?  All of this is happening on my laptop, which has a 14″ screen.  As such, I want to keep the entire desktop available for programs.  If I use icons, then I either have icons on the desktop, so I have to move a program that is covering them before I can start them, or I have icons in a taskbar, which takes up permanent space on the top and/or bottom of the screen.

On the other hand, a menu can be brought up with a click anywhere on the desktop, or with a key shortcut, and allows quick access to any program that I need with either the keyboard or the mouse.

Which actually brings up another point: minimizing the need for a mouse.  Touchpads are abominably slow, and there are times when I don’t have a usb mouse with me.  It’s much easier if I can start a program with several keys than by navigating via touchpad.

Finally, there is the multiple desktops aspect.  My use of additional desktops hasn’t changed much since I started using linux back in my first year of college.  I have one desktop for terminals, one for text, one for web, and one for media.  I think this setup is pretty standard, and using ALT+Left or ALT+Right to switch desktops and CTRL+Left and CTRL+Right to move programs between desktops, it’s very easy to effectively have 4 separate spaces that are very fast to switch between.  I wonder though if there isn’t a better setup for these somehow.  At the very least, the order of the desktops can be important.  I’m often referencing the web when programming, writing, or playing with my distribution, so there is a question of whether the web desktop should be between the terminal and text desktops, or to one side.  I’m not sure what the best answer is.

Of course, a lot of this is heavily dependent on the fact that my work is heavily text-based.  If I was doing graphics work, I may want a different setup.

In addition, whenever I do these distribution change and corresponding desktop redesign phases, there is always a little voice telling me that no matter how much time I save by having a key shortcut to start a terminal and all my other little tricks, it’ll never make up for the 20 hours I spent designing the whole thing.  But then, the design process isn’t entirely utilitarian anyway.  A big part of it’s fun is trying new things and new looks.