[ QUOTE ]
Yes, questions in your
class workbooks and
class diagnostic exams are LSAC-licensed, but the questions included in the workbooks you sell to the public--i.e., not the questions that a student in your courses will be seeing--are not real LSAT questions licensed by LSAC.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're right. Nobody's retail book have real questions except for the "Actual Official" books, but those don't have content divided among argument type or game type, etc. I'm not sure if Kaplan or Testmasters or Prepmasters or anyone else has real questions in their class curriculum, but I don't think they do.
Princeton Review has two retail LSAT books that I'm actually familiar with. One is called "Cracking the LSAT" and IMHO it's garbage. The other is called "The LSAT Workout" and it is pure gold. The questions aren't real...they're harder. If you can master these, the LSAT will be a piece of cake. The book is somewhat comparable to Kaplan's 180 book (which is also a very good book), but I think the LSAT Workout book is more challenging and the explanations and commentary are more comprehensive.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to take a review course, take
Testmasters.
Their method is superior to PR's and Kaplan's
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most people don't have access to the teaching manuals of both, and therefore would have a hard time naming concrete differences in
method
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
Thus I called BS.
[ QUOTE ]
but there is clearly an obvious and objective difference in quality of teachers. All Testmasters teachers are required to personally score in the ninety-eighth or ninety-ninth percentile, while PR teachers are only required to get a 163 on the exam. There is clearly not a perfect corellation between one's own score and an ability to teach, but I'm sure there's a decent one.
[/ QUOTE ]
The bit about score requirements is true (there just aren't enough 99%ers to cover the volume of classes TPR and Kaplan run) , but I wouldn't go so far as to equate that with teacher quality. The LSAT score reflect's one's ability to perform certain tasks under time pressure. A slow reader can understand and communicate the concepts while simply not finishing the test fast enough. Just because a football coach can't run fast or throw far doesn't disqualify him from instructing others (nor does it make him less desireable than a coach who can). I've met plenty of people who are good at something but couldn't explain how to do it to save their lives.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't really know how to prove you wrong here. I also wouldn't know how to prove someone wrong who insisted that a Bush is "just as good a President" as Washington.
[/ QUOTE ]
Citing a subjective statement to illustrate a claim about an objective statement is a bad comparison. This should have been taught in the flaws section of the Args class. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
[ QUOTE ]
You already seem resistant to public opinion, so it probably wouldn't help to mention that everyone who takes Testmasters loves it, and many people report mediocre PR experiences.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've heard great things about Testmasters, and I'm sure most students love them. I've also taught some Testmaster "refugees" who were less than satisfied, so no, not
everyone loves them. Not everyone loves TPR. I'll even grant that more people are dissatisfied with TPR than Testmasters (of course, we have a lot more students to please, so who knows what the percentages are).
[ QUOTE ]
I would guess that you are an excellent PR teacher, but you have to admit that there are plenty of relatively poor PR teachers out there.
[/ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of poor teachers everywhere, whether you're at TM, TPR, or Yale Law School.