Description:
Contrapositive - LSAT Delay.. Zen Student Journal -.. Constant Improvement - Online Tutoring.. Constant Improvement - Analytical Reasoning..
Contents:
Contrapositive - LSAT Delay
The latest Contrapositive is up, and this is the first one from in house. You can probably tell from the xkcd aesthetic.
Sadly, we encounter this sentiment about the LSAT quite often in our tutoring services.
Zen Student Journal -
The following is the latest journal entry from one of our online Zen tutoring clients.
As I mentioned before, one thing I learned from my experience with Zen’s tutoring service is that I cannot and should not try to become a problem-solving automaton. Being machine-like in some aspects, e.g., employing formal logic, may be essential, but in many cases, I feel it’s far more important to maintain a sharp, efficient mind that can always adjust to novel situations, of which I’ve discovered there are plenty on each LSAT.
Part of that “humanizing” endeavor is to take some time off from studying but not become completely idle for long that I would lose the mental edge that I’ve been trying to develop. So during breaks, I’ve been tinkering with some ways to use my LSAT-trained mind on fun tasks without any mental pressure. One such diversion I’ve adopted is “critical pleasure reading.” I would go on quality journalism sites like Slate or Salon like I’ve always done, except when I read new articles or re-read favorite ones, I tend to find the conclusion and accompanying premise(s), if any. Not that I need to force myself in any conscious way; the urge to look at the source material with a critical eye seems to come automatically now. But the materials are more diversely entertaining (since I get to pick what I want to read) and, in a way, more challenging since they are “wild” with their syntax unrefined for test questions, as opposed to the tamed arguments on the LSAT.
 Nonogram is another fun way by which I’ve been keeping my brain engaged. It’s a numerical puzzle not unlike Sudoku, but I feel the former is more similar to sequencing games than the latter. Like Sudoku, it’s simple and easy to get started on. Perfect explanations on how to play can be found on Google and/or Wikipedia, but simply put, you are given numbers that tell you how many consecutive filled squares there are in a given row or column. I found myself intuitively finding strategies to know where certain squares must and cannot go, just like on logic games.
Of course, I’m not really in a position to give advice; on the contrary, I’m seeking input from everyone for more good ideas. Anyone with some other mind-jogging secrets? Some good figurative Pennzoil to apply to my cranial motor?
Constant Improvement - Online Tutoring
They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I hope that means the people over at the more established Teach-For-America-turned-standardized-test-tutoring company will be flattered that we're picking up their "multi-user data collaboration tool." That's a fancy way of saying: audio, video, images, interactive, and in our case, LSAT-based.
As part of the efforts to constantly improve the Zen of 180 approach to tutoring the LSAT, we've incorporated a new platform for discussing questions with our online clients. Here are a few screenshots of what we're planning to do with the new tools. Essentially, we can now offer our online clients the same interaction with the actual text and hands-on strategies that we provide for in-person clients. Improvement.
Constant Improvement - Analytical Reasoning
As part of refining the Zen of 180 system into a full-fledged online LSAT diagnostic tool, I've been trying to apply Teach For America's philosophy of constant improvement to the Zen task standards, especially in regard to the reading comprehension and analytical reasoning--known colloquially as logic games--sections.
Last week we talked about how Zen of 180 considers passage structure more important than content; today we'll cover a more comprehensive system for discussing logic games.
- Most LSAT test-prep companies separate logic games into three broad categories: sequencing, grouping, and matching/assignment.
Granted, some tutors try to provide some more context with subgroups, such as linear sequencing versus "tree sequencing." However, these distinctions are so broad as to not carry meaning.
Imagine if the only word we had for "dog" was still dog, but that term also meant every four-legged animal with fur that was shorter than an adult human. Calling an animal a "dog" might mean that it is man's best friend, or that it's a dangerous beast with razor fangs and monstrous appetite, say a tiger.
Obviously, your approach to each animal would be completely different: pet versus hide. Yet, LSAT test-prep companies don't make the distinction between a grouping game that requires a completely different approach from another "grouping" game.
Because the whole concept of Zen task standards is performance driven, we're hoping to categorize games by their diagrams. We hope to codify the tasks that test-takers should be performing during the logic games section: creating a specific diagram for a subset of rule-interactions and then manipulating information within that diagram.
- Most LSAT test-prep companies acknowledge the complexity of logic games by designated them as hybrids of the sequencing, grouping, and assignment types.
The problem is that almost every single modern LSAT logic game is hybridized: what good is a system of classification where the basic unit is never seen in isolation? Calling a given game a hybrid sequencing/grouping has very little bearing on the test-taker; what matters is how to set up the diagram and how many points are devoted to a given task.
Thus, the classification system for analytical reasoning will probably look like this, using the example of June 2007, section 1, questions 18-23:
Matrix Assignment
Rules 2, Conditional 4
As in, the LSAT is asking you to draw a matrix diagram to model the rules, and 2 questions deal with elements of the game, while 4 hinge on conditionals presented by individual questions. Thus, the test-taker has a solid understanding of how to represent the information and which questions apply to which task.
Self-reflection and Constant Improvement
One of the things that I like most about Teach For America is the cultural willingness to admit when things are not optimal and should be changed. While some of this boils down to nitty-gritty surveys and bureaucratic resistance to changes, I honestly feel that the vast majority of Teach For America departments are working constantly to improve their operation. The unified vision of eliminating educational inequity helps provide an inherent rubric for this change: if it doesn't cause us to find, place, train, and retain the best teachers possible in the most needy classrooms, then it's not on target.
As part of refining the Zen of 180 system into a full-fledged online LSAT diagnostic tool, I've been trying to apply Teach For America's philosophy of constant improvement to the Zen task standards, especially in regard to the reading comprehension and analytical reasoning sections (which I'll cover next week).
For today I'll focus on reading comprehension:
- Many LSAT test-prep companies separate passages by the four different content areas: humanities, law, science, and social science.
I find this system for LSAT prep to be at best unhelpful, at worst misleading. Although there's an academic expectation that students are unable to deeply grasp both the sciences and humanities, there's no reason that a diagnostic system for the LSAT should unquestioningly take on that artifact without data to prove it is relevant.
 While science vocabulary may add a superficial level of difficulty for a French major, from working with a variety of clients and analyzing their mistakes I've determined that what often causes the mistakes is the passage's structure and purpose, not the content itself.
That is, there are several different purposes utilized in LSAT reading comprehension passages, and the structure is almost always built around that purpose.
- Expository - the author is solely trying to explain the relevant portions of a topic
- Transition - the author describes how a topic has changed
- Debate - the author outlines at least two viewpoints, oftentimes favoring one
- Opinion - the author presents a topic in order to deliver an opinion
Usually, although not always, the science passages map onto expository purpose and structure. In my opinion, this pseudo-symbiosis between content and structure, which extends to a lesser degree in the other content/structure pairs, has led many test-prep companies to mistakenly assign the mistake's cause on the content rather than the true weakness, analyzing a particular structure.
A recent client was adamantly in the "content matters" camp, referencing her poor performance on science passages and her generally strong performance on humanities passages. When I pointed out that she not only sometimes excelled at science passages--which "happened" to have an opinion structure--and bombed on humanities passages--"surprisingly" with an expository structure--she admitted that maybe there was something to this new classification system.
Once I started exploring this new way of categorizing LSAT reading comprehension passages, I discovered another perfect use of the system: eliminating distractors for many of the task standards. That is, the test-writers formulaicly distract test-takers with the correct content but within the incorrect structure. By examining the different kinds of passage structure, my clients have a much easier time eliminating distractors in not only passage structure tasks, but also in extrapolation. This makes sense: if you can't accurately define what the starting point is, its very difficult to say what the author would or would not agree with.
If you have a strong opinion about the content versus structure debate, or would like to suggest another taxonomy, please comment on the post.
Zen Student Journal: Task Meta-Awareness
The following is the latest journal entry from one of our distance tutoring clients.
It’s been a series of ups and downs lately when it comes to my LSAT preparation. Well, to look at things objectively, it’s more like the ups representing noticeable improvements in some areas and the downs representing those aspects that seem stubbornly difficult for me to become better at. The first few tutoring sessions and consequent reviews have clearly taught me how to effectively hurdle many of these obstacles; the main difficulty lies in internalizing the strategies I’ve decided to adopt as well as building mental endurance necessary to brave through all the stumbling blocks before they tire me out.
To me, this concern applies to the logical reasoning section the most. Whereas all the questions in the LG and RC section can be answered if I understand four big set-ups entailing them, LR features two sets of about 25 consecutive, mostly-independent tasks, requiring me to contort my brain for each one and reset it for the next. The fact that questions in general become progressively harder within the section didn’t help much.
Difficult as LR may be, though, I think the strategies that Zen advocates have been very sensible and helpful for me to apply. To be honest, I didn’t at first completely buy into the notion that I could discover and correct all my weaknesses by dissecting my missed questions into task standards. I still believe there are some minor areas it could be improved upon. Besides, I thought I was already well-versed in recognizing question types, having read best-selling guidebooks on the logical reasoning section. But some number-crunching from a few PTs I have done revealed that I not only had specific weaknesses that I cannot deny but also how I routinely neglect to see what the LSAT requires me to do for those particular tasks. After looking at the analyzed tendencies of my missed questions, Mr. Bennett suggested several questions, all of the same task type, for me to solve on the spot. Some of them were difficult and others seemed pretty obvious. I figured I would get about 1 or 2 wrong. I actually got most of them wrong. He said I was “very systematic in my errors,” and I felt he was right. I was approaching these questions from the wrong angle and didn’t know it. As a result, I readily jumped into the enticing booby traps the test-makers had planted for me.
Of course, knowing in theory my enemies and which weapons to use against them is different from the actual battle, especially over the course of 50~51 questions. On a couple of PTs I have tried since I got a general review of my weaknesses, I realized the newly-acquired insight into my problematic areas doesn’t always come to me in the heat of the moment during exam time. I wasn’t too surprised at my persistent errors, though, since they are the result of many years of illogic accumulated through thinking and interacting in certain ways. If anything, I’m glad I’ve been able to disable some of the automatic patterns I’ve been using to my disadvantage.
I also realize that internalizing the new skills would also take more than just knowing the objective explanations for a certain answer being right over the other four. The reason why a choice is correct is the same for everyone, but the reason why I got it wrong could very well be different from that for others. During my reviews, therefore, I’m actively going through the steps I took during the PT and remembering what thinking processes led me to choose that particular answer. In other words, I’m trying to become aware of my cognitive tendencies before, during, and after I read each part of the question, seeing if there’s anything that my brain assumes without explicitly stating it to me.
Mastering cognitive skills and employing them appropriately are one aspect of difficulty, but maintaining sharpness across all 5 sections is a whole another one. For today, though, I’m tired enough visiting brown dwarf stars and listening to disputes at town councils, so perhaps later. :)
Contrapositive - Future Path of Law Student's Cell Phone Conversations
The latest Contrapositive is up, from the creator of Wingmen. Supposedly you could interchangeably label the x-axis variable as "time beginning at law school," but be careful about making that assumption.
December 2009 and February 2010 LSAT Preparation Calendars
The Zen of 180 public calendar has been updated for those planning on sitting the February 6, 2010 LSAT, and we wanted to point out the important shift from diagnosing to adapting strategies that needs to take place in the next week for students still taking the December 2009 LSAT.
Home
|
