Original posting date: August 3rd, 2011
The Dangers of Time Warnings
Many test preparation companies—whether for the LSAT, bar exam, or other standardized test—provide proctors who call out or write on the board how much time is left in a given section of the test. These proctors are a pretty standard part of the landscape for diagnostic tests and timed practice exams. Unfortunately, students tend to learn to rely on these warnings, and that’s dangerous, because there might be no such warning on test day.
Thus, while professionalism may argue in favor of test prep companies providing this service, students must heed the following advice.
On the actual day of the test—LSAT, bar exam, MPRE, SAT, or whatever—, you cannot, cannot, cannot, cannot rely upon the test proctors to keep track of time for you.
If these employees of the given test-maker make a mistake and forget to warn you that there are “five minutes remaining” or “thirty seconds remaining,” you will get no sympathy from the test-makers themselves. In other words, you will not be able to get additional points on the test for this oversight.
The Bottom Line
If you lose points that you could have gotten if you’d been apprised of the time remaining, those points are lost for good. Don’t take that risk. ALWAYS keep track of the time yourself, and be sure to get in the habit of doing so by practicing accordingly.
Original posting date: August 8th, 2011
More Dangers of Practicing with Good Proctors
Practice and diagnostic testing is an important part of preparation for the LSAT, bar exam, and other standardized tests. Being able to perform during test-day conditions is, of course, crucial, and experiencing multiple rounds of “dress rehearsal” helps to improve such performance.
Test preparation companies, meanwhile, naturally want to impress their students by hiring proctors for practice tests who are dependably punctual, friendly, and otherwise professional.
Unfortunately, this habit may be good for a test preparation company’s image, but it’s not good for students.
The reality is that, on the day of the actual test, the proctor you get may not be at all like the proctor with whom you practiced. LEX students routinely report proctor-related disruptions on the day of the actual LSAT or bar exam. Some such problems include:
- hostile proctor who had a verbal argument during or immediately before the time the LSAT or bar exam clock was running
- late proctor who kept students waiting for the start of or return to the test
- proctor who smelled like smoke
- disorganized proctor who bumbled logistics of the test
- forgetful proctor who did not provide one (or more) of the time warnings upon which students tend to rely
At LEX, we half-jokingly tell students that test preparation companies, when administering practice tests, should instruct their proctors to do everything wrong—or should simply hire people who are not able to handle the basic tasks of proctors, thereby ensuring that one or more of the above problems will arise. Such a practicing environment would prepare students more fully than does an atmosphere in which everything runs smoothly.
Original posting date: August 11th, 2011
Things Go Wrong that Are Not within a Student’s Control
As discussed in a recent article about LSAT time warnings and bar exam time warnings, test preparation companies have a commercial incentive to ensure that things go smoothly for students. But this admirable work by test prep companies can be misleading for LSAT students, bar exam students, and other people preparing for standardized tests. Many things can and do go wrong on test day that have nothing to do with the test-takers themselves, and shielding students from these difficulties may give students a false sense of security.
Just as proctors can have issues, the physical testing facilities and the providers of these facilities can also give rise to extra-test problems. Such difficulties include:
- test center is too hot, too cold
- test center has bad desks or chairs (e.g., unstable, too small)
- test center has to change rooms and relocate students at last minute
- test center is very close to an external noise source (e.g., nearby construction, a noisy convention event)
- test center causes other ambient distractions and discomforts (e.g., mildewy)
The Answer: Practice Being Unflappable
Taking the bar exam, LSAT, MPRE, or a law school exam is tough enough without the addition of such external obstacles. Such obstacles are particularly disturbing when they are unique to one test-taker or a small group of test-takers rather than presented to everyone.
But getting upset doesn’t do any good. No one gets extra credit for having had to endure unfortunate testing conditions.
Part of effective preparation is, therefore, developing an unflappable mindset. Resolve that, no matter what surprises come your way on test day, you will waste no mental cycles on or offer any emotional resistance to these difficulties. Treat all such distractions as part of the test itself.
Original posting date: August 15th, 2011
Good Writing Is Good 🙂
Law school research and writing courses rarely focus on the mechanics of writing. Instead, these courses generally devote time to discussion of law-specific material, such as legal citations and legal research tools.
Unfortunately, this approach leaves some important—very important—matters to chance.
The basics of good writing, which are (hopefully!) covered before and during one’s high school years, do not simply go away on graduation day. These basics remain fundamental to effective written communication, and, therefore, remain fundamental to law school and bar exam essays.
If It’s Not Covered, Do It Yourself
For students who do not get a basic review of good writing in their legal research and writing classes—and that means most law students—, self-help is mandatory. Self-help approaches include:
- —undertake a serious review of basic English mechanics and style on one’s own
- —hire a writing tutor
- —take a class on good writing, either through the university associated with one’s law school or through a third-party provider
But skipping the basics is not the right choice—even if law schools often choose that approach.
Original posting date: August 23rd, 2011
The Development of Mastery
Psychologists report that some children have an innate, self-driven desire to learn and know all there is to know about a field. These children lock onto and pursue a topic with unusual tenacity, pouring hours of unbroken concentration into exploring this topic. The results of this kind of concentration are not surprising: a very high competency in the chosen field.
One phrase that is apparently in current usage as a label for this type of drive is the “rage to master.”
Not Just for Kids
While “child prodigies” appear to have attracted the most study so far, the “rage to master” is not something that is unique to children—or child prodigies. College and law students can also catch fire with an internal desire to know, dominate, master a field. These students are, of course, great at test preparation.
Finding the “rage to master” within oneself for a topic such as the logical reasoning or reading comprehension that is tested on the LSAT or the contracts, torts, evidence, or other law topics that are tested on the bar exam may require some soul-searching. But it’s worth going on this journey, because that fire—the rage to master—is an incredibly powerful mechanism for improvement. More discussion on the rage to master coming soon. . . .