Subscription pricing
For anyone who is trying to get to where I am, I'm happy to provide any insights. For anyone far beyond where I am, I'm reaching out for help.
I've been tackling the LSAT for a few months now and am somewhat stuck. I started the test doing very badly: -6 on LR, -5 on RC, and missing one game on LG. Now, I'm at -2 or -4 on LR, -3 on RC, and -1 on LG (usually due to stupid reading mistakes). My question is: how to move from a ~170 to a 180 score?
In my case, I know I haven't maxed out yet, since I can occasionally score a 180 during BR. But I always seem to miss a couple during first attempts no matter what. Right now, I'm not confident at all about scoring a 175+ on test day (which is my goal, given my unfortunately terrible college GPA).
I welcome anyone with any insights about how you raised your scores (even by a bit), and happy to provide insights from my end if anyone would like them. Thanks!
2
41 comments
@tanes25413 I appreciate the feedback. Yeah, I'm starting to notice that Flaw and Necessary Assumption are the keys to the LR section, at least for me. I've never been a fan of drilling types, but at least on these two I can see how beneficial it could be
@serveded749 I stopped reading all the comments halfway down, so I apologize if someone already mentioned The LSAT Trainer. It's about $45, I think. See if it's available in a bookstore around you so that you can check it out before purchasing if you're hesitant. It really helped me grasp the flaws better. Not that 7 Sage was lacking, sometimes you just need a different perspective. Things started to fall into place for LR for me after going over the flaw section a few times. When I say a few I mean more than 3 or 4. Repetition is key for me. It seems like each time I read it something else jumped out at me. That could be due to having a better understanding overall, who knows?? I would buy the book just for the flaw section, but the RC sections are golden as well. Also, you might want to purchase the starter pkg and check out Nicole's webinar on RC. I'm not sure if it's offered anywhere else. The LG sections are definitely throwaways, but I prefer 7 Sage. Repetition is key for the LG. You're missing about 6? Just repeat the games and watch the videos until you can finish the game in the suggested time provided. The LG explanations are free. If you're hesitant about purchasing the pkg, the LG explanations will give you an example of the course overall. Also, I think there's still the 14 day guarantee period. If it's not for you, you get your money back. Hope this tidbit helps.
@quinnxzhang542, @wraith985-4026
Great comments. I absolutely agree. I think Jonathan nailed it with the "all the information is in front of you." If you get it wrong, it's really because you still got to sharpen your skills. Having that realization ultimately constitutes a "mentality change."
@jhaldy10325, I saw those! Very helpful.
I do think that there is something else to preparation besides practice, discipline, drive, and mentality. I'm still on my single digit PT (not PT #1-9, but my 8th or 9th PT), but even though I think I understood all my mistakes from the previous sections, I still make mistakes.
I'm hoping that, as I practice more and see more variations of the same problems, that the mistakes would go away. Anyways, we'll see what happens!
Thanks for the advice - definitely helped me a lot and hopefully for others as well.
Yep.
I totally agree @quinnxzhang542 . I don't think the ideas have to be mutually exclusive though. I aim for a 180 every test. I beat myself up pretty bad if I BR at -180. Acknowledging that error can be a factor is not the same thing as not caring about it or as being insufficiently motivated.
This is probably right, but the idea behind changing your mentality is so that you don't get complacent with your score. It gets very difficult to consistently score above the mid 170s, so it's easy to chalk the tip-top scores up to luck or whatever. And if you think that scoring 175+ was a matter of luck, what motivation do you have to push yourself above that boundary?
But there's always room for improvement and if you're aiming to be above, say, the 75% at YLS, then you should be PTing with the intent of getting every question right, instead of being satisfied with a 174 or 175 or whatever. The curve for the tip-top score range is so unforgiving that you can't allow yourself that luxury. I went into my test day with a every intention of getting a 180 -- I didn't get a 180 in the end, but I truly believe that I scored what I did because I was practicing and going into the test seriously trying to get every question right. I suspect this is true for many (most?) of the tip-top scorers; it's certainly true among my friend group, at least.
I'm not saying this should be everyone's mentality, nor am I saying anyone needs a 180 (I don't think anyone actually does). And I fully acknowledge that the risk of burnout and stress are very real concerns. But if you're aiming for that top echelon, I feel like you do have to be sufficiently motivated and driven, to the extent that you should be aiming for 180s on your PTs.
Ultimately, in complete opposition to some of the other comments above, I think this is much harder to accept than chalking the top scores up to luck. When you chalk that up to luck, that absolves you of responsibility. But if you accept that it wasn't luck that you didn't reach your target score, then you have to accept that it was you, and that there's something you could have done.
Here's more inspiration! For advice (rather than opinions, including my own) about scoring 180 I recommend listening to actual 180 scorers. Here's an excerpt: "I was unlucky” is not the right answer, because it excuses you from taking any corrective action."
http://www.top-law-schools.com/how-i-scored-a-180-article1.html
TLS has advice from other top scorers, many with initial diagnostic scores in the 140s-160s range. Trends in common I noticed: disciplined preparation, obsessive attention to detail, and intolerance of repeated mistakes. All good traits I would want in MY counsel.
Didn't the founder of testmasters get something like 14 or 15 perfect scores? I'm not so sure if one can chalk up his scores to be that of mere luck.
Maybe "luck" isn't exactly the right word for what we're talking about. Luck isn't actually a real thing, so technically, it's never the right word for anything. What I mean when I say luck here is that no one, not even consistent 180 scorers, can prepare themselves to a level which will remove human error from the equation. It can only be minimized. It can be greatly minimized, but it can never be eliminated. In most situations, I think avoidable human error can reasonably account for the difference in a 180 and like a 178.
Holy crap, that was super inspirational.
OP, I'm literally in the same boat as you; let's do this
What does luck have to do with anything?
Did you misread something? Well, you shouldn't have. Misinterpreted an answer choice? Shouldn't have. Misapplied a concept? Shouldn't have. Failed to understand the flaw? Shouldn't have. Not enough time to check for all of those things and still finish the section? Sounds like a skills deficit to me. Got tested on something you're weak on? Looks like you have something to work on. New logic game seems objectively unfair? Well, how come others were able to ace it then?
The bottom line is you're answering questions wrong when all of the information necessary to get the correct answer is laid out in front of you, and you have the benefit of a multiple choice setup that is suuuuuuper precise just in case you can't articulate it on your own (people would do a LOT worse on the LSAT if it were short answer). I don't understand what's "lucky" about the ability to avoid making mistakes in a perfect-information scenario.
To me, that's the attitude adjustment that @quinnxzhang542 is referring to. People think of 'unavoidable' mistakes and accept them, where in reality there's nothing unavoidable about them. Achieving perfection requires you to accept nothing but perfection. Is it hard to be that perfect? Yeah. Does the skill curve steepen substantially? Absolutely. Does the effort-to-improvement ratio get increasingly out of whack as you go along? You bet. Is the distinction between 99.9th and 99.7th percentile irrelevant to 99% of practical situations? Yup. Feel free to say any of those things. Just don't blame luck, unless you're willing to defend the notion that anyone who can get consistent 180s is just getting lucky every single time.
Not as much as you might think. I've TA'd both symbolic logic and mathematical logic courses, and, like, 90% of it is unnecessary for the LSAT. If having an academic background in formal logic helps, it's only because LSAT "lawgic" is taught so badly everywhere (but that's another rant for another time). If you're determined to read a formal logic textbook, then I guess I'd recommend the Barwise & Etchemendy Language, Proof & Logic book, due to its balance between readability and comprehensiveness.
I think what helped me the most on the LSAT was my background in analytic philosophy -- the skills developed in both are nearly identical. Unfortunately, I don't think it's feasible to just casually study analytic philosophy to prepare for the LSAT.
@quinnxzhang542 Based on some of your previous posts, it sounds like you had a strong logic foundation outside of LSAT studies. If so, would you say having a background in logic helped you perform to the extent you have? Would you recommend any general books on the matter?
It is uncomfortable, isn't it—that such things may just actually be beyond our control.
It means you have a higher LSAT score ;)
That unequivocally matters—and it matters A LOT. That's where a one point difference can mean an admit vs a WL. But, one must consider the actual LSAT medians for top schools; LSAT 75th for Chicago is 172.
My LR sense is tingling. The back and forth on this thread is rife with flawed reasoning! Anyway back on topic:
there's no clear or consistent pattern with me. It's all over the place.
Those question types are actually related, and therefore suggests a root issue fundamental to all. Every type presents a weak* argument with a gap in logic for which you must do something. How well can you recognize/describe/distinguish the various logical fallacies?
*weak = argument for which the conclusion is not guaranteed.
That's an interesting question @nicole , it's not something I've thought about. Of course, ideally you'd read the stimulus quickly, fully grasp it, and then burn through the answer choices similarly. Short of that, it's going to depend on the question type. Obviously on a parallel question, you're probably going to need a lot more time on the answer choices. But for an ID the conclusion, you would probably not spend much time in the answers.
Would you say you spend more time on the stimulus or on the answers? I think you should spend more time on the stimulus than on the answers. Ideally enough time (on the stimulus) for you to prephrase the correct answer, but if not, enough time to get a firm understanding of it. You can spend all day reading the answers, but if you don't understand the stimulus, you might as well just be guessing. I could be wrong, and I'd love to hear others thoughts on my thoughts.
I think ultimately the things you do to push higher from 170 are the same things you do to push higher from a 160 or anything else. You just have to do them better and for longer.
When you PT, simulate testing conditions as meticulously as you can. From what time you take the test to what you do in the morning before, the closer you can mimic the real thing the better.
When you BR, you can't cut any corners. It's a tedious process and you've just got to do it right. You've got to fully understand every stimulus and question stem, and you've got to recognize why every right answer is right and why every wrong answer is wrong. Don't do it in your head, write out your entire BR. If you haven't been doing this already, you'd be shocked how frequently you think you understand and then go to write it out and have no idea what to write.
And as uncomfortable as it may be to admit, luck becomes a bigger factor the higher you score. There are intangibles and no level of preparedness can perfectly guard anyone from error. You've got to have such a high level of mastery to reach the mid - upper 170s that at that point I don't think there's really a higher level of readiness.
One must consider both numbers. And LSN is really an awful reference—being less than 3% of the data pool.
I stand by my comments. OP has made no statements about focus on scholarships, nor should splitters count on much (if any) money from top schools, even with high LSATs.
Furthermore, the pressure it puts on one to "need" a 175+ is, well, good luck with that. I wouldn't wish it on anyone unless they had a 165+ diagnostic.
I acknowledge that the sample size is small and that you're never going to get a completely representative sample. But if you look at LSN, TLS users' self-reported data, Law School Predictor, and other sites, there are clear patterns. (And no I'm not looking at splitters here, only high GPA/LSAT.) Leaving all that aside, I think it does matter if you get above a school's 75th percentile vs. falling between 50-75th percentile. That just factually means you're better than more of the other candidates they consider. I find it hard to believe that you don't measurably increase your odds by making that leap.
But if this was an LR question that asked what the authors of this argument most likely agree about, it would be that the pressure one with a lower diagnostic is wont to put on oneself to get to 175+ is dangerous. I had a 154 diagnostic and have spent time in the 177 range, but managing the strain and the stress along the way has been a massive challenge. Bottom line, do the right things and see where your best takes you.
Yes, but that's what you should be doing no matter what your score is. I don't think you should be doing anything differently if you were trying to reach 180 than you should if you were trying to reach 160. I think the difference is time, practice, and a bit of innate talent.
I can only speak for myself, but I never had any insights or epiphanies or anything. I just improved gradually over time. There are definitely things LSAC writers like to do to trip high-scorers up (e.g. subtly shifting the topic of discussion from bears in a preserve to bears in a valley or something), but I don't think it's possible to drill for these things in particular, since the hardest questions can be hard for a wide range of reasons, and the LSAC writers won't be following any obvious patterns. Rather, I think you just have to really perfect the relevant skills, such as close reading, conditional logic, and causal reasoning. As I said above, I realize this isn't a helpful answer, but if there were a foolproof method that anyone could follow to score a 180, then a 180 wouldn't be very meaningful.
Something that I did, which I'm nor sure if you're doing, is I would drill the hardest LR questions and hardest RC passages on top of my PTs. You can filter by difficulty in the question bank section here and do a certain number of them each day. Doing this might help you pick up on the sneaky LSAT tricks faster, but it's not a guarantee, and it may not be an option if you plan on taking every PT.
If I may, what would you tell them?
I think most people progress linearly, i.e. from -10 to -6 to -4 to -1 on any given section. Every time you progress, it's because you "realized" something new.
For example, I went from -6 to -2/4 when I saw flaws better. In the past, I wouldn't see a flaw in arguments like "Because religious differences cause violence, thus tolerance is necessary for peace." Or, "My study suggests A -> B. I see /B, thus definitely /A" (you can weaken by questioning the study itself).
I also went from -6 to -2/4 when I learn to recognize the type of LR questions right away (and thus know what I'm looking for in answers).
So what I'm getting at is: what other "insights" did top scorers figure out as you went from 174-175 to 179-180?
I think @jhaldy10325 was getting at something when he said "recognizing why trap answers are wrong."
This is the point of the thread - how do you improve on the curve-breaker questions? Is it just a matter of recognizing trap answers? understanding the flaw better? what else is in play here for the top scorers?
So far, for someone who is scoring at 174-175 to reach the 179-180 range, the key is to keep PT and BR, no?
Yeah, that's probably right. I was referring mostly at the score per section - I believe it's possible to miss 1-2 questions in any given section due to what one might call "bad luck" (of course it's always going to be an error of some sort rather than "luck", but it can be very random and have little relationship to a fundamental understanding the test). Missing 1-2 in every section of a given PT is statistically less likely to be due to "bad luck". Missing 1-2 in every section consistently in a series of PT is even less likely. Consequently, PT'ing consistently in the 179-180 range is very likely quite different from PTing consistently in the 174-175 range, but probably doesn't completely preclude hitting a PT (or exam) where you score 175. I believe the LSAT claims the score on any one administration is within 3 points of someone's "true" score (presumably that's the average score you'd get at that point in your prep if you were to take a whole bunch of exams).