Hi , this journey has been extremely hard. Not sure what the disconnection is but I really need someone who is in the Raleigh NC that can help me . Please, I just need inperson so I can know what I’m missing. Online is just not helping . I don’t want to keep wasting money on these online tutors.

Hello , Everytime I drill questions I get the same questions I already answered or already answered recently. I always click on fresh and I still get repeats. Is there anyway where I can avoid repeated drill questions? I feel like I'm not going to improve or learn anything if I get questions I already answered and I remembered the answer for them. Thank you.

I'm stuck in the 163-4 range and trying to get at least 165 or higher to 170. I previously had a tutor which was great but can't afford it anymore :( Feeling kind of lost in figuring out how to study on my own now. I know I have the logic down (high BRs) but my timing and test taking under pressure isn't the greatest. I'm thinking of just doing an hour a day of LR and RC untimed drills on my highest priority tags, BR, a ptest every weekend and BR... if that sounds about right?

Immediately after the test, I found myself feeling like barbecue chicken; I thought JY and Kevin were gonna send me straight to the G League after that one. But after a few hours, I can confidently say:

• The work I've put in was solid work. I stopped relying on spamming questions and started relying more on question analysis and it paid off with a clearer understanding on the actual test.

• I started making better decisions when answering questions. Instead of doing LR or RC like I've got less than three seconds left on the shot clock and heaving up some bullshit like I'm Chris Smoove, I was making some good decisions by not rushing and taking the time to be confident in whatever answer choice I was picking.

• There wasn't a time where I was nervously trying to pick an answer choice. I didn't defend any answers but rather put each one through scrutiny and chose the best one. I didn't talk myself into why A, B, C, D, or E could be right but rather why four of them are getting sent to Cancun in the first round.

But there were some things I could've done a lot better with:

• Some LR questions were a lot more logic gamey with the stimulus and how I was supposed to solve it; the test caught me lacking and I might've paid the price for it.

  • So better preparation is needed for MBT/MBF questions with a lot of conditionals in them.

• I definitely should've prepared a lot more for RC. Not that October had any abnormal RC that had me thinking I just smoked a dutt pack before going into the test, but I definitely could've been a lot more prepared than I was.

• Overall, my biggest mistakes came from lack of preparation in some areas. But I'm confident that I can fix the gaps before the November LSAT

All in all, I'm proud of the work I've put in for the October LSAT and I'll always be pulling for everyone here to keep on shooting - the job's not done yet. We're all going to make it to where we want to be and we'll all bring home a chip and show these schools that we're bringing fucking greatness to their doorsteps.

I'm proud of y'all - keep on going!

A month ago In got out of 150s HELL with a 160. My next score was a 156. Then I retook PT 152 and got a 147. In retook PT 147 and got a 156 from a 147. PT 147 section 2 I killed that MF with a -4 but S4 I got a -14. If you were me how would you approach these fluctuations and if you've experienced this what did you do to consistently get out of 150s HELL. I work 12 hour shifts and have a 4 year old so my time is precious. Please help. I must get into law school by next year with a scholarship.

I finally got a score above a 159 today! Hopefully I can make my blind review score a reality before testing in January. If anyone has any tips for flaw, necessary/sufficient assumption questions, they would be greatly appreciated! Happy studying y'all! 😊

Hi everyone,

I’ve seen a lot of people with questions about how to apply for accommodations. Please feel free to AMA! Kindly note that I’m not an expert, I’m just someone who has been through the process. I will answer to the best of my ability. The goal is to help as many people as I can through this process, so feel free to share!

I've been scoring between high 160s and low 170s. Any tips on how to get 170s more consistently? I've been going through wrong answers slower and using a wrong answer journal but am having a hard time maintaining the mid 170s.

Any tips for me before I do the Argumentative writing? Any preparation advice?

Are we doing low res summaries on timed RC passages and sections? I just did one while trying write out low res summaries of both content and structure, and I totally ran out of time. Maybe I'm going too slow, but I wanted to see if there was any consensus on doing this under timed conditions or if it was best to do low res summaries under untimed conditions.

After getting a -7 on RC on my last PT, which was abnormal for me, I decided to attend some RC live sessions to see what I could do to be better and more consistent. I learned about low res summaries and immediately after implementing that in untimed practice, I was maybe missing one question in a passage. The concept is still fairly new to me, so I decided to try it under timed conditions, and totally bombed. I went 13 for 13 on the ones I had time to get to, but ultimately ran out of time and missed the other 13. I had around five minutes to get to the third passage, and didn't get to the fourth passage at all. I recovered well in BR, but I wanted to know if there's something we're doing under timed conditions other than low res summaries (a particular highlighting strategy or anything) that improves accuracy but doesn't cut your time so much, or if I'm just doing the low res summary thing wrong?

It's funny how Alabama's algorithm of recruiting the best talent, rewarding those who jump higher, run faster, and produce the most impressive numbers can crack when confronted with another institution playing the same game, potentially with even greater resources.

https://7sage.com/discussion/63179/we-have-goblins-in-alabama

NFL scouts look toward the SEC champions, evaluating the exceptional athletes who might become the next franchise quarterback. And the margins separating these players are incredibly thin.

Make no mistake, these are phenomenal athletes. They've dedicated years of their lives, sacrificed their bodies, and earned their places among the best. The same goes for exceptional students. I don't question their intelligence, discipline, or accomplishments.

But recruiting the best talent isn't the same as developing the best team. And accumulating the highest academic credentials isn't the same as producing the most capable professionals.

Eventually, Alabama has to play another program.

And eventually, America's lawyers, scientists, doctors, and engineers will have to compete with those developed under entirely different systems of incentives. So when that competition comes, don't automatically expect America to win just because our institutions have the most impressive numbers.

The scoreboard doesn't care about your recruiting class.

Just like football.

I am late to the party for 2027 and early for 2028. I'm only a week in to studying. I haven't taken a practice test yet. Deciding when to test and what rotation to shoot for, anyone else? Thoughts?

Looking at schools in and around Detroit. Would love U of M but that's a low probability school.

With the newest law school admissions disclosures coming out, something caught my attention. Alabama Law's incoming class has a 3.98 median GPA, a 169 median LSAT, and a 75th-percentile GPA of 4.06. Are we genuinely producing entire classrooms of intellectual wolves in ALABAMA??? 😭 And it's not just Alabama. Look at Minnesota, California, Florida State, Ohio State, and Texas A&M. Academic credentials once considered extraordinary at elite law schools are becoming the median across numerous institutions.

For my European friends, imagine law schools across Bucharest, Warsaw, and Berlin suddenly reporting incoming academic credentials comparable to what Oxford or LSE reported fifteen years ago. Obviously, the grading systems aren't directly comparable, but that's precisely my question. Are we witnessing an intellectual revolution with hundreds of Einsteins walking around Tuscaloosa, Alabama, or have we spent decades optimizing the numbers that supposedly represent intelligence?

My argument is that American education has become an incentive system that behaves remarkably like an algorithm, rewarding numerical credentials under the promise of meritocracy. Students optimize grades and standardized scores. Schools recruit applicants who improve their admissions statistics. Those numbers influence rankings, reputation, applicant demand, and in turn increase tuition on their students. Everyone has an incentive to improve the measurement, so the system becomes increasingly efficient at producing exactly what it rewards.

Even the measurements aren't consistent. LSAC counts an A+ as 4.33, while some undergraduate universities don't award anything above an A. Two students can earn the highest grades their institutions permit, yet only one may have the opportunity to exceed a 4.0. We're comparing applicants using standardized numbers from institutions that don't even share the same grading ceiling.

Consider the University of Florida. UF Law's median GPA rose from 3.91 in 2025 to 3.97 in 2026, while its median LSAT increased from 169 to 170. Yet UF had reached No. 24 nationally in 2020 before appearing at No. 38 in the 2025 U.S. News rankings. These aren't directly matched years, and ranking methodologies change, but the contrast raises a question: What happens when a school becomes better at recruiting exceptional academic credentials without demonstrating equivalent improvements in its overall educational quality? Higher admissions medians don't automatically mean better teaching, student satisfaction, or professional outcomes.

Now look at Ohio State. Its Class of 2027 profile reported just 6% first-generation college students, while its 2025 ABA disclosures show that 90% of enrolled JD students received scholarships or grants, including 175 receiving full tuition or more. These statistics describe different cohorts, so they don't reveal individual recipients. But if first-generation representation remains that low, most scholarship recipients would necessarily come from continuing-generation families. That doesn't make those students undeserving. It raises a more important question: Who has the resources, preparation, and generational knowledge to compete for admission and the largest scholarships in the first place?

And who pays the bill? LSAC's research found that first-generation college graduates anticipated almost 20% more law school debt than continuing-generation students, while Black first-year students anticipated 43% more than the overall average. Schools can distribute enormous amounts of scholarship money while disadvantaged students remain underrepresented and disproportionately indebted. In 2022, Yale Law Dean Heather Gerken publicly criticized rankings for encouraging schools to recruit high-scoring applicants with scholarships rather than prioritize financial need. The problem isn't that nobody recognizes these incentives. People running the institutions have already called them out. Yet the financial incentives remain.

Remember Alabama football under Nick Saban? When NIL opportunities expanded, Bryce Young was reportedly approaching $1 million in endorsement opportunities before becoming the starting quarterback. Financial incentives for recruiting elite talent became increasingly visible. Law schools similarly use scholarships to attract applicants who improve institutional statistics. But here's the difference: Alabama football eventually has to play another team. Recruiting five-star athletes isn't the same as winning a national championship. So why are we treating law schools recruiting 4.0 students as though they've already produced exceptional lawyers?

This brings me to Goodhart's Law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."

In April 2026, OpenAI published Where the Goblins Came From, explaining why its models developed a strange habit of referencing goblins and gremlins. A reinforcement-learning reward intended to encourage a particular personality inadvertently favored those responses. The models learned what received rewards, and the behavior spread beyond its original context.

Producing more goblins didn't prove a more intelligent model. It proved the model had become better at producing what its reward system favored.

Here's what fascinates me: AI has given us a laboratory where we can observe reward optimization at much quicker rates. Researchers train models, adjust incentives, and observe unintended behaviors within relatively short periods. Now imagine a similar process unfolding across American educational institutions over decades instead of AI training runs.

In our educational environment, Goblin = GPA and LSAT. But the deeper issue is compliance with the reward structure. Students learn to produce exceptional scores, universities reward academic performance, and law schools use scholarships to recruit applicants who improve their statistics. This doesn't mean high-scoring students aren't intelligent. It means increasingly perfect credentials don't necessarily establish equivalent improvements in independent judgment, creativity, or real-world problem-solving.

And we already have a stress test beyond admissions: the bar examination.

In fall 2025, 42,817 students entered ABA-approved JD programs nationwide, beginning an expensive professional education with no guarantee of eventual licensure. In July 2026, Florida reported a 75.2% first-time bar passage rate, meaning 557 of 2,250 examinees failed. While nationally, the numbers can increase in one location and go down in another. It reveals something worth examining: schools receive the prestige of extraordinary admissions statistics years before students confront the professional and financial consequences of the next benchmark.

And the consequences aren't hypothetical. A friend of mine graduated with $225,000 in student-loan debt, accumulating interest, and didn't pass the bar. Meanwhile, The Ramsey Show featured two married attorneys with $900,000–$1 million in combined student debt, discussing the possibility of working 80-hour weeks just to escape interest rates. One didn't pass the bar. The others did. All were still drowning in debt.

That's the difference between benchmarks and outcomes. Schools collect tuition, celebrate admissions statistics, and award degrees, but the financial risk largely falls on graduates. These incentives didn't emerge by accident, even if their consequences weren't all intentional. Money can also discourage dissent: a scientist dependent on institutional funding may think twice before challenging those controlling it. The system rewards compliance, charges for participation, and can make questioning it financially dangerous.

But here's my ultimate concern: What happens when Alabama has to play the real game? And I'm not talking about football. What happens when America's lawyers, doctors, scientists, and AI systems confront another country's professionals whose institutions spent decades rewarding experimentation, independent judgment, and actual problem-solving instead of academic benchmarks?

In AI Arena, a model rewarded for producing Goblin might dominate its training environment but get smoked by a model with stronger capabilities. What happens when a civilization spends generations mastering its benchmarks, only to encounter another civilization that spent those generations mastering the problems themselves?

Maybe Tuscaloosa really is churning out Einsteins by the hundreds. But GPA medians can't prove that. My fear is that we've optimized for Goblin because Goblin brings rankings, prestige, and money, while those with the fewest advantages carry the greatest financial burden. AI has simply given us a laboratory to recognize how a reward system can become extraordinarily successful at producing the wrong result.

I post this because it's personal, and I intend to back it up. I'm a first-generation Mexican American who's spent years developing my abilities through debate, litigation, government, and public service, only to face an admissions system that can reduce that experience to two numbers. The system rewards advantages I wasn't born with, and too often, those who break through still carry disproportionate debt.

I'm going after that 170+ LSAT, and then the bar. Not because a score or licensing board defines my intelligence, but because I refuse to let them define the limits of my potential.

Hi all,

https://7sage.com/blog/negate-statements-lsat

I was reading this blog post and wanted to ask a question. Would it be descriptively accurate to say the negation of a conditional statement -- if A, then B. vs. Some of A is not B. -- is a logical contradiciton? I'm asking because of the language used in the post. For example, if a question stimulus said "Some people believe if A then B. That is wrong, because Some a and not B." Would that be described as disproving the statement or that the author is showing a logical contradiction if the conditional is taken to be true?

This was some tips and criticism that Sage AI have given me

This is a incredibly revealing PrepTest, Yazan. Your actual score was a 147, but your Blind Review score jumped all the way to a 162.

That 15-point difference is the most important signal from this test. It proves that you already possess the foundational skills to score in the 160s when you have the time to think. However, under the 35-minute time pressure, you are likely abandoning your good habits, rushing the text, and falling for traps.

Because your timed score is under 160, your focus shouldn't be on "getting faster." Instead, you need to spend more time deeply breaking down the passages and LR stimuli on your first pass.

Here is a breakdown of your performance and what to do next:

1. Reading Comprehension: Stop Rushing the Passage In your scored RC section (Section 3), your score jumped from 12/27 on the first pass to 22/27 in Blind Review. Recovering 10 raw points in a single section is massive! It shows you know exactly how to untangle these passages when you aren't worried about the clock. Under timed pressure, you are likely rushing your initial read, which actually makes the questions take longer and leads to mistakes. On your next few RC drills, practice taking as much time as you need to fully map the viewpoints and structure before looking at a single question.

2. Logical Reasoning: Causal and Conditional Gaps Across your two scored LR sections, you recovered 10 points in Blind Review. But when we look at the questions you still missed even with unlimited time (like Q5, Q12, and Q14 in Section 4), they heavily feature Causal Reasoning and Conditional Reasoning. These two concepts are foundational. If they aren't completely second nature, the stress of a timed PrepTest will cause your accuracy to crumble.

What to do next:

• Put full timed PrepTests on hold temporarily. Since your Blind Review gap is so large, taking more timed tests will just reinforce bad habits.

• Do untimed practice. Do untimed drills for both LR and RC. Prove to yourself that you can consistently hit that 162+ level of accuracy on your very first pass by spending more time breaking down the stimulus and the passage.

• Deepen your review. For the LR questions you missed in Blind Review, heavily review the explanations. Revisit the Logic of Causation and Conditional and Set Logic modules in the Core Curriculum to patch up those fundamental gaps.

You have the skills to hit the 160s, Yazan. Now it is just about building the discipline to break down the text properly on your very first read!

This was a surprising jump considering the one before I had the same score of 145ish and jumped to 156.

Took the test yesterday, laughed hysterically to myself on the walk back to my car. I truly have no idea how I did it’s so weird!!

Anyone relate?

Hi all,

Do folks have any recommendations for PT practices when there’s no full PT/clean sections left?

Since I’ve been practicing with some re-used materials (ie, an LR section may have 4-5 seen questions, RC may have 1-2 seen passages) I naturally could go a bit faster than what I realistically can do on the test day. This difference in pacing kind of threw me off on the real test. What do folks do in similar situations?

Things I’ve tried & been doing are:

1. Re-use PT but still thoroughly analyze wrong/slow answers to learn new lessons.

   Pro: still good learning through WAJ

   Con: doesn’t get 100% test day condition practice with fresh materials

2. Manually make my own section practices.

   Pro: good practice with fresh materials

   Con: very time consuming to select the questions; old LR that may not be representative; not sure if I’ve taken the right combo of different question types

I feel quite confident with the materials at this point and am just looking to get enough section practices in to be able to execute quickly.

Thanks in advance!

can u no longer underline in 7sage and LSAT tests??

I have been crying for two hours. I was taking the LSAT this morning and when I was very nearly done section 2/3, I got a pop up that said an application was open on my computer and it locked me out. I couldn’t get back in. I called SIX different people and no one could tell me what was wrong. I need you all to understand I did everything right, I followed the remote testing checklist perfectly. I have been crying for two hours because I am so upset that I had almost finished two thirds of the test, and now I have to retest if they approve it. And if they don’t approve for me to take it in person this time, what’s stopping my computer from locking me out again? I thought I was supposed to be reconnected? I was only kicked out that one time. Also, oh yeah, I didn’t have a SINGLE application running.

I am so frustrated because today was supposed to be the day I could finally breathe, and now this test is on my mind again for at least 11 more days. My head hurts from crying.

Hello! I have recently started studying for LSAT in hopes of getting accepted into WVU law in August. Is anyone else planning on attending WVU or in WVU currently?

What is the best way to move on after taking the LSAT and waiting for your scores. All I can think about is guessing how I did

well dang… my official LSAT test for october got cancelled due to hurricane isaias.

I was scheduled to take the LSAT october and november, but october got pushed back to january.

this is negatively effecting my plans to apply to law school…

idk what to do taking the LSAT in january is not ideal and late in the cycle.

i’m pretty saddened by this :(

LSAC: Are folks that take 3 minutes to answer a question any better lawyers than those who take 1.5 minutes?