I am so excited for you! You deserve it!

Congrats! When I see Louis Lott and Harvey in Suits, I will give a nod to you! You are truly amazing and an inspiration to everyone you encounter. Enjoy!

Awesome!

@ said:

Do not spend any time outside of studying the LSAT that drains your brain. Do not play chess, do not argue with friends, do not stay up all night, etc. Every moment that your brain is in peak shape, study for the LSAT. Outside of that, let it rest. You have to learn how to manage your brain's energy levels. It might take many months to develop a lifestyle around this.>

Wow! Conrad, thank you for sharing -:)

> @ said:

> Hey, everyone. In my quest to become an LSAT test-taking machine, I made some digital flashcards to help me memorize some key concepts in LR:

>

> -- Valid/Invalid argument forms

> -- Logical Fallacies

> -- Stimuli Indicators (premise/conclusion, sufficient/necessary, causation, some/most/all)

> -- Question Stems

> -- Strategies by Question Type

>

> I'm going to flip through these every day from now until the September test date until they can instantly be recalled from memory. And obviously, they're a compliment--not a substitute--for other forms of preparation. I thought I'd pass them along, just in case you find them useful, too.

>

> If you like them, great!

> If you don't like them, please tell me how you think they can be improved.

> If you spot an error, please let me know.

> If you have some great flashcards that help you memorize important LSAT info, please pass it along, too.

>

> Thanks!

@ Thanks a million!

@ said:

@ nah, i bought all the available PTs and just studied by taking PTs and reviewing the ones I got wrong. I used the free 7sage stuff, powergames LG Bible, and a version of blind review to improve, but that was about it.

Wow! Truly awesome! Are you doing a retake to score 175+? That would be awesome for scholarship money!

@ said:

Let me preface this by saying, I am a minority. The purpose of this is in reference to an article I read a couple days ago regarding affirmative action in higher education admissions (not trying to ruffle any political feathers...but if you want to read the article, I attached the link at the bottom).

As a minority, is it true that admission officers prefer certain sub-sects of minorities over others? For example, do they prefer Filipino applicants over Chinese applicants, or Mexican-Americans over Cuban-Americans (as referenced in the article)? And in the case of Asian minorities (hint: I'm Asian), does it help to specify what type of Asian you are, if it will indeed be preferred by the school?

From what I've been reading, it basically doesn't give you any advantage to say that you're simply Asian, but I'm wondering if it actually does help if you specify what type of Asian. Anyone have any experience with this?

Article: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450088/sessions-investigates-racial-discrimination-affirmative-action-college-admission

@ said:

@ said:

Also, even if you are not considered an URM, you can still contribute to the diversity of the incoming class. For example, Stanford's "definition" of diversity includes one's "background, life and work experiences, advanced studies, extracurricular or community activities, culture, socio-economic status, sex, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or other factors."

Good point; I've heard of so many people who avoid writing diversity statements because they aren't a URM. There are so many other ways to approach diversity.

@ i think you have to look at "your" story from multiple angles and perspectives - get a good grasp of who you are and what makes you unique. I known a Caucasian who applied and got accepted to a T5 school. His "diversity" essay spoke of his experiences in rural America working on a pig farm. He told his "story" eloquently and he was transparent. Reach out to the admissions team at 7Sage and they'll be able to guide you further. Does anyone know whether the app team offers a free consultation?

@ said:

How quickly are you able to do the easier games? It's very important to get these done quickly to give yourself more time for any difficult games.

Are you able to properly diagram most games without a problem and in a timely manner?

I agree with @ that how to monitor your approach to the questions themselves is quite important as well. I think once you know how to diagram and are decently proficient with all the different games, it comes down to your strategy of attacking the question. Simply eliminating ACs from the usual first standard acceptable situation question as you write the rules out is a way to cut down on time. Also skipping over global MBT questions in order to tackle questions that give you more info and require you to write out a hypo can be helpful for answering other questions.

@ I feel you know so much about this test. You should definitely be a tutor. Can you explain your process more? I wouldn't mind talking to you via Skype or Google Hangout to see this strategy in real time -:)

@ said:

LG all day, every day. The fact I can CONFIDENTLY answer everything and literally prove every single thing is so satisfying...LG is like my best friend when I see it on a PT. I literally breathe a sigh of relief. >

Wow! So cool! Working hard to get to this point -:)

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

It seems to me that there are two possibilities here.

The LSAT is no better than the GRE at predicting law school success. This seems like a stunning failure. A specifically designed test for law school aptitude is no better at predicting law school success than a generic test which basically tests high school reading and math ability. How can this be? Is it our fault? Have people like us ruined the validity of the LSAT by studying for it like a job? Or was it never valid to begin with? That has to be an indictment of the people at LSAC? It is also kind of shocking to me since it feels like thevskills tested on the LSAT would be useful in the study of the law.

The other option is that the LSAT is better at predicting law school success than the GRE. If this is the case, then Harvard and Northwestern have either just made dramatic mistakes or are deliberately sacraficing the quality of their incoming classes in a sinister play to claw their way back up the rankings.

Actually, GRE scores as of yet will not be reported to US News. So either they replace all the low LSAT people with GRE people to inflate the rankings (unlikely—NU is quite reverse-splitter friendly as a complement to being splitter-friendly; they need high GPA people to offset low GPA/high LSAT people), to your point, or they (what I think is much more likely) admit candidates on an extremely selective basis without LSAT.

My prediction is that, unless US News changes its rankings algorithms to account for GRE score, HLS and NU will admit very few GRE-only folks. But the option will be there to make exceptions for exceptional candidates, likely with very high GPA's (again because we need high GPA's).

"Actually, GRE scores as of yet will not be reported to US News."

I'm confused as to how this conflicts with what I said.

The LSAT is still either a better predictor or not.

If not, that is pitiful and I blame LSAC. They had decades to get their act together.

If the LSAT is a better predictor, then when Harvard and Northwestern use the GRE as a run around to get people with high GPA's who are not capable of scoring well on the LSAT or unwilling to put in the effort to score well on the LSAT that still diminishes the quality of their entering classes.

"So either they replace all the low LSAT people with GRE people to inflate the rankings (unlikely—NU is quite reverse-splitter friendly as a complement to being splitter-friendly; they need high GPA people to offset low GPA/high LSAT people), to your point, or they (what I think is much more likely) admit candidates on an extremely selective basis without LSAT."

It seems likely to me that they will get rid of applicants with LSAT's near median and GPAs near median. They take people as you said with high GPAs and no LSAT (presumably high GRE's which are trivially easy to get). This bumps up their GPA median, meaning that these previously near median GPAs are now solidly below median.

But, you are right that it could hurt anyone, not just traditional applicants. Basically, Northwestern gets to admit LSAT free high GPAs. They do so as much as they can get away with filling up some of their seats. They then fill the smaller remaining portion of their class with traditional LSAT takers. Basically, they get the selectivity advantage (advantage for law schools; disadvantage for applicants) of shrinking their classes with the revenue stream of admitting a full class.

"My prediction is that, unless US News changes its rankings algorithms to account for GRE score, HLS and NU will admit very few GRE-only folks. But the option will be there to make exceptions for exceptional candidates, likely with very high GPA's (again because we need high GPA's)."

I think the number of GRE admits might be small while Northwestern and Harvard wait to see whether the ABA will stop them. They only want so much disruption and embarassment if the ABA does an actual study and rejects the GRE as a less effective predictor than the LSAT.

But, I don't think they are waiting for US News to count the GRE. They already get high GPA's with no attached LSAT score.

"(again because we need high GPA's)"

The law schools certainly do want people who wouldn't do well on The LSAT, but have high GPAs(and no attached LSAT score) to apply, fund them, and help them win the ranking game. For applicants it is usually far too late to control GPA.

Edit: I'm still not sure what you were getting at. Maybe, you were saying US News won't count the GRE applicant's GPA. If so the effect at Northwestern will be the same, but smaller.

Northwestern would get to admit people without numbers, charge them full freight and fill the smaller rest of their class with higher quality applicants. >

@

Don't sweat this. It will take a couple years for all the funky stuff to work itself out. By that time, you'll be in law school anyhow, and who cares what these admin people spend their time debating anyhow? All we should really care about is our acceptance letter and scholarship money.

My two friends went to Columbia Law. One person scored 165 and had a 3.75 GPA, and the other scored a 170 and had a 2.9 GPA. The one with the 170 LSAT represented Columbia at National Moot Court.

He is the one encouraging me to take the LSAT seriously because focusing on the test was a game changer for him in law school.

@ said:

i buy sour skittles and 2 monsters.. i message @ on her inbox to bug her.. i comment on @ random comments.. i read one or two mangas as a method of procastination, then smudge #2 pincle on my face like war paint and rip an answer sheet while doing the hacka war cry and then i begin my studies :smile:

LOL! This is so funny!

@ said:

It's hard not to worry with a 2.7 cumulative gpa haha. I have dedicated myself to all things LSAT and am knocking on the 170's door right now. I don't plan on stopping. I need that score in order to get into the schools I want.

@

Check out Shawn's article on recommenders at

https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/law-admissions-lowdown/2011/12/27/5-mistakes-to-avoid-when-requesting-law-school-recommendations

He graduated from HLS and HBS. Pay attention to the part that says, "I've seen countless students overcome low GPAs...with powerful recommendations that helped them get into top-14 law schools of their choice."

@ said:

@

As a super splitter hearing all of this kind of sucks. The LSAT use to be the metric where people like me could make up lost ground. Now it seems the test is becoming almost diluted in a sense. I'm on the same boat as you. I want the status quo to hold this cycle purely for selfish reasons.

(by super splitter I mean 2.7 cumulative GPA, 4.0 degree gpa, and a roughly 169-170 LSAT)

@

Let's chill for a bit. All hope is not lost. Work on killing the LSAT for now. Your 90th percentile score will not be overlooked simply because the GRE Verbal is at play. You will still be better prepared for law school than students who took only the GRE. After taking the LSAT, take a GRE Verbal practice test and see how you do. You might amaze yourself and score in the 90th percentile there as well. Still, first things first. Finish your LSAT prep and kill it! Give it everything you've got!

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

One of the reasons I've done well is because I'm super fast at assessing arguments and articulating assumptions: two skills you will not get from the GRE on its own >

@ @ Ironically, Nicole's words gave me the kick in the pants I needed to get more serious about LSAT Prep. One of the reasons Nicole is successful in law school today is the 7Sage prep plan we've paid for and have committed our blood, sweat and tears to conquering. Here's to crushing the LSAT!!!

I agree. I feel the LSAT does better prepare you for actual Law School. Like you said, gives you a better kick in the pants to do well. :)

So true! -:)

@ said:

I have emailed Harvard law, they said they only take the Verbal part into consideration. So, that's pretty much no difference with taking the LSAT?

Below is the email

"Quantitative factors, while informative, do not play a decisive role in our selection process. We have no computational methods for making admission decisions, no mechanical short cuts, no substitutes for careful assessment and good judgment. All completed applications are reviewed in their entirety with the LSAT and/or GRE as one factor in an overall assessment of academic promise, personal achievement, and potential contribution to the vitality of the student body.

Thank you for your interest in Harvard Law School.

Sincerely,

J.D. Admissions "

@ Thank you for reaching out to HLS.

It seems applicants would need pretty much a perfect score on GRE Verbal to qualify for HLS, and it's quite possible ETS will respond by making the GRE a more rigorous test which will benefit every grad program accepting GRE, including b-schools, because then they can be even more selective.

@ said:

I'm not worried because we are going to kill this test

So true!

@ said:

Having the videos is super convenient and allows me to work from anywhere -- including lunch breaks, commutes, and even while walking down the street listening to a lesson.

I think slow and steady is the mindset to approach the CC with. I take notes on every lessons, and admittedly, I don't always review them but I do think that it forces me to an active learning mindset rather than passively just watching videos.

For LR, I approached most question types the same way. I would watch the lessons and do the corresponding problem sets. I would review the problem sets and evaluate how I felt about the question type. For main conclusion, I was pretty confident I had it nailed. But for other question types like Parallel Reasoning, it was clear I needed more practice. So for a lot of question types I did mixed timed/untimed drilling to learn.

For LG, I would watch the lessons and then re-do the problem sets that followed many times. I began to fool proof games while watching the LG lessons as well.

For RC, I watched the lessons and printed out the passages JY goes over. I then did many of the corresponding passages from the problem sets and reviewed them with JY's video explanations. It was time consuming but worth seeing exactly how JY approached the same passage. It helped me gain perspective on what is important in a passage and how to go about tackling different types of passage.

My biggest advice is just to make sure you are memorizing what you can for this test. So any rules or conditional logic that JY says is important, commit to your memory. Also make sure you put a lot of time into mastering the fundamentals that undergird this entire test. With strong fundamentals the harder parts of this test become much more doable!

@ Thanks for sharing!

@ said:

I ONLY STUDY 2-3 HOURS A DAY! @ When is your test? I'm assuming that you aren't taking it in September seeing as you have only just started. If you are taking the test in September that is fine, but I would treat it as a dry run in preparation for a later test. I also work 40 hours a week, and I DON'T BELIEVE IN STUDYING 8 HOURS A DAY! I just do 2-3 after work before I watch tv or go to bed.

I encourage you to start with Logic Games. Everyone says you gain the most from that and it's true. (I went from a 142 to a 155 in a month after getting my Games down) Also this eases you into the whole studying/LSAT mentality. Some of the LR stuff can really get you bogged down.

Work your way through a Type of Logic Game by watching the videos in the section, doing the problem sets, and then going to the Question Bank. finish about 10-15 question sets in the bank (I did 5 sets in a sitting, got up to do stuff, and came back the next day or later) and then move on to the next type of games video section in the syllabus. Just repeat that until you have done that for all the games.

Once I mastered all the games. I started on the LR using the same strategy. Do a section of videos, complete the problem sets, and then go to the question bank and knock 15-20 questions until i feel comfortable.

once you've done that. you can start taking practice tests every Saturday morning and reviewing them on Sundays.

Once you finish with LR you move onto the RC section. However you don't do RC every day. You go into a 3 day rotation of RC, LR, and LG. with tests on saturdays and review on sunday.

I suggest 6 months of studying, but give yourself a break. after my first test I took about a month off and then started reviewing again.

Good Luck!>

@

Josh! I've been trying to get a handle on each section as I go through the CC. Love the way you and @ approach the CC and drills -:)

@ said:

booze.

Really?

@ said:

One of the reasons I've done well is because I'm super fast at assessing arguments and articulating assumptions: two skills you will not get from the GRE on its own >

@ @ Ironically, Nicole's words gave me the kick in the pants I needed to get more serious about LSAT Prep. One of the reasons Nicole is successful in law school today is the 7Sage prep plan we've paid for and have committed our blood, sweat and tears to conquering. Here's to crushing the LSAT!!!

@ Hey Nicole, what's your best advice for 7Sagers now in light of Northwestern and Georgetown's announcements?

@ Thanks a million!

@ said:

Just stick with it and don't get discouraged you will get there.

keep working on your prep. I upgraded to the ultimate + and quite honestly its nice but I could certainly have done without.

@ Thanks Connie! Good to know the grass isn't necessarily greener on the other side. I'll just work on staying focused for now. Really appreciate your advice -:)