At one point, I was studying for hours every day but saw very little improvement.
Eventually, I reduced my study time and spent more energy reviewing mistakes, tracking patterns, and focusing on weak areas.
Surprisingly, my score started improving faster.
What's one study habit you stopped doing that actually helped your LSAT performance?
While reviewing a practice test, I noticed something surprising.
I had answered a difficult Logical Reasoning question correctly, but when I reviewed my work, I realized my reasoning was flawed. If the answer choices had been slightly different, I likely would have missed it.
It made me wonder how many "correct" answers are actually masking weaknesses in our understanding.
Do you review questions you got right, and have you ever discovered that your reasoning was incorrect?
I recently reviewed several practice tests and noticed a pattern.
Most of my mistakes weren't coming from difficult questions. They were coming from rushing through the final few questions because I was running out of time.
It made me wonder whether the timing strategy is sometimes more important than question difficulty.
What's been more effective for you: improving speed or improving accuracy?
Imagine your next LSAT score depends entirely on improving just one section:
Logical Reasoning
Reading Comprehension
Logic Games (for older exams)
You can spend all your study time on only one area.
Which section would provide the biggest score increase for most students, and why?
For weeks, you've been focused on improving speed. Eventually, you start finishing Logical Reasoning sections with time to spare.
You feel confident until your score comes back lower than usual.
It turns out that answering questions faster didn't necessarily mean answering them better.
Is timing overrated compared to accuracy?
Your target LSAT score is within reach, but progress has stalled. For the past month, your practice tests have remained in the same range despite consistent studying.
You can either continue drilling questions, focus on weaknesses, or completely change your study strategy.
What would you do in this situation?
With only 2 years of post-graduation experience, I'd definitely keep the internships that are directly relevant to law. They help demonstrate a consistent interest in the field and add valuable experience that many early-career candidates don't yet have.
One approach is to give more space to your full-time roles and limit internships to 1–2 impact-focused bullets each. You could also combine related internships under a separate "Relevant Legal Experience" section if space becomes an issue.
A two-page resume isn't necessarily a problem if all the content is relevant and adds value. The bigger concern is including experiences that don't strengthen your candidacy for the roles you're targeting.