Do NOT spend 3500 on admissions consulting. For one thing, there're plenty of free resources online to help you with crafting an application. You can also find friends/relatives/professors who can make suggestions on your personal statement and resume. If that fails, you can always ask people here to help you (I'd be happy to help!) Second, law school admissions is mostly a numbers game. Focus on getting at least a 164 lsat, and you'll be accepted at BC with decent scholarship money. A 161/162 might get you in just as well, but probably without a scholarship.

Case in point, I submitted apps earlier this month with a good lsat/gpa combo, but fairly average resume and personal statement (I had a friend help me with them), and I already have two T40 acceptances. One of them came with a great scholarship offer, and I'm still waiting for the second one!

Really, just focus on crushing the LSAT. With a 159-161 PT average, my guess is that you're losing some points on logic games. If you can get your LG score down to a -2 or -0 (which isn't as hard as you might think), you'll do great. IMO, it's all about trial/error, experience, and doing what works best for YOU.

I like Verdant's advice, but ultimately, you need to do introspection on why you're applying to law school. Start writing about something, ANYTHING, and eventually you'll get an idea of how to put your career aspirations into words. I spent two months writing mine, and I finally wrote something that I was happy to send to law schools.

You don't need a life-changing experience or fancy extracurricular activities to write a good paper. Do some introspection- what got this, "I want to take the LSAT and go to law school" ball rolling? Surely you have a reason aside from making more $$$ than you do right now :smiley: Is it because you did high school debate and you enjoyed reading/writing/arguing? Maybe it was a personable experience that motivated you, and one that you think is "too ordinary" for your paper (no such thing, btw. If there was an experience like that, talk about it!) Start writing a couple of sentences on paper, and something will come to mind. I promise!

They don't take it into account. I wouldn't look too much into it- a fee waiver is just a school's way of goading you to apply (they might like your numbers, or they just need some gullible applicant to apply so that the adcoms can reject them, thus boosting their USNWR rating by claiming that they're more "selective").

On the question of economic disadvantage, every school prefers that you talk about it in one of your essays, or maybe in the 'demographics' section when applying.

Best of luck!

At least a 168. They somehow managed a 169 median this year, but I think it's anomalous.

Ideally, your LSAT should be at or above a school's 75th to get in with a full-tuition scholarship by ED.

I agree, having anxiety is a crippling condition. I had it a long time ago and grew out of it.

Nonetheless, I vote 'no' for a few reasons. I noticed you're having doubts about the topic before even writing about it- you're not sure, and you're asking strangers online to give you advice. If you're not sure, don't write it yet. Do some introspection first.

I recommend going to your law schools' websites and checking for what they want in a personal statement. Some want you to write about overcoming a challenge or having unique background, while others want you to specifically address why you chose a career in law. Writing about how you overcame anxiety might not impress schools that want you to talk about the "why law school" part.

The second, probably more important reason I say 'no' is your second point. I'm not saying humans are incapable of changing or that they don't overcome challenges, but the legal field is demanding and requires emotional grit. Talking about an episode of anxiety might make adcomms hesitant- will you be able to handle the law school workload, the bar exam, and a legal job, knowing that you were prone to anxiety in the recent past? Whether we like it or not, this is why there's a stigma on mental illness, and it's a reason the military doesn't take people with a history of mental illness even after they're better- they're a risk.

But.... if the law schools you're applying to welcome personal statements about overcoming challenges, and you think they'd be fine with your essay, I say go for it.

Been there, done that. I also questioned my sanity after spending over a year to study for this exam.

I finally got a score above the 90th percentile after 1.2 years of study, but in hindsight, I don't think it was worth so much trouble. I recommend taking a break and NOT studying 4+ hours a day. Take it easy. Learn the basic concepts (i.e. what's a sufficient condition, how you should diagram certain games, the different kinds of reasoning errors, and so on). At their core, the average middle school student could understand them. The trouble arises when LSAC hides these simple concepts behind difficult-to-read language, which is exactly what lawyers do in the real world. I'd recommend reading challenging material in your free time, but material you're interested in. Philosophy and science are fun to read, imo. Read books whenever you can on topics that you like. Get used to reading a lot of dense, complex language and extracting the meaning quickly (not just for lsat prep, but for law school as well).

Here's another thing to consider- there's more to being a lawyer than what test score you get and what school you go to and what firm you work for. I've met plenty of attorneys who love their jobs, and none of them went to the "prestigious schools" (as defined arbitrarily by one magazine that uses one methodology, which has met plenty of criticism). Focus on cracking the 160 barrier, and I promise you, many good schools will give you great scholarship money, and you will be an attorney one day. Minimize your debt, and go to a school in the region where you want to practice for your first job. Use common sense as well- don't go to Cooley or Thomas Jefferson... those for-profit schools at the very bottom of the list with 20% bar passage rates. Everything else is fair game.

Of course you should get the best score possible and you should study hard, but look at this as a process that prepares you for law school and for the legal profession. Have fun, and have faith :smile:

Remember... take it easy.

It depends on your score. If you got a 168 or more, I don't think it's worth retaking. You can go to almost any law school with a discount. What I will say is this: I scored 2 more points on my second take, and it dramatically improved my odds for where I can get in and what scholarship money I'll get. I won't know until next cycle, but looking at my stats, people with the same lsat/gpa as me got better offers at better schools than the one with the lower lsat.

Definitely possible. I went from a 148 diagnostic to PT-ing in the low 160s. Got a 165 on test day. I did 2 more months of work and got a 167 on the next exam.

If I could do it all over again, I'd go with what Defender said- focus more on reading complex material and studying logical concepts. Don't get caught up in scores and points. It's not just a game- it's a legitimate aptitude test to see if you can handle the reading in law school. If you focus on improving your reading and reasoning skills, the score will take care of itself.

@lexxx74569 said:

I dont think 7sage predictor is that accurate just a rough estimate, personally i think MyLSN would be more accurate.

I mean its tough, assuming average softs LOR resume, etc I think u could get into one or two t15 if you apply incredibly early. But it also wouldnt be surprising for you to get into none. Is a third retake out of the question? I mean you already improved from 165-167 just 1 extra point could be huge. What have your PT scores been?

Thanks! My PT scores have been all over the place. There was a time when I had high 160s/low 170s, then I dropped down to the low 160s for more recent PTs (namely for PT 75 through 89). I might add, on both takes, I was unable to sleep for the whole night. Went into both exams with 0 hours of sleep– unintentional all-nighters. I tried everything. I exercised vigorously (2 hours of fast swimming and weights), followed my regular routine, took sleeping aids, and nothing worked. By the time I got to section 5 for both exams, I was guessing at the LR problems, going by gut feeling and flagging a ton of questions. I burned 3 minutes on a single 'justify the principle' question for my 167 take :neutral: Luckily RC and LG were manageable. I had no problems there.

My fear is that I'll sign up for a third take and the same thing will happen– zero hours of sleep because of nerves, and lower test day performance. Unless there's something I can do about it, I'll take my 167 and run. I just wanted to know my odds at a t20 school, or a comparable t30 for the same career goal.

If you absolutely have to take the exam in the next 4 weeks, I'd recommend a few things to boost your score--

Logic Games: this is probably the easiest place to get the most points. Barring the September 2019 LSAT (which I was unlucky enough to take), logic games tend to be pretty easy and formulaic. That said, if you have the CC, watch JY's lessons and how he handles logic game problems. If you can get logic games down to -3 or -0 you're in great shape. It takes practice, but have fun doing it-- they are games, after all! Do a game or two every day and master the game types, which shouldn't be too hard with the CC. Don't let yourself off the hook until you get to the -3/-0 threshold. If you're already doing that, then great! onto LR.

Logical Reasoning: The second best place to get the most points. Learn what each question type is asking of you. Most of them are straightforward, but others are not (i.e. you need to know what sufficient and necessary are to get the 'sufficient' or 'necessary' assumption questions right). You need to be able to identify the conclusion and how it's supported. You want to be able to describe flaws in arguments, and strengthen/weaken them. Do a TON of practice problems for these, and at some point, it'll become intuitive for you. However, be able to explain to yourself why the answer you chose is right, and why the other four are wrong. Here's another thing I learned-- almost every stimulus has excess stuff in it, i.e. stuff that isn't important to helping you answer the question correctly. Authors usually give background info (the city wants to build a factory), context (a while ago some phenomenon X happened), opposing viewpoints ("some people say", "it has been argued that"), and so on. None of this is ever relevant to answering the question correctly. I'm not saying you should skip these parts, because you might, and probably will, need them to understand the conclusion. Rather, keep this information in the back of your mind, and let the conclusion itself and the main supporting premise guide you to the correct answer. Remember these two things at all times, and prioritize them: 1. what is the conclusion? 2. how is it supported? if you can understand these two things for every stimulus, even without understanding the rest of the stimulus, you're in prime shape to get the question right. This is generally what you're supposed to do, but for 'must be true' questions and 'argument part' questions, this won't work. Those are more factual questions that are asking for your understanding of certain parts of the stimulus.

Reading comp: The hardest to improve on. I struggle on this myself, but my best advice would be to read more and summarize each paragraph as you go along. Don't memorize every fact/detail, but do understand what's going on in each paragraph. Is the paragraph presenting evidence? is it supporting or going against a theory? is the author giving us a suggestion? As JY teaches, summarize each paragraph in 1 word, 2 words tops (i.e. use words like 'hypothesis', 'disagreement', 'background', etc). Give yourself time to understand what's written in the passage, and the questions will fly by.

Hope this helps. Good luck!!!!!

Thought it was a good experience. I had no issues with glare/battery problems reported by a few other people.

The format you see on the core curriculum for the digital tester is the same thing you'll see on test day, just on a Microsoft tablet. It's good you don't have to spend time bubbling in answers (makes a huge difference to your performance). It's slightly annoying for LG, b/c you have to write on a separate sheet of thin paper with LSAC's name all over it (there's a huge logo on the middle of each sheet, found that to be very distracting). And I recommend getting used to LR/RC without highlighting and note-taking-- the highlighter tool is terrible with a stylus, and you won't have the option of writing notes off to the side unless you plan on using your paper.

I agree with some of the others here. Everyone has some sort of personal issue, and it's not uncommon for a test taker to be stressed, anxious, and depressed, or to have an attention deficit. This isn't limited to the test either– some have to beef it out in their daily lives (i.e. I used to panic and become overly stressed about trivial things in daily life, but hey, I got over it). It's tough out there! But hey you're almost in law school and on to that fruitful legal career you've always wanted. There's always, always hope.

Nevertheless, I highly recommend AGAINST talking about mental health issues in your personal statement. If it was a truly serious hinderance to your performance throughout college and on the LSAT, mention it in one or two lines tops. Adcoms are trying to decide which candidates are best for their law school, i.e. those with the most potential to succeed. It's an unforgiving process, but one we have to deal with as law school applicants. It's understandable– you'll be doing a LOT of reading in law school, and it's going to be stressful more often than not. Show the adcom folks that you can handle it, that you've done some seriously challenging work in, and out, of college, and that you don't crumble under pressure, and you'll be a step closer to your law school's front door. Best of luck!!!!!

Had a lot of trouble with weaken questions for the longest of time, but here's what helped me:

So, you're looking to weaken the support that the premises lend the conclusion. That's it. End of story!

Of course, if you see a glaring assumption right away you want to keep it in mind going into the answer choices, but if you don't (as is usually the case), keep an open mind about how best to attack the support that the premises lend the conclusion. First, be observant about the argument– what is the author's conclusion exactly, down to the last WORD (yea one word, like 'only' or 'must', can make or break the entire conclusion, and the right answer can point that out)?

If the wording doesn't lead to any glaring mistakes, then think about the next best thing: what's the author using as support? Is he basing his conclusion on a bad comparison or a potentially insufficient set of facts? What's his evidence? Could there be important things he's leaving out? Usually the author's going to leave out some important stuff that could play a big role in how good or bad the argument is, or make some crappy comparison between two things, and the right answer might point that out. Just by thinking about these things and the premise/conclusion, you're already a step ahead in getting the right answer.

Started at 148 sometime last year, and felt pretty discouraged. I got myself up to a 165 in my most recent PT.

This test is a monster. No, really- it's the hardest test that many people, including myself, have had to put up with in their whole lives so far. There's no need to beat yourself up over it, especially when you scored above the national average for this test on your PT. IMO, the fact that you're at 156 in a month or two of studying is pretty good (especially when 3-6 months of time is recommended). Here's how you move forward, at least from my experience:

-Take a short break. Rest. Close your eyes, meditate, play video games, eat 5 bags of chips, whatever. Cut yourself some slack- it's a hard test, and it's perfectly acceptable to take a few days off. You've no idea how much a rested mind can help you in taking this test.

-When you're relaxed and all, go through the CC at a really easy pace. The LSAT isn't running anywhere, nor is the law school. You have plenty of time to take this test. Spend some time really understanding the main lessons- You're in good hands, you have JY as the instructor. A lot of top scorers that I've heard from take a month or two in learning the theory before taking a single prep test. Drilling is fine, but don't use PT's 36 and above. Those are for simulating actual PT's.

-Learn ways to recognize wrong answers. Mainly for LR and RC, there are characteristics of wrong answers that can help you POE your way to the right one. Just look at JY's explanations- he shows you exactly the kinds of things you should look out for in a wrong answer (often enough, one wrong/misleading word is enough to make an answer choice wrong. In a lot of videos, JY is fine with an answer choice until he reads a particular word, i.e. 'only', 'never', 'all', 'impossible', etc., at which point he crosses out the answer). Pay close attention to his examples and methods.

Relax :) wish you all the best, and to everyone here.