Would getting a 172 or 173 really be better than possibly just focusing on your GPA and ultimately raising your GPA to, for instance, a 3.7? I don't know the answer that question, but it's something to consider.

@ said:

Waitlisted at Harvard this morning. LSAC GPA 3.81. LSAT 180.

@ said:

Waitlisted at Harvard this morning - 175 LSAT 3.9+ LSAC GPA. It's been... An okay-ish cycle for me so far? I was accepted to Columbia but have been waitlisted at Northwestern and Michigan. Haven't heard anything else for months so... :neutral:

Wow - these are some phenomenal numbers being wait listed here. I'm curious as to what point in the cycle you applied in?

How similar are LSAT logic games to this test you're taking? I get that they might be similar, but basically nobody would be able to ace a logic games section without diagramming. That's unheard of. The creators of 7Sage wouldn't even be able to do it, lol... I would imagine the games in the test you're taking are concocted in such a way that considers the lack of diagramming, whereas LSAT logic games are 110% without a doubt written knowing people will be diagramming. I'm not implying one test is harder or easier than the other, but rather that they might be difficult for different reasons. Are there published versions of previous tests?

Wow. Truly amazing.

It's been interesting following your experience. Thank you for sharing your story.

Sorry for the late reply back - I just went ahead and took a full week off and wasn't on the forums for the rest of the week. I REALLY appreciate these insights. I feel a little better about where I am at right now in this process!

The fact you already have a great score and will likely get into a great school will only help with confidence if you retake. That confidence boost alone could potentially get you over the 170 hump... You are in a very good place right now! Congrats!

@ said:

A few other thoughts on (B):

The possibility of the presence of the attractant near the repellent poses an interesting impasse

Very good point. For all we know, the harmful concentration could be mixed in with or directly adjacent to the good concentration. also, line 4-5 already tells us it is "repelled" by the bad concentration. And I think the evasive nature implied by "repelled" is more replicated in letter E than it is in B.

As far as 20 goes, I think the language in C, the one I chose, is overall too harsh. Flaw seems to preclude it as a possibility entirely - It is also plural in the AC, and even if the hypothesis were flawed, there would only be one flaw. Not to mention the last line in the wrong AC says evidence confirms the other. The last sentence of the passage merely states that evidence "suggests" conformity with the fist hypothesis. It doesn't seem to necessarily preclude the viability of the other hypothesis, as C suggests...

Thanks for the help! The various perspectives have helped a ton.

@ said:

@ said:

I'm in the same boat as you, @ . I've been studying this thing for 9 months (a brief period where for three months or so I could only put in 10 hours a week, but the majority I've been in the 15-25/week); I feel like I have seen progress and just recently I took a PT for the fist time in months and I feel everything I learned just went to black. I'm thinking I need to focus on PTs more, now.

This sounds like a confidence issue.

You're likely right. I feel like I need to just start exposing myself to timed PTs (with proper BR of course).

Rip off the band aid so to speak.

I'm in the same boat as you, @ . I've been studying this thing for 9 months (a brief period where for three months or so I could only put in 10 hours a week, but the majority I've been in the 15-25/week); I feel like I have seen progress and just recently I took a PT for the fist time in months and I feel everything I learned just went to black. I'm thinking I need to focus on PTs more, now.

@ said:

Number 17 [...] I'm having a hard time seeing why B would not be a better means of the bacteria leaving the bad concentration.

The problem with (B) is that it requires the presence of an attractant. For all we know, a bacterium may be placed in a petri dish with only a harmful substance.

Number 20

Upon review the only thing that I can find that disproves C is that it uses the word "flaws" when there is only one flaw, or one thing wrong with one of the proposed theories; that there is evidence proving it wrong.

As far as my reading is concerned, the passage does not discuss or even mention any flaw. It only states that experimental evidence supports one of the hypotheses. So there is no textual basis for the part regarding flaws.

Thank you for the reply.

But doesn't B imply that, if B were true, which is what we are to assume per the Q-stem, there would be an attractant available? It feels like they are providing a scenario in which there is an attractant.

How I took that there was a flaw came from the fact that the second paragraph of the passage talks about how bacteria tumble when not near attractants and straighten their paths when detecting an attractant. The first theory of how they detect (intervals and different sides of the bacteria) makes complete sense with this assertion from the second paragraph. But, the second theory mentioned in the third paragraph (simultaneous detection on differing sides), the one I'm purporting to be flawed, would necessitate a response different from the one the passage talks about - i.e. the bacteria would basically do nothing. Is that not a flaw? I just remember reading it the first time and thinking, "well that theory is definitely not right based on what I just read." Perhaps I need to focus more on why it is a "way of determining which" theory is more likely to be the right one...?

(I'm not pressing you personally - I'm sincerely just trying obtain a better understanding)

Thanks!

Sorry, I originally tried to delete the comment because I immediately realized it was wrong! You can’t delete a comment entirely. Only edit it.

After I had typed out my response I re read it and notice my mistake and accidentally hit post.

Agree with what is said above. Except now I'm at the point where I do well with drills and problems sets, and when I go to actual LR sections I feel like I'm, as you put it, losing brain cells. lol

Step by step, I guess.

@ said:

A low 170s LSAT and ~4.0 GPA only got me one T14 acceptance haha (although I applied very late). The increase in competition is real.

My advice is to get your apps in as early as possible and to make sure every single document in your application is well-crafted, interesting, and flawless. Also, don't expect your numbers to carry you anymore. Realize that your interview performance or school visit + "Why School X" essay might now be the difference between a WL/ding and an acceptance.

Are you KJD?

Also, once you get to the point where it's time to drilling/do practice problems, go slow. Maybe don't even worry about time for awhile. Accuracy yields speed. Think of it this way, would you rather finish 12 problems in a section and get 11 of them right? Or, would you rather finish 21 problems and get 7 right? It's paramount you take the time to understand the underlying patterns of each section type and their respective question types.

I don't consider myself to be a "fast" thinker. What has helped me is experience with the test and taking things slowly. As the days go by, my brain is training itself to focus on the details that truly matter and thinking less and less about what does not matter. The LSAT is KING at pulling at your attention with things that simply do not matter. You have to learn how to get past the unimportant b.s., and for some of us, like myself, it just takes time.

@ said:

Friends of mine have had tremendous luck with headhunters.

^ This was my experience as well. Moved from small market general practice assistant job to biglaw paralegal in DC because I stumbled upon a very helpful, established DC area recruiter on LinkedIn. If you come across the right recruiter and have any marketable skills or a past that shows you're committed, the odds of you finding something, compared to continuously applying on job boards/sites, is better (based on my experience).

Also, you could try looking up your local legal aid clinic to see if they have volunteer opportunities. During my last semester of college (winter/spring of 2017), I volunteered as a receptionist a few times a week at the local legal clinic. They were desperate to have me there. It wasn't rocket science but it was something to add to my resume and did give me insight on the type of work they do. There are also organizations that work exclusively with immigrants and their legal issues, that is also a possible place to look for volunteer opportunities. It's weird, and you likely are already aware of this, but sometimes you have to be willing to work for free before you can get your foot in the door. My internship during school was unpaid, volunteering was obviously unpaid, and then my first legal full time job paid less than $10/hour. Talk about a tough market.

Most of all, understand that your situation is merely temporary. I've been in a similar situation; I've had family members in similar situations; we are often our harshest critics. Your time has not been wasted. At the very least you've matured all while still wanting to attend law school, and if you were to definitively change your mind tomorrow about your goals - still - none of this would constitute as time wasted as it would be exactly what you needed to go through to get where you're going.

@ said:

You say your BR takes you days - are you only BRing after the full test? Are you always sitting for full timed PTs? I gained a lot of ground when I started doing a single section and reviewing it right after or sometimes the next day. (Generally I did this with much older tests).

Well for a while I was working on just LG and RC. I would BR the RC in that same night and typically got -3 BR, which is consistent with what I usually get on a full PT BR.

If I take a full PT, I wait until the end to BR it, if that is what you're asking.

@ said:

Hey there first of all congrats on you BR score, that's amazing! Just to clarify, when you say your BR score, it's not the case that you're already aware of which questions are wrong and then you go back and BR them right?

I go straight from test to BR - BR takes me days to do. However, throughout the course of those several days I do not look at the correct ACs.

I'm going to attempt to dumb down this question...

Premise: If there is a good reason to intervene, it's because it would help the forest. (answer choice B)

Premise: Stopping the fire doesn't help.

Conclusion: Don't intervene.

p→q (answer choice B)

/q

--------------

/p

Sometimes getting caught-up in the details really skew our understanding of the underlying structure - at its core, this IS just another cookie cutter argument. The diversity aspect is just an example of how it allows the forest to flourish. Putting too much emphasis on this directs us to answer choice A, and is a deadly trap.

@ said:

It will be interesting to see how things turn out next cycle. I would not be surprised to see a significant number of applicants from this cycle with great numbers and disappointing results try their luck again, which ironically would only make next cycle more competitive.

This has been my concern ever since I heard 2017-2018 would be an unusually competitive cycle.

Hey, still looking for people? Just moved out here. Studied with 7sage for a good portion of early 2018, but took a hiatus to find a better job. I've BR'd in the 170s several times, but my timed score is simply not good. PM me if this is still a thing... Thanks!

Wow. Sure puts my lsat struggles into perspective. It really is just a test.

Your RC isn't bad. So, that is good. I'd say just keep working on games and really try cutting that LR, BR score to half of what you have now. That'd get you into 170 range BR. Baby steps.

As far as stress goes, I'm right there with you. I've often read about the timing strategy where you start a stop watch then simply do not look at it during the section. Usually, from my understanding, this is for drilling/section practice, but I think there would be benefit to doing a full test like this as well. Try to go quickly, but don't sacrifice accuracy. I honestly feel like once you get better at the test, you will feel more confident and in turn less stressed, ultimately leading to even faster test taking. Something that has kind of stuck with me is a quote from the founders of Lawschooli (another prep test group) is that "if one cannot correctly answer 90 percent of any given set of LSAT questions untimed, then they don't have any business doing timed tests." This is obviously a strict standard, and probably one for people aiming for mid to high 160s and higher. Nonetheless, I think the underlying principle is spot on. Accuracy comes before everything when it comes to the LSAT (like most things in life, when you think about it. haha).

Once you start to see that you can trust yourself with this test, hopefully it won't feel like such a life and death ordeal every time you sit down to take a PT.

It will be interesting to see how LSAC decides to handle this in terms of maintaining its reputation of being a consistent test. It is known for being a test that, somehow, almost brilliantly, consistently conveys a test taker's true understanding of the test. A score drop in 2019 and thereafter could be indicative of the tech affecting LSAT taking performance. Will they take into consideration reading speed being slower on screens (or other limitations based on empirical data?). It is curious though, do people read faster on paper because that is how they were raised, possibly implying that new generations raised on screens might read just as fast on screens as they do on paper, if not faster? After all, those who were raised with screens are only going to become more and more of the norm. Too, will this be yet another hurdle for non-elitist students who cannot afford touch screens to study and do their best on the test?

It depends on how LSAC considers itself to be "consistent" I suppose. Is LSAC interested in consistently separating the very best from the rest? Or, are they interested in creating a test that delineates certain benchmarks that one can obtain through hard work (something many of us 7sagers are doing, including myself)?

Basically, rhetorically speaking, if someone earned a 180 two years ago, will that person be likely to earn relatively the same score on a screen assuming they have adequate experience/practice with the type of tech that would be used on test day? (For those who don't have the privilege of using the tech for practice, one would almost necessarily have to have incredible adapting skills)

Is the only answer here to pay another $700....? @

@ said:

What happened

I'm just going to assume it's due to application responses from schools - or lack thereof.