@ Sorry, just saw this.

I was averaging around 175 (depends how you count) and got a 174 in the end. Pre-test jitters are a real thing, even if you don't feel them, and I went from a 176 to a 169 the week before the test.

Why do you need to copy LG answer choices on paper? I've found that being too organized isn't worth it. I went through ACs one at a time and never bothered labeling my diagrams since I didn't reuse 95% of them. The last few I did reuse was to check a problem, and redoing it from scratch to fix diagramming issues was the better way to do that for me.

If you take notes for RC, that's definitely the hardest adjustment to make. I think it forces you to avoid that though, which gives you more time and exercises your memory, both of which help you on the real test.

LG: This didn't really add up to much for me, but I never wrote anything or labeled problem boards. Setup was back and forth to do the board and add each rule, then another back and forth to check each rule. The first question I usually just did from the rules on-screen directly. For the rest of the problems, I'd just copy the condition, work on it on paper, and go back once to pick the answer.

RC: I never took notes. I feel like you can't afford to if you want to get into the mid 170s, you have to just remember enough of the passage to know where to look when needed. I did highlight a bit, but that was maybe five words per passage.

LR: This wasn't an issue for me. You only look at one choice at a time, so it doesn't matter much that you're scrolling.

IMO, to get into the 170s, the biggest thing you need is a high level of confidence. There's no time to second guess yourself or get stuck on a question, you either pick an answer or move on and that's that. In RC that meant going with my gut, for LG that meant doing easy problems in my head and trusting the answer to be right, and for LR that meant trusting that I saw the right issue the first time. I didn't get every problem right, of course, but I finished every section on the real thing with time to spare.

Just want to add to what @ said: I practiced with numbers the whole way and had no issues at all on test day. Didn't slow me down five seconds.

The May flex appeared to have at least four versions with sections mixed and matched together. I'd expect the same for every LSAT Flex.

@ I've seen you on here nearly every day. You're really dedicated and getting amazing scores now. Studying in the 170s is much more about having a clear head and good testing environment than it is about practice itself. You already know everything you need to for the test and most people are calmer and more confident the second time around. I'm quite sure you'll score well into the 170s on your retake. The process sucks, but you've got this!

@ Thanks for the article! That's very helpful given my goals (full ride at CLS or NYU). It looks like both schools consider your entire testing history, so retaking probably isn't the best idea. Adding the 2-3 point margin of error, and you're right that anything less than a 178-180 wouldn't make a difference. Those scores are really hit and miss unless you can consistently PT at 180 and I'd rather not go through the process again anyway lol.

@-1 My goals are CLS or NYU with money. I have good (not great) softs, so that puts me in the right range for money at those schools, but I'm not a shoo in by any means. If I had gotten a 177+ (probably just 2 more questions right), I feel like my chances would be much better for something like the Hamilton. The next cycle being more competitive doesn't help with anything either.

I guess I won't be retaking except to negotiate a scholarship if I don't get one of those.

Thank you all for the responses and advice!

@ I think we had the same test. I didn't see any typo, but also thought LG was pretty straightforward. I thought some of the LR questions were worded poorly (i.e. 3300 BC is before 3200 BC...), but had no problems finishing with time to spare while going slowly. RC was definitely a little challenging, but nothing crazy.

@ @ I'm 95% sure based on poking around the webpage on LawHub that the test will be on LawHub and not ProctorU. You were actually able to see the screen with the "Take Exam" button for a while: https://imgur.com/hrSkL27

I don't remember exactly where I saw it and can't seem to find it now, but I do remember one of the announcements or FAQs mentioning that a clock will be visible on the page. Presumably that will be the same as the current one on LawHub.

I'm not finding it with a bit of searching. If you saw it on Khan Academy, it's likely an unreleased game that LSAC provided to them. Otherwise, it might be written by a prep company and unofficial.

@-1 @ I'm not so sure about that. They've said that the interface would be the same as LawHub, which does allow finding. Unless there's an explicit rule against it listed somewhere, the worst they can reasonably do is warn you during the test not to do it again.

That being said, I haven't seen where it's made much of a difference for me. It saves maybe 2-3 seconds scanning over the passage (they're pretty short) and I don't see where that provides a meaningful advantage. As we all know, there isn't enough time to substantiate every answer and finding doesn't really change that, so I don't see why preventing it would be a priority for LSAC.

Did a PT yesterday and plan on doing PTs next Sunday and Wednesday and then parts of a PT (probably not even full sections) in the days leading up to the test on Tuesday. I'll save an easy passage, a few easy LRs and an easy game from that last PT to warm up before the test. I'm doing light practice from Khan Academy and focusing on RC there and will use that to fill in between PTs.

I'll also be prioritizing sleep and making sure I get 8 hours every night between now and then.

@ That's true for a lot of schools, but places like Yale don't really care that much about making money in the short term.

Yale Law has a 1.2 billion USD endowment. Their concern with allowing some or most of a class to defer will be with their reputation among employers, and they've had time to fill up deferred spots from the waitlist to mitigate that.

Unfortunately that probably does mean that a larger number of seats in the T-14 will already be taken when the next cycle starts. That will cause a trickle-down effect, probably making things a little more competitive down through some of the top 50 schools.

But, the difference will probably be less than 100-200 applicants across the entire T-14 (we'd be seeing more waitlist movement if it were more), which won't have such a huge impact. I'd expect that at a school like Emory, for example, it would maybe take 1-2 extra LSAT points to get in compared to previous cycles, worst-case scenario.

That's the part you pay for with 7Sage...

The preptests themselves are licensed by the LSAC and are part of LSAC Prep Plus. 7Sage offers video explanations for every question, which take an enormous amount of time (read money) on their part to create and are consequently what they charge for. Analytics and the discussion forums are free.

@ @

I think the statistics for satisfaction are heavily skewed by the large percentage of people going into law just because they don't have a better plan. That's why you probably will see higher satisfaction from the top schools, but it's not because of better outcomes. Getting into a top school takes either an enormous amount of planning and preparation (in which case you're very seriously considering the decision) or being in the top of your field, doing great in school and being a natural on the LSAT. The latter type of person is also pretty likely to be someone who has considered their options carefully and knows what they're getting into.

When I worked at a personal injury firm, I talked to a lot of the attorneys about this. Almost all of the ones that were unhappy with their jobs had either rushed into law or felt like there wasn't another career they could apply their skills in. One of them, for example, went to college on a sports scholarship and was majoring in communications. Just before his senior year, he realized he would never go pro (the original goal) and started seriously considering a career. He hadn't majored in communications because of any interest and didn't like the options there, but liked helping people and figured law school was sensible. So, he took the LSAT, applied, went to a T-25 law school immediately after graduating and that was that. He liked the 15 minutes in court each week, but hated the rest of the work and generally wasn't happy. I think that's the situation about half of attorneys found themselves in and that's why so many are unhappy.

An attorney at the same firm who had made a career switch from construction was in his 70s and still working 50-60 hours a week because he loved it. IMHO, the vast majority of people on these forums (7Sage, Reddit, etc.), going to top law schools, making a career switch, or otherwise putting a lot of thought into whether law is right for them are going to be very happy in a legal career. Obviously that won't be everyone and it's important to carefully consider the decision, but it's not about unicorn options at an elite school or glamorous lawyering. If you carefully consider the decision and go in with the right expectations, I don't see where law is any less satisfying than any other career.

Bumping this with a related question: If you retake and reapply in a later cycle, is it harmful to wait for decisions? For example, if UVA rejects you in cycle A and you retake and reapply, are they more likely to reject you in cycle B that if you had withdrawn before getting rejected?

In the upper 170s, I don't think improvements come from understanding the content or test better, since you are clearly capable of answering every question right.

I've seen with myself that I answer questions better (meaning not missing easy questions, seeing the right issue faster, better time management, etc.) in a better environment, at a different time of day, or after eating/sleeping better, for example. So, it's about not getting stuck on any questions, being comfortable when taking the test, endurance, and a reliable approach more than learning techniques or drilling games, at least for me.

Those aren't things that drilling more will help with much (although, you obviously need to keep practicing regularly). Understanding questions in depth better so you can spot trap answers faster, doing non-LSAT things to get in the right frame of mind, etc. will probably help you more.

I looked through some of your earlier posts to get a better idea of where you're at. Assuming your LR improvement has been consistent and you're otherwise doing as well as your initial diagnostic, at this point you're trying to get those last few points and get as comfortable with the test as possible so you never get tripped up. I'm in pretty much the same situation.

That second point about getting as comfortable as possible with the test you'll actually be taking ("90"+) is key, and only prep from the newer tests can really get you there. Based on what I've seen so far, every section of the 70s+ is different in subtle ways even compared to the 50s, and that makes a difference. For me, I was easily finishing LG in time on my second test but I've been having trouble reliably finishing newer sections.

3-4 tests a week sounds like far too many, although it might work for you depending on your process. I'm doing 1-2 a week with a more thorough review and drilling the games from each test. I feel like I'm getting more from that than I would with twice the practice. Rotating a newer test and an older test each week might be useful, but you should be able to stick with newer ones without running out if you're doing 1-2 a week.

What's your study process? Where are your biggest weaknesses right now (i.e. specific Q types, timing, LG)? How much are you studying?

@ I'm happy with my performance, but I am looking for improvements in LR to reach my next score goal. I don't feel like I'm learning per se, but I do think I'm getting better at seeing trap answers and understanding question patterns, which is improving my performance.

I'm also interested! I go to NSU and often study in the library.

The FAQs here say since June 1st, 2014: https://www.lsac.org/lsat/taking-lsat/lsat-scoring

So, it looks like they report scores from the past five testing years and your December 2014 score would be included.

@ said:

The LSAT is entirely digital in North America now. There is no longer a paper option.

Except for rescheduled Saturday administrations, at least for the 2019-20 testing year.

"Saturday Sabbath Observers taking the ... test on the alternate test date will receive the LSAT in a paper-and-pencil format."