Just saw this question and wanted to throw in some additional advice. One thing that really helped me with LR was simply reading all of the 7sage user comments on every last question I got wrong (and the questions I got right, but didn't really grasp why my answer was right over my second choice). The comments on these individual breakdowns are a virtual goldmine of tips and helpful information. It was only after reading a single tip on flaw questions that my ability to get these questions right went from about 50% to 90%. Literally someone's one-sentence tip changed the entire outcome of my LR section- all because their tip resonated and helped me see what I was missing. I highly, highly recommend reading questions/comments - keep in mind of course that some of the advice is NOT great - but sometimes looking at something through a different lens is all it take takes.

I'm 42 and planning on going to law school this fall. You go when the time is best for you. I can't even remember being 27. :smile:

As far as admissions go, it depends. Generally speaking, an April LSAT would be too late to apply to most traditional schools. That said, if you're a nontraditional student and/or planning on applying to a program that offers part time enrollment or spring semester start dates, there may still be a chance- or you may be able to start in January. As I recall, last summer I received a number of emails from the University of Nebraska saying they still had spots open up to a week before the fall semester started. So, it just depends. It's not impossible, but like someone above said, it definitely impacts scholarships. But you never know. It's more about your goals and timeline. I'm taking the Feb test and plan on applying to a program that offers an accelerated program starting in May (if I get in and get enough funding, I just might go for it)

@ My apologies, I didn't see your comment earlier. I'm very cautious about disclosing any information as to test specifics, but I believe it is safe to say that the current LSATs have begun to incorporate some LG that require skills from much earlier exams. They do tend to shift skills over time and I would say that it's definitely important to go back and review as many of the early games as you can while still reviewing the newer games.

Just a head's up- it is against LSAC policy to disclose specific game types regardless of whether the exam has ended or not (they may still be administering accommodated tests too). I'd hate for anyone to lose out on all of their hard work and effort for accidentally over-disclosing.

That's amazing! Thanks so much for sharing. I took twenty years to finish the last semester of undergrad. How crazy is that? I was a handful of classes shy of graduating and it took me TWENTY years to get around to it. This post makes me feel so hopeful. Congrats!

@ I had that same RC. It wasn't my favorite, but it definitely wasn't the worst I've ever had. I feel pretty good about it.

Per the Powerscore podcast, having one section in common doesn't necessarily mean we had the same test overall, but I thought my LG was very unusual and I thought the LR was a little rough too- probably of average difficulty, but still seemed like a few questions were tough/unusual. I don't know, I've taken something like 25 PT and I've never had LG first, so that alone threw me off. Maybe I just thought the games were tough because they were unexpected, but it seemed more difficult than LG has been in a while. There was one game that was very, very atypical. It actually wasn't especially difficult once I figured it out, but it was an outlier for sure. I fully expect to see a lot of complaints about it. On the whole, I think it was a pretty typical test, but I would be surprised if people don't say something about LG. I rate my confidence as a 7/10 on this one. Probably not my best ever, but (crossing fingers) probably pretty a decent performance on my part. I'll take it. :smiley:

For me, the LR in the 80's was a real challenge. I wouldn't say it's technically a lot more difficult, but it takes on some differences in appearances and the verbiage is bulkier/more convoluted. What I found to be most helpful was to print out a few LR sections and go through the questions, taking as much time as I needed, one by one, labelling the main point of each argument, making notes, and writing out why I chose which answer. Once I went over them in great detail, I was able to begin to see the patterns and find the inferences I was missing. It helped quite a bit.

Since I am working toward the Feb Flex, I did this using the additional LR sections for each full PT. I know some people are taking full tests still, but if you're not, that's a great use of the extra material.

The PowerScore Podcast released an episode covering all of this a few days ago. I'll be honest with you, it wasn't exactly a pick-me-up, but they do provide a lot of useful information on the matter.

Due to my non-traditional status and personal circumstances, I'm not able to pick up and move anywhere I want, so my options are fairly limited and I was already "undershooting" my applications (applying to schools at which I am far above the 75th percentile)- so I'm not seeing a lot of impact on a personal level, but it's definitely a big deal for those shooting for top tier schools.

I had the same issue for a long time as well. What it all came down to was realizing that I had a solid grasp on the exam, but there were some question types/areas that I had yet to master. When I got a PT that played to my strengths, my scores were high, and when I got a PT that encompassed my weaker areas, my scores were incredibly low. Additionally, I found that I was earning lower scores on tests that I took when I wasn't well rested or didn't give myself enough time to study or set-up correctly.

I would recommend pulling your tests and looking for patterns. Wild vacillations in scores are an indicator that you possibly need to refine your skills and your test-taking techniques. Once you improve in your weak areas and you begin to take the test in a controlled environment, you'll start to see much more consistency in scores. I went from score variations of 10-14 points, to only about 2 points +/- on my last 10 PT. And I scored my exact average on the actual LSAT. It was obvious to me when I was truly read to test and I felt good going into the actual exam, whereas previously my strategy was to cross my fingers and hope I got a "good test."

I don't necessarily think many subjects are too taboo as long as you make sure to write more about how you handled it rather than simply dwelling on the event and/or how you were changed. You need to explain what you did and are doing to handle it. I think it's important to explain the impact of the event but more important to discuss your own strengths in overcoming and handling.

I wrote my PS on an extremely personal topic (the suicide death of my son) and I didn't hold back on the extreme gravity of the situation. That said, was careful to keep the statement central to my involvement with a grief group and how I've used that group to make positive changes and work toward a career in law.

If you haven't purchased the 7Sage admissions course, HIGHLY recommend it. It's worth far more than the $10 price tag. It will give you some good direction. I can send you a copy of my PS privately if you'd like. So far, I've received a handwritten note and two calls from admissions staff thanking me for sending it. Given the content, the praise feels both good and sad, but I know it was the right thing to write about.

My reddit username is BoJackLSAT (™). Every time I see @ post I sing "Back in the '90s, I was in a very famous TV show..." to myself. That's affirmation enough for me.

I took it in November and I recall getting a 1 minute break between sections. You can choose to start early or you can let it run down to zero then start automatically. I used the full minute to close my eyes and refocus.

Yes, they will email you. Others have also suggested using the "forgot password" function to get your information as well. Good luck.

Right on the money for me too. My recent PT average is 167.6 (per 7Sage) and I got a 168. Can't complain. I got the bizarre LG section and despite feeling like I probably did fairly well on it, it did rattle me a little. Unfortunately I think I might've cracked into the 170s otherwise, but you know what? I worked really hard and I feel good about it.

BTW- I got a 158 in November due to serious test anxiety, so I'm pretty proud of that improvement. Sometimes I think luck is a big component of all of this.

I don't personally have any experience with this, but I have seen multiple post on various LSAT forums that detail stories of people who were able to improve their waitlist standing (and/or scholarship offers) by increasing their scores by even a point or two. Every last point matters- so if you think there's even a small chance you will bring up your score at all, I might recommend it. The worst thing that can happen is that you wind up using the score you've already submitted. You don't have anything to lose except for the fee.

Let's assume, hypothetically, that you're tied with another person on the waitlist and you retake the exam and increase your score by one point. When a spot opens up and the powers that be are deciding which one of you to give it to, who do you think they'll choose?

This post totally made my day. I opened this expecting to find a story about someone getting a full ride to Yale or something. Literally laughed out loud.

@ you should have access to law hub because you paid the $99 to sign up for it when you joined 7sage. Just Google it. I preferred to do my PT on 7sage because I liked the platform more, but law hub gives you an exact representation of the actual exam. It's not that different, but a few aspects of it are unique and it's easy to get thrown off by something being in a different place. For example, I got frustrated bc the highlight feature is a little different and I kept losing time trying to double click to highlight a word (something you can do on 7sage but not lawhub).

@ I love the spreadsheet idea. I have my own ridiculously complex version that compares my schools, the costs/benefits, and so on. It's a lifesaver as responses are rolling in (albeit slowly).

As far as the business of rankings goes... well, that's very complicated. Do I think it's possible to be successful as a lawyer despite not attending a T14 school? Absolutely. That said, your own personal goals play a big part in how you define success- what is successful to you may not be to someone else, and that's okay. It is important though, that you understand the risks and benefits of a particular school. Some schools are low ranked based on nominal factors like library size, but offer solid opportunities and have strong local ties. They continue to spiral in the rankings because low rankings make it difficult to bring in strong candidates and so on. Other schools are downright predatory. It's important that you have a realistic understanding of how much debt you may incur (with or without aid) and how much you will earn to offset that. Employment statistics are a great tool, so are first time bar passage rates. There are plenty of people who love working for legal aid or as public defenders- generally careers that are attainable with non T14 schools - but you do need to be able to pass the bar exam and pay your bills in the end.

I agree that shaming and attacking is entirely unhelpful and I've seen a whole lot of it lately under the guise of "I'm just trying to help." In fairness, none of this has been on 7Sage.

Honestly, I'm choosing the lowest ranked school on my list (by a lot). They've offered me an excellent deal that will likely lead to a good employment opportunity. I did my homework and I know it's the right choice for me.

Not unless you were convicted of a misdemeanor/felony or the ticket was a criminal offense. I saw one that stated "traffic ticket over $200" - so if they're asking something like that, make sure you are being truthful, otherwise you should be fine.

I took it twice. I wasn't sure if I would be ready the first time and I definitely wasn't. Two months later, I was more prepared and upped my score by 10 points. I've just now started getting responses from my applications and I can honestly say that it makes no difference. They really only care about the higher of the two scores. I added an addendum to explain that the first exam took place during a difficult week for me and I performed better the second time. I'm not sure it was necessary, but it didn't hurt.

You still have some time to think about it. As far as I know, you have until a few weeks prior to the exam to reschedule without losing your money. So you can always reschedule without losing too much money. If you don't need to take it a second time, you can cancel. On the whole, there's nothing to worry about. Even if you bump them both, you will still have plenty of time for the upcoming cycle.

@ I am just drilling logic games every day and drilling with full LR and full RC and I plan on taking 3 full PT. One on each Saturday and one on Tues/Weds before the test. There aren't many things I can do in 2 weeks that will help more than getting rest and practicing actual test taking elements. At this point, I think test skills are the most likely to impact my score.

@ I only ever map out the parallel reasoning/flaw questions and occasionally I map out a MBT, but otherwise, no. I find mapping tends to waste time and confuse me. :smile:

I am in this exact same boat. Consistently at a 169ish. I just want to break through to a 170 . For me, it's LR that's the issue. I recently had a PT that was -0 LG, -0 RC, -7 LR. I wish I had some advice for you. That said, I think you're smart to relax. The biggest score jump I ever had was immediately after a 2 month break. Go figure.

Going to add to this discussion that the commentary about having the skills but making procedural errors is spot on. My last 5 PTs have been consistently 169 or 170. I would never, ever go as far as to say it is "easy." I always have to put my full effort into it. That said, I feel far more confident in my knowledge and ability than ever, and spotting wrong answers and knowing the difference between 2 answers (why one is wrong and the other is right) has become a million percent easier. They say that improvement on the LSAT is incremental, which is true, but in all honesty there really is a point in which you realize that everything is just starting to click- and it's pretty obvious.

@ is also correct in say that the skills to score well on any given question are one thing, but being able to replicate that for 75+ questions in a row is a whole other set of skills. Once you go over about 165, the errors you make and the questions you miss are usually due to misreading or fatigue (my biggest issue), but rarely due to lack of ability. No matter what though, it's rarely "easy" and there is very little correlation between my feeling like a particular test was easy or difficult and my score.

LR was, is, and always be my weakness. I am usually 100% on LG and max -2 or -3 on RC. I theorize that this is because I'm only focusing on 4 total passages/issues per section. Moving from question to question presents me with huge issues- I get tripped up and confused going through questions at such a rapid pace. Individually, the questions are no problem, but I just haven't mastered the LR process as a whole. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to have a perfect LG and RC, while being -7 on LR.

All this to say, the LSAT is incredibly difficult regardless of what kind of score you get. Don't ever let a high scorer tell you otherwise. It's tough and quite frankly, I think anything over a 145 is downright impressive. Getting through the test is impressive on its own.

I struggled with these types of games for months before finally mastering them (I'm excellent at them now), so I completely understand the frustration. A few questions for you- are you doing them timed? What happens when you do them untimed?

I ask this because I found that the biggest issue I had with conditional logic and chaining was that the pressure of a timed game often lead me to panic and write down rules/chains incorrectly. What's worse is that I didn't always understand exactly how to chain them up, so I often did it wrong. What helped me the most was to start over and do as many of them untimed as possible, WITHOUT chaining. It took forever, because I had to go back and look at every rule at every question, but eventually I got to where I was getting them 100% right all of the time. Then I started gradually reducing time- still without chaining- until I got down to my desired time. Suddenly the ability to link rules and chain just made sense. If you're struggling with them under untimed conditions, I'd highly recommend starting over until you really have them down, then work on time. My theory is that I will never get anything under timed conditions if I don't get it under untimed conditions.

The good news is, that you can improve on these incredibly quickly. My skill level in LG improved about 200% in a week once I started tackling them.

@ and @

This sounds so incredibly silly, but the tip was to treat a flaw question like a weakening question (which I am very good at), then the correct answer will be the one that most closely describes how you would weaken the argument.

That's it. The whole thing that changed my score by 5+ points. I might have even heard it before, but for some reason it was that tiny little suggestion that helped me master my worst question type.

PS- I really cannot emphasize how bad I was at flaw questions. Honestly, I think 50% accuracy was being too generous. I could never figure out why one answer was right over another. Now it seems weirdly obvious.