I would second @ on their comment about LG. Its definitely gonna be a lot easier drilling some linear, distribution, or multi-linear (maybe 5-10 of one type a day), and getting down to -0 there. (btw I would focus on those in that order since that order is organized in terms of how often you'll see those games). Reading Comp is really hard to improve on, especially on such a short time frame. The most helpful thing for me in improving my reading comp though, was definitely spending more time on the passage and less on the question. Like @.i.rivas I probably spent around ~4minutes on the passages themselves, and tried to just go with my gut on the questions. I found early on that I lost time when I rushed through the passage only to come back to it for almost every question.

I think its important to know the circumstances surrounding the 163s. How did you feel taking those tests? Did you have a hard time focusing? Were those tests taken after a full day at work? Were there any distractions? My pts were pretty consistent except for days I tried to take one after a day at work (score drops similar to yours - 10points), but I didn't put much weight on them because I knew they weren't representative of what I felt I could do running on a full tank.

Identifying which question types specifically are the ones giving you trouble is key. Blind review is great, but you should also be paying attention to which question types you're getting wrong and making sure you get more practice on those. Thinking of it in terms of 2/4 strengthen questions, or 0/2 parallel reasoning questions vs just -7 or -4 is what really separates 99th percentile from the rest. This is literally how lsat tutors make their money. They're really good at identifying patterns in your missed questions. I worked my way up from 150 to 177, and this was without a doubt the most important part of my studying. If you're studying with an lsat prep program, they generally have an "analytics" section that will identify the missed questions patterns for you, but if you're doing self-study you'll have to put more time in yourself to identify the pattern. Some people also record themselves while taking prep tests to see exactly which questions they are spending too much time on and take that into account.

I put a lot of time in over a few months to get faster at them. The way I tackled parallel questions in general was by drilling as many as possible, translating the stimulus and answer choices into symbolic logic ‘proofs,’and not timing myself when i did so. After a certain point, I no longer had to write out the proofs. I could follow the logic in my head.

If you take your time, write out the proof and still cant find the flaw, you probably need to brush up on your symbolic logic (some, most, all, sufficient & necessary statements, contrapositives).

Also this is no secret, but they’re a real time-suck. Their position near the end of the test often means people are getting to them without much time left. I began at the end of LR to hit these and other difficult questions first. I figured the easiest questions near the beginning of the test were better to face when low on time. If you’re at or nearing 90%+, and have done a number of PTs, then I suggest trying this. You may just need more time.

Yea, no shade at @ but I would have to agree with @ too. You have more than good enough reason for a GPA addendum, and you should write your PS about what you feel is important for the admissions office to know about you (and maybe why law school is the next logical step). From what I understand about LSAT addendums, applicants should be more reluctant to submit them. Unless something happened on test day, or an applicant has a history of standardized test scores not being indicative of their performance (example: low ACT for their undergrad, but high UGPA), they probably shouldn't write one.

On the other hand, if you decide to take another LSAT in the future , and you end up scoring higher (like 5+), then you could explain the score increase with an LSAT addendum. I don't think it would be necessary, but if you really wanted to make sure they knew that your original LSAT was not indicative of your abilities, you could.

I would imagine there wouldn't be a difference either way unless you are a URM. From what I've heard admissions officers, and admissions experts say, it doesn't sound like your app gets dinged for not being a URM, but that URM applicants get a "boost." This makes a lot of sense when you think about the goals that schools set for themselves every year. The size of the "boost" given to URM applicants often depends on that school's goals in terms of student body make up and the time of the application.

If the the admissions cycle is nearing its end and the school isn't on track to meet its goals, then a URM applicant would probably get a considerable boost over a non-URM applicant, but they wouldn't look at a 'prefer not to say' applicant and think to themselves, "this maybe a URM that could help us reach our goals for this year." That's just not a great bet to make. They might look at their waitlist for a URM first to meet that goal, depending on how many seats they have to fill and how far they are from that goal. (Of course, also keep in mind that they also have other goals - LSAT and GPA, diversity of experience/age, socio-economic diversity, geographic diversity etc., so its not as simple as URM vs non-URM).

Also, I could be just be out of the loop, but I've yet to see anything about AA negatively affecting certain applicants like you see in undergrad admissions. (I'm thinking specifically of Asian minorities at top-tier schools). I'm not sure if the effect isn't as pronounced or if its just a topic people avoid, but it seems like the effect in undergrad admissions is a lot more debated than in law school admissions.

June/August 2021 is definitely realistic, especially so if you are doing prep full-time.

I went from 150 to 177 over 7 months of prep. I did 3 months of lax prep while in school (2-3 hours a week, just learning the basics). Then 4 months of intensive prep (15 - 25 hours a week doing PTs, timed sections, and lots of untimed drilling). When it was all said and done, I'd taken 31 PTs, and dissected at least 5 (for timed sections).

You'll definitely want a consistent -0 on LG for a 175+ though, so don't shy away from more prep there. I'd also warn you about fatigue, especially as you start seeing longer score plateaus the higher you go. Don't be afraid to take a week off. You'll come back to lower score, but that is only temporary.

I did this when I hit 169 and saw my scoring plateaus go from 3-5 tests to 7+ tests. I came back from my break to a lower PT for my next two tests, but then broke through that plateau with a 5 point increase. The LSAT takes a lot of focus and energy and sometimes you just need a fresh set of eyes.

I think @ kind of hit the nail in the head. I would add though that experts (spivy/powerscore/anna ivey) are saying that there is a score bubble at the very top. Powerscore’s podcast talks about this a lot but: the Flex is literally made of sections from (normal length) LSAT undisclosed tests. So the questions themselves aren’t inherently easier, and it would seem the scale shouldn’t be either. It could be that the scale is creating the score bubble at the very top, but it could also be that the pandemic has given ppl more time to study (i think this was the case for me), or it could be that the testing environment (home) is benefiting a significant number if people. Theres also the possibility that endurance is the reason. You have two less sections to work on. The counter argument here though would be that each question counts for more. Long story short, no has a clue. Maybe we’ll know by the end of this cycle.

The same exact thing happens to me, especially when im over-caffeinated. What helps me is trying to visualize the short passages as best I can when reading them. I also mouth the words in a sort of almost-whisper to myself. I could not tell you why this works for me, but 90% of the time it did.

Burnout is a real thing. I was in a similar spot not too long ago. I was plateauing at 169 (so hard in-fact that the consistency was infuriating). I thought that the obvious solution was more drilling and PTs but it didnt work. Then I was watched an LSAT tutor on my prep course talk about excessively long score plateaus often being a sign of burnout. I gave my self a full week away from LSAT prep and came back to a lighter work load. All of a sudden I was hitting 175s and 176s.

Logic Games would be the easiest to improve. I would suggest doing 5 a day monday-friday (maybe give yourself wednesday off tho). But each day focus on a specific Logic Game type. (By order of importance: 1. Linear games 2. Distribution/Grouping games 3. Multi-Linear 4. In-Out).

I probably started at a -20something PT on LG and did this to get to -2 to -0. My advice for the other sections would be more of the same. At 144 and 158, I would focus more on drilling than taking PTs. Break down each section into its question types and drill, drill, drill. I would take 2 maybe 3 PTs a month max until you get close to160.

Also, don’t time yourself. You’ll have plenty of time to do that later. Just really focus on understanding and accuracy. I feel like a common mistake people make in LSAT prepping is that they time themselves too soon. The learning phase of prepping, for me, is the most crucial.

drop the link pls

I would pick out a few easy questions from old PTs. (maybe a logic game, 3 or 4 LR questions and an easy reading comp passage). I would do that a few hours before my test as a warm up and a confidence boost.

For tonight just do something relaxing and try to take your mind off of it. Watch a favorite movie and crack open a cold one.