Hi all,

I feel so honored being able to finally make a post like this but damn does it feel good!

I got my score back from the October Asia test today and got a 174!

This is my personal best. I scored a 164 on the June test and had several 169s and one 173. Looks like I peaked on test day!

I never took a true diagnostic but scored a 153 untimed when I took the June 2007 test before beginning my journey. Guessing it would’ve been in the 140s timed?

I have so many people to thank for supporting me, but I especially want to give a big shout out to:

@"Lucas Carter" @"Cant Get Right", Rav, Alex divine, Jon Denning from powerscore, Ellen Cassidy from Loophole, and the Jedi master himself, JY

This community has been so supportive and helpful throughout my 1.5 year journey. I’ve met so many wonderful people. I really couldn’t have done it without the 7sage community!

Some tips and info for posterity:

I used 7sage and the Loophole for my prep. The LSAT trainer did not help me that much. I think combining the Loophole and 7sage methods helped me get to -1/-2 averages on LR, sometimes even -0.

@"Cant Get Right" method on skipping and moving on when you hit a certain expected value prediction helped me limit time wasted.

reviewing the common flaws daily on quizlet, with LSAT question examples, helped me quickly identify flaws and not waste any time

doing half a section of timed LR sections daily, from sections I have already done (odd questions one day then even questions the next) helped drill pacing, skipping, and my LR approach.

deep dive BR and then thoroughly reviewing, setting questions I just didn’t really get aside in a binder and then revisiting until I got them

practicing translating RC passages into my own words and then being very strict with my POE process in the questions: eliminate inaccurate ACs and picking the ones that required the least assumptions

repeating “be sensitive to the support” as a mantra on every LR question so that I would stay disciplined and attack the gap rather than the premises or conclusions

Lastly, worry about getting good before getting fast!

Best of luck everyone!

The Real Mike Ross

Hello everyone,

I hope you're all well. I know that many of you are either in the midst of LSAT prep or gearing up to go to law school. This is a wonderful community and I'm writing this post, "what I wish I knew before law school" to share some insight about what lies ahead. Wherever you are on your journey, I hope it gives you valuable perspective about what you are going into or working towards. My objective is to offer you the perspective I wish I had so that you can make more informed decisions in the coming months.

A little about me: I'm a rising 2L at Harvard Law School currently spending my Summer in BigLaw. I'm also an LSAT tutor and primarily teach LR and RC. I took the LSAT twice and scored a 164 (July, 2019) and 174 (October Asia, 2019). You can read more about my LSAT journey on this post here: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/21717/140s-to174-thank-you-7sage. The focus of this post will be for rising 1Ls and anyone who is generally interested about what 1L is like.

Who is this post for?

What I wish I knew and a collection of thoughts:

1. The shock of the transition: Law school is very hard. This is what JY says at the start of the core curriculum and it's absolutely the case ('the LSAT is hard and Law school is harder'). I really feel the need to stress this because I wish I had a better idea before 1L. Even though I knew on some abstract level that it was going to be a challenge, I didn't really understand how challenging it was going to be until it began. I'm starting with this because I think many of the posts about this subject tend to be so optimistic that they fail to mention about these moments. The transition from 'yay i'm so excited about law school' to 'omg I'm actually doing it and I have no idea what is happening' felt so sudden and shocking to me that I can only compare it to being thrown into the deep end of the pool and frantically trying to stay above water. I seriously questioned whether or not I had made a mistake on day 2. Everyone around me seemed far cooler and more prepared and I couldn't even remember the names of cases and even high level details. You'll find yourself in this moment I've just described in the first few weeks of law school. It can be very isolating when you think you're the only one experiencing the dread, the shock and the initial fear but let me assure you: everyone is going to be experiencing the shock and varying levels of self-doubt. You are not the only one and know that you'll eventually find your way.

2. The pace of 1L is unrelenting. In fact, it feels like it was designed to be impossible. I wish I could say something like it’s a marathon not a sprint but to me, it really felt like a dead sprint to the end. And then you'll have journal write-on competitions right after your last final. (lol wtf?).

A. You have a shit ton of reading for your classes and it takes much longer than you think. @"Cant Get Right" once told me that law school reading is like "drinking out of a firehose" and I believe that's the best description I've heard. Please be sure to start early with the readings and budget more time than you expect because if you fall behind it can be damn near impossible to catch up. This is the case because in the beginning you just have no idea what you're supposed to prioritize or how to read and digest cases. You end up reading ultra closely because it's so difficult, but you have so much to go over so you end up spending a lot of time on some readings and not so much on others. In class, the professor cold calls a student and asks about details she (and everyone else) didn't realize were important so she flubs the cold call (or some combination of going blank at the very moment she is cold called). Then everyone else freaks out because they realize "shit I'm supposed to know that?" and spend even more time reading so that they will be more prepared for cold calls in the future. My advice is to invest in Quimbee and read the case summaries––facts, holding, reasoning––before you start so you at least have context about where the case is heading. Apart from this, knowing what matters when reading cases will take time but you'll eventually get it. Also, COLD CALLS ARE NOT GRADED. Nobody remembers a bad cold call because they are too busy worrying about being called next.

B. You are learning a new language (the law) and yet expected to also hone, interpret and analyze it at a high level of fluency. Frequently, I found myself reading and re-reading the same paragraph 5 times and not knowing what in the world I just read. It's english. It's right in front of me. But I had no idea what the combination of words meant. You'll also come across latin terms that you've never encountered before like sua sponte, de novo, lex loci delicti, infra, intra, etc.  My advice for this is to immediately google it and get the definition. It will save you time. Don't think you can just read on and infer the meaning based on context. You can't. These are usually procedural terms with very esoteric meanings and you simply have no context to understand before law school. Next, take a deep breath and believe me when I say: the best and most fruitful work comes AFTER class and during review.  My advice is to pick ONE study partner (some people do well in study groups but I personally felt it had diminishing returns) and hold each other accountable. Pick a time slot in the week that you dedicate to reviewing a single course's concepts from the week and stick to it. In between these sessions, stay after class, go to office hours, take the time to clarify points of confusion with professors and then quickly review and consolidate your notes. Over time, these notes will become your course outline. Repeat for the other courses for different time slots. Doing this steadily throughout the semester will help you stay on track and save you a ton of grief and time for finals.  Get over the embarrassment of asking questions because everyone is just as confused and will thank you for it. Personally, this is what I found most helpful. Once I started to see the benefits, I grew to accept the discomfort and confusion about the material before and during class because I realized that I would eventually understand it in review. You'll understand what I mean when you take Civil Procedure. Going from total confusion to eventually getting it felt like magic.

C. You're usually tasked with a legal research and writing project in the midst of everything I mentioned above (we had a 10-page legal memo in the fall and a 20-page legal brief in the Spring). To simplify, these projects require you to make an argument for legal questions usually about a fictional case you are assigned. To answer, you find relevant cases on westlaw or lexisnexis and make analogies to your case's facts to support your argument. I personally hated these projects (but maybe future litigators here will find it more bearable). They take up so much time and you'll find yourself going down rabbit holes that lead to dead ends but don't worry, you'll get there eventually. In between all the reading and review sessions, these assignments made keeping up with everything unmanageable. But that's just how things are going to be. It's difficult to appreciate how much work I've described so far until you're in the midst of it. Looking back, I can't fathom how I got through all of it but I did and so did generations of law students before me. My advice is to quickly accept that legal writing is completely different from what you are used to in college essay writing but it's formulaic and you will learn how to do it. It will take longer than you think so dont beat yourself up when it seems like what should only take 3 hours turns into an all-day affair. Budget your time accordingly and remember that it takes time because you're learning a totally new skill! Take this very seriously because much of the work you are given as a summer associate involves legal research and writing. Let me tell you, when you're dealing with a real case, the stakes are much higher and your work will feel more meaningful.

D. I never felt like I was introduced to concepts throughout 1L. Rather, I always felt like I was suddenly in the thick of it and professors were using terms as if I was just expected to know them, learn them on my own, or just keep up. I'm not sure if it was just an HLS thing but my sense is it's the same everywhere because there's just too much to go through. I also think professors have taught the same things for so long that they have forgotten how it felt like to be 1Ls. In any case, I'm telling you this because you'll find yourself experiencing everything above and your first instinct will probably be to question and doubt yourself. Then the toxic self-talk will settle in and if you don't check that early, it could devolve into something worse. If this post scares you, I think it's a good thing. It's really important to know what you are getting into, if only so you know what to expect mentally and emotionally. Many of us here are super type A and used to keeping on top of things, but know that it can feel impossible to do so and it's often the case that something always has to give. Just make sure that you are making the trade-offs wisely. Speaking of trade-offs...

3. You're going to have to make some trade-offs. After reading everything above, I hope you get the sense that you will always be busy throughout 1L. There are always several competing priorities, not to mention things happening outside of school and life that are also competing for your time and energy. On this note, I advise you to take care of as many things you know are important before law school starts. This can include seeing your doctor, all your annual health check-ups, budgeting, etc. The goal is to minimize these competing priorities. During the school year, trade-offs can mean many things. You may prioritize preparing for the courses you believe you can excel at but you never want to do it at the cost of totally give up on another course. Don't put too many eggs in one basket. Or maybe you start cutting back on sleep, hobbies, and even exercise to keep up. I know this sounds extreme but it happened all the time during 1L. Sometimes you dont have a choice but in my experience, not getting enough sleep wasn't a sacrifice worth making. You'll find that you read more efficiently when you are well-rested than not. I also think that you have to pay attention to your body. If you simply aren't retaining or processing information after a certain point at night, there's nothing to gain if you keep going. Best to just call it a night. 

4. The only thing that matters is your final exam. Seriously. So, understand that this is what you are working towards, not to be the star of cold calls! Remember what I said about being cold called on details you didn't think were important? They usually aren't important for exams. In exams you typically only need to know the holding for the specific cases. I'll try to give my best explanation for what to expect but exams are typically composed of issue-spotters and sometimes policy questions. Issue-spotters are fact patterns you are expected to diagnose and analyze for possible causes of action that may be brought, defenses and the likelihood of success on each. Sometimes they can involve the application of procedural arguments that can affect which actions can be brought and in which jurisdiction (Civ Pro, Torts, and Crim usually).  Policy questions are usually short-essay questions involving how aspects of the law advantage/disadvantage certain groups of people and how you might change it. You would answer both of these question types essay-style and I recommend taking as many PTs as you can to practice honing your writing style and organizing your answers. I should also say that these exams tend to be comprehensive, or at least cover a large majority of the material over the semester. Doing well therefore requires a comprehensive understanding of the course and how to apply the concepts you are taught. This is also why I didn't think that having a social science or humanities undergraduate background necessarily helped that much. The reason is most students with these majors write long, well-polished essays that made up most of their grades in college. For such essays, you didn't necessarily need to have a complete grasp over everything in the course. Rather, it was possible to answer the essay question with depth and ignore entire areas of a course. You can't do that on a law school final. You really need to know how the pieces all come together BUT this is quite difficult to do until the end of the course. I've mentioned some reasons above but another reason is you are usually learning components of the course week by week and at that time, you're so engrossed in the details of specific topics that you cannot see the forest but only the trees. It's usually only at the end that you get to see how the whole course comes together and realize what it is you're supposed to do. This is why you'll be feeling a lot of discomfort and confusion throughout the whole semester. Looking back, I think Law school felt a lot like watching the Witcher. Nothing seemed to make any sense because we were taught so many seemingly incongruent concepts but they eventually fall into place. I wont spoil the series for anyone that plans to watch it but I think anyone who stuck with the series after several episodes will know what I mean. In any case, let me assure you that this means it's highly unlikely to feel like you are on top of things until the end. For me, things only started to come together during finals week after taking several PTs. So, my advice for preparing for exams is to gather as many past PTs as you can get for your professor's class. Pick out an older exam and look at it 4 weeks into law school (no need to take the whole exam--you wont be ready for it) and read the questions and skim the fact pattern so you get a sense of what your professor wants. This will help you develop a study direction. Then plan to take PTs after you are done outlining at the end of the course. It's probably not that important to simulate full exams because there isn't enough time to do so. I found that simply outlining answers was enough. Then check your exam answers against example answers your professor gives you or if there are past exams on a database and modify your outline accordingly.

5. What are outlines? There are two kinds of outlines: Study outlines and Attack outlines. Study outlines are what you use to learn and review the material throughout the semester. There are usually outline banks with great outlines created by previous students that are available on a database in your law school. I highly encourage you to download a few at the start of the semester and then decide which ones to stick with. Some people would take notes in those outlines. I personally preferred to take my notes separately.  Either way, you'll have to consolidate a combination of the outline notes and your own notes. The goal is to eventually make this other student's outline into "yours" as you rearrange it and use language more familiar to you. You will need to know where to look to find relevant sections etc. Attack outlines are outlines you develop for taking the exam. While study outlines can be over 100 pages, these are typically far shorter and contain all the relevant guidelines/templates you create for answering the exam question. These would include things like a prima facie case for assault, what differentiates a murder from voluntary or involuntary manslaughter etc... or flowcharts for determining personal jurisdiction etc. I personally found the outlining process to be very helpful for reviewing course material and getting ready for the exam. Just dont forget that you should budget enough time to take as many exams as you can. Your attack outline typically gets more useful with each past exam you take and review. 

6. Take moments to unplug. Everything I said above seems to suggest that you will be going hard all the time. That's not the case. You will definitely find some moments of reprieve and even if you don't, sometimes you have to make time for it. We all have needs and there is no reason to neglect them. Recognize that if you don't take the time to fill your cup, unwind and rest your mind, you'll suffer burnout. If that means rewarding yourself with netflix within reason, do it! You can definitely budget time to do fun things and see your friends. Always pay attention to your body. Practice good sleep discipline and organize your study and reading sessions around the times you are most productive. Exercise and eat healthy.

7. Please remember that you are in a community that is much smaller than you think. One of the unfortunate things about law school is that everyone is in competition with each other and you are graded on a curve. A professor told us: "many of you have always been in the top 10% of your class. For the first time, 90% of you won't be at the end of the semester." When you put the most type A people together in the same room, you can imagine that things can get pretty toxic. Everyone has heard of stories and anecdotes so there's no need to mention them here. I'm very lucky to share that I had a very positive experience in my section but nevertheless, I say all this because this is only 1 year of your life and how you treat your classmates can have career-long consequences you don't foresee. Even though you are competing with your classmates, you can choose to make it a more positive experience for everyone. People remember how you treat them. If you decide to do some shady shit or repeatedly let your classmates/study partners down, they will remember that. Know that one of the most valuable things you can get out of your law school experience is your professional network. Your current classmates are your future colleagues. So don't be an asshole. It's not worth it.

8. You are at a professional school. Act like it. In law school, you'll have classmates older and younger than you. Personally, I didn't notice much of a gap between the older and younger students but there was an exception: KJDs. They often said things and behaved in ways that showed a complete lack of self-awareness and maturity. This was probably because they lacked professional work experience and believed that law school was simply an extension of the undergraduate culture they were used to. This is not to say that KJDs always behaved in these ways or that only KJDs made these mistakes. But my observation was that it happened to them more often because a lack of experience sometimes made them unaware of certain things. Whether or not this applies to you, my best advice is to remember you are among your future colleagues. Think before you act. Think twice before you make that post in groupme and what it signals to everyone around you. Exercise some situational awareness and be sensitive to your audience, especially when it comes to politics, religion, etc. Ask any HLS student and they can tell you about the classmate who commented a little too much about last Summer's protests in groupme (however well-intentioned) and got sidelined hard by many of the students. I don't mean to say that you should self-censor but know that presentation matters and how you carry yourself sends positive or negative signals. In law school, you'll be talking about all kinds of difficult subjects that people have strong opinions about so consider your presentation before speaking up.

9. On another note: if you are a KJD contemplating whether you should get some work experience before law school, I highly recommend it. Know that law school isn't going away any time soon. There is simply no hurry to rush into this. Working for a few years before law school is beneficial in many ways. It gives you a better perspective the decisions you make for your career, clarifies your legal interests, and generally helps you build professional and emotional maturity. I also think it gives you a boost in admissions and perhaps more time to study for the LSAT.

Finally, if there's only one thing to take away here, I want to assure you that you are capable of getting through law school successfully. So many of you take the LSAT very seriously. That's why you come to the discussion forum and read about posts to get advice and encouragement for your journey. You are all already very conscientious and if you apply the same energy and seriousness to law school, you'll do just fine. Yes it will be challenging and the learning curve will be steep, but the discipline you develop from LSAT prep will serve you well in the year ahead. Again, my goal is to give you the perspectives I wish I had. I hope it helps you navigate the exciting journey ahead!

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions. Happy to help anyone just as so many have helped me.

Hi all,

It’s taken a few weeks for the news to settle in, but just wanted to share this wonderful piece of news. A few weeks ago, I learned that I got accepted to Columbia on a full tuition Hamilton scholarship!!

I never imagined such a possibility before I submitted my apps and I certainly never thought I’d get into a school like Columbia when I began my journey here at 7sage but here I am with this awesome piece of news and I am so grateful for all the help I got along the way from this community

Special shoutout to @"Lucas Carter" @"Cant Get Right" Rav, Alex Divine and many more

Most importantly, I’m sharing because I know many of you are right where I was at one point in my prep: dreading the score result of your PT after your Blind Review, reading another success story and wondering when your turn will come, wondering whether this journey is going to turn out the way you hope, fearing if you’ll ever get LG, etc etc

I just want to share some encouragement here: keep going! It’s totally worth it!

For perspective:

I invested about $5000 total on LSAT prep (programs/books/tutors/travel/lodging)

With this Columbia scholarship alone ($200,000 plus) I’ve effectively made a 4000% return. I get to attend a T6 tuition free!

So if you’re deliberating about whether or not to get a tutor, whether you should spend that extra $X to stay the night in a hotel before your LSAT instead of getting up an hour earlier to drive, ultimate+ or starter? reflect on the long term returns. Treat your LSAT prep as a long term investment!

If anyone is interested in learning about my journey, I’ve shared tips and advise in the past (check my post history)

If I can sum it all here, I’d say: worry about getting good before getting fast

And:

TRUST THE PROCESS

7sage and this community is all you need!

Best of luck everyone and feel free to PM me anytime!

Hi All,

(have asked some of you about this and want to crowdsource to maximize feedback)

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on whether it's a good idea to foolproof LG and drill LR/RC at the same time?

I'm a strong believer in Foolproofing. It definitely works. However, I've read that many people devote 1 - 2 months to exclusively working on Foolproofing during the process. It seems counterintuitive to me to leave LR/RC to the side, especially if one plans to take the test in June.

I'm thinking of FP-ing LG sections in the mornings and taking 1 full timed LR or RC sections plus Blind Review in the evening each day. Obviously, I could also spread out the sections and not religiously stick to 1 per day. Anyway, this is just an idea to make sure I don't lose touch with the other 2 sections while working on Foolproofing

Does anyone have any insight to offer about why I should/shouldn't do this? Or advice for study-schedule planning, methods, etc?

Thanks in advance!

Hello everyone,

Some 7sagers have requested we host another skipping strategy seminar because they either missed the first session or because they have follow up questions from the first

So, @"Cant Get Right" and I are going to host another session on Saturday, April 25th at 7:30pm EST

We are going to do a deeper dive this time

As these things work a lot better when we know what to go into detail about ahead of time, please post your questions on this thread so we can tailor accordingly

This would also help other potential attendees know what to expect

If you're seeing this for the first time and wondering what it is, you can find out more:

a) about skipping strategy and specifically about what worked for me here:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/21717/140s-to174-thank-you-7sage

b) questions following the first webinar:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/22869/saturday-april-11-7-30pm-est-lr-skipping-webinar

ZOOM WEBINAR LINK: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/5033908804

Hope to see you there again!

Hello friends,

I was planning to take the LSATs in September/November but as it seems, plans have changed.

I received an amazing job opportunity that I cannot pass up, however I don’t want to give up on the law school dream. I had been studying diligently for 6 months and would like to keep going if possible. The difference is, the pressure and intensity is no longer there. I’m not really sure if this is good or bad yet..

Anyway, I’m reaching out for advice regarding what a long-term study plan with no foreseeable test date in mind look like?

I suspect many of us were in the opposite scenario where we planned to take a test by a certain date but found that we needed more time to study. I now find myself in a situation where I have no end date in mind and have limited time per day to study over an undetermined period.

I might take the LSATs in a year, 2 years, no idea. Or of course some of you might just suggest I keep going now and take the test in November or March anyway.

How do I stay sharp when my study schedule is now so spread out over time? How do you stay motivated with no clear objective test date? What would you recommend for someone worried about spreading out the study process so that by the time I learn X, I would have forgotten about Y because it was months ago? Sometimes, it seems like the LSAT prep prices requires an all out effort or I shouldn’t waste my time.

I’m hoping that those of you who studied for over 1-2 years can share some advice about what worked well and not so well. Thoughts on a study schedule, etc

Any feedback would be appreciated!

Thanks in advance!

Hello everyone

Apologies for spamming the forum with all these posts but..

JUST SO EXCITED TO SHARE THAT I GOT INTO HARVARD LAW SCHOOL!!!!

I got the call this morning and still feel like I’m in a dream. I’m over the moon!

This is quite possibly the second best price of news I’ve ever received. Yes because getting my dream LSAT score was definitely still more exciting because this wouldn’t have been possible without it... if I’m being totally honest.

Anyway, my thoughts about LSAT prep still remains the same, and even reinforced further with this amazing piece of news: Everything is worth it in the end!!!

You’ll see stories like this all the time here on 7sage. Why do so many of us take the time to share our joy here with the rest? It’s because this community is so strong, and the support we’ve received from each other along the way helps make these dreams a reality

I’m just happy that I’m getting to live my American Dream

Keep grinding!

Hi fellas,

I’ve been studying for the paper version of the LSAT and have very used to certain notation strategies for RC and LR that unfortunately cannot be done on the digital LSAC. I’m sure a lot of people are in this same boat

I’m starting this thread to ask: how are you adapting? What notation strategy do you find most intuitive?

I’ve tried: highlighting the conclusion with yellow. Underlining premises.

Nothing beats being able to circle indicators etc and drawing them back to important points though. And still can’t figure it out for RC.

Anyway, what has worked best for you? Hopefully, our collective sharing of strategies might be able help each other work through the transition!

Hello all,

Anyone here planning to take the test in Singapore on Oct 13? Am thinking of doing so myself and would love to study together if you are in Singapore!

Hi All,

I had the chance to do an LR question again for a recent tutoring session and noticed a few things that could be helpful for your prep. One question I find a lot of students asking me is, "What do I do if I don't see the flaw?" Let's use this FLAW question as a model for possible approaches. (Try doing it on your own if you haven't. The answer is below)

PT 59 S3 20:

P: the lightest moths with the greatest contrast were most likely to be eaten

C: therefore, the darkest moths were least likely to be eaten

At first glance, the argument looks solid. If you're like me and don't know much about moths, you probably thought, "ok yeah of course dark moths would be more likely to survive than light moths...what's the issue? obviously, there's something I'm missing here."

It'd be great if you can immediately diagnose the flaw (authors assumes a false dichotomy). But what do you do if you can't see the flaw? You gotta find ways to finesse!

Let me suggest how:

(1) Start with the big picture: Focus on improving your comprehension of the argument by simplifying it into your own words. The battle is always won in the stimulus, and an argument is always a conclusion being supported by premises. Make sure you get to the core of it.

(2) Zoom in on the details: Next, look to the descriptor words and consider what is being compared to get your clues. At least for this particular question, ​the author is comparing the Darkest/Lightest moths, with the Greatest contrast, and arguing which among them is Most/Least likely to be eaten.

These words indicate extremes--colors and probabilities. Hmm...if there is a darkest/lightest, then there has to be varying degrees of color in between, right?" HA I see it now! Before, I assumed that there was a dichotomy between ​dark vs light moths. Now I realize, oh! there has to be a spectrum between the darkest to lightest! There must to be moths of varying degrees of darkness and lightness in between. Perhaps grey shaded moths have higher rates of survival! Got it.

And that's why D is the answer.

How did we get here? We started with the big picture, zoomed in to the details, and focused on the most relevant parts of the argument to improve our comprehension, then found clues that led us to the flaw.

I hope this helps you find new steps to take next time you're stuck wondering what to do next!

Hi Everyone,

I started my LSAT prep with the LSAT Trainer and it's been a tremendous help. Over the course of doing drills and searching for explanations for correct answers online, I eventually came across 7Sage and found this awesome resource!

Many of you in the community seem to advocate for pairing the Trainer and 7Sage together. I def concur.

However, as I've been going through the CC, it seems JY recommends learning with material pre PT36 and then taking PTs for the next 50 plus LSATs.

My question is, Mike Kim's drills mostly come from PTs 52-60. If I drill with those, then technically, I would lose those 'PT opportunities' that JY recommends. Obviously, PTs are very precious and I don't want to waste them. But I'm also of the belief that there's no reason to start taking full PTs until I develop a solid enough understanding.

Did any of you run into this dilemma? How did you decide to navigate and what would you recommend I do?

FYI: I'm taking the test in June '18 so I still have 22 weeksish to go. Was planning to learn for a few more weeks then drill/PTs for the last 16 weeks or so.

Thanks in advance!!

Hello everyone,

Hope you're finding a way to maximize your LSAT prep in quarantine!

Just wanted to share that @"Cant Get Right" and I will be hosting a webinar on skipping strategy this

Saturday, April 11th at 7:30pm EST

Several of you have been asking about skipping strategy and specifically about what worked for me here:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/21717/140s-to174-thank-you-7sage

@"Cant Get Right" was my tutor when I was grinding and learning how to apply this skipping strategy was key to maintaining a consistent score range in LR

If you're interested in learning what it is, we'd love to tell you about it!

We're in the midst of preparing for the webinar and will be sharing the link soon.

Hope to see you there!

EDIT:

ZOOM LINK: https://zoom.us/j/5033908804

Hello good people,

I've been receiving lots of PMs here and on reddit asking more details about the things I posted. Now that the shock has worn off, I'm going to take the time to give back and share some of the things I considered 'game-changers' in my prep. Hopefully it will help you too!

Today I'm going to share a conceptual framework for analyzing arguments. I believe this helped me limit LR mistakes and go -1/-2 sometimes -0 consistently. How? it helped me get the question types below correct most of the time, and it saved me time I would have otherwise wasted deliberating between wrong ACs and still got them wrong anyway––time I used to get to the other questions I would've otherwise never got to.

It is particularly useful for STRENGTHEN/WEAKEN/NECESSARY ASSUMPTION/SUFFICIENT ASSUMPTION questions (all the fun ones!)

Here is it:

Traditionally on 7sage, we look at arguments from the 'vertical' model:

A––>B

A

–––

B

As I progressed on my prep journey, I started to also look at arguments as such:

1 + 1 = 2

(Math? what the hell?!?!) stay with me!

As we know, arguments are PREMISES ––> CONCLUSION.

The mistake we commonly make however, is to attack the premises or the conclusion. That's what we do in day to day conversations. These are the type of LSAT errors that are so frustrating because you know they're wrong, but you're stuck between 2 ACs and you decided to go with the one that 'seemed right' but deep down, you knew something was off.

So, let's look at it again.

1 + 1 = 2

When you are asked to analyze an argument, you NEVER attack the 1s or the 2. Those are the premises and conclusion.

Rather, you attack the = sign. That is the support

In LR, i'm constantly telling myself, "BE SENSITIVE TO THE SUPPORT [STRUCTURE]" so I stay disciplined and stick to what the question type demands of me by addressing the = accordingly.

Let's run through the types:

WEAKEN

Task: you pick an AC that weakens the support [the = sign]

Approach: So you look for an AC that adds a -1

1 + 1 (-1) =/= 2

Great! you just weakened the argument!

STRENGTHEN

Task: you pick an AC that strengthens the support [the = sign] In other words, you further affirm the equation-relationship or block premises that undermine the 'equation'

Approach: You look for an AC that blocks a potential weakener, a (-1), or you look for an AC that further affirms the relationship like a (+1)

1 + 1 (+1) = 2 (or more––so it affirms this relationship)

or you see that -1? yeah that's not applicable like -(-1) which is: 1

Great! you just strengthened the argument!

NECESSARY ASSUMPTION

Task: you pick an AC that the equation (=) NEEDS to remain 1 + 1 = 2.

Approach: Find an AC that enables the equation to hold. How? by blocking competing premises that would subtract from your premises (1+1) and destroy equation's ability to = 2

These are similar to how you do STRENGTHEN, and it's something the Ellen's LOOPHOLE really made clear to me

If I made an argument like:

"X washing machines are better than Y washing machines, because X washing machines dissolve soap detergent faster than Y washing machines"

A loophole would be something like: "wait, what if the rate at which washing machines dissolve soap doesn't matter in evaluating the quality of a washing machine?"

a NECESSARY ASSUMPTION blocks this by saying: it's not the case that (the rate at which washing machines dissolve soap doesn't matter in evaluating the quality of a washing machine) OR it matters.

Back to our equation:

"what if -1?"

and you negate it so: -(-1). which is 1. so the equation remains protected.

But hold on! what about the negation test? simple. If you applied a NEGATION to your AC, the -(-1) or just 1, what do you get? a -1

which is: 1 + 1 (-1) =/= 2 which destroys the argument

Great! you just found the NECESSARY ASSUMPTION!

SUFFICIENT ASSUMPTION

Task: you pick an AC that ensures the equation (=) works

Approach: You look for an AC that is sufficient to make the premises = conclusion

Say you are given

1 ____ = 2

You need a: (+ 1) so 1 +1 = 2

Great! you just found the SUFFICIENT ASSUMPTION

Notice how we NEVER consider poking holes in the premises (1s) or the conclusion (2). Rather we ALWAYS address the SUPPORT (=)

Why so abstract? because if you can see pass the details and understand what you are being asked to do on a simple abstract level, you can sift through the often confusingly-worded ACs and find the right AC confidently and quickly.

Also, are you starting to see how all LR questions are really just similar versions of each other? it's how you can easily turn a weakening question into strengthen, into an NA, or flaw, easily.

I hope this was helpful!

Feel free to PM me if needed!

The Real Mike Ross

Hello all,

Here’s another round of unsolicited advice for what I wish I knew before law school: BigLaw recruiting edition.

For most law students, Biglaw hiring begins the summer after 1L. I get inquires almost every week about this (and especially during this time of the year). So, in an effort to demystify the process, I’ve decided to give you a behind the scenes look so that you know what to expect, or potentially what you’re even working towards with LSAT prep.

This post is for:

It will cover:

First, a little about me:

Im a rising 3L at Harvard Law School and a summer corporate associate at an NYC V20 BigLaw firm. I went through this cycle last Summer and got offers from firms in the V5-V20. Im also an LSAT tutor and big 7sage fan.

If you’re interested, you can read more about:

My LSAT Journey with 7sage and resources I used: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/21717/140s-to174-thank-you-7sage

Some of my tips for LR: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/21757/a-conceptual-framework-for-finding-the-right-answers-for-lr-question-types-quickly-1-1-2

What I wish I knew before 1L: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/29336/what-i-wish-i-knew-before-1l-reflections-from-a-harvard-law-student

Important factors for recruitment:

Before I begin, I do want to acknowledge that my experiences may be different compared to students in other law schools. Nevertheless I’ve compared notes with many peers from other law schools and everything I mention from here on is a reflection of the generalized feedback I’ve received. I think that if you’re at/headed to a T14 and interested in BigLaw, everything below will be true for the most part. Nevertheless, treat what I mention here as additional data points as you do your own research. Ok let’s get to it!

What to expect in the recruitment cycle:

Most schools call this process “OCIs” short for “On Campus Interviews” A typical cycle takes place over 3 steps: 1) screener stage; 2) Callback stage; 3) Offer and decision making

Screeners are exactly what they sound like. They’re short and meant to give firms an idea about whether they want to invite a candidate to the callback stage for longer conversations with other lawyers. Screeners are typically 10-20 mins. They’ll look at your grades and ask you basic questions like “why are you interested in our firm? What area of the law are you most interested in?” And of course other resume specific questions. You may be interviewed by 1 or 2 lawyers. Keep in mind that interviewers are going to be speaking to 30+ candidates that day so this the place to make the best impression you can. It’s mostly a matter of having a clear narrative for your where you’ve been and where you want to be eventually and why this firm makes sense. This is also the only stage where your grades may matter (more on that below). At the end of the day, the interviewers decide who they want to invite to callbacks, the final round of interviews.

If this is a school organized event, it’s likely you’ll have several screeeners a day. I’ve had as many as 5 and I know others who have had more. They can get really tiring and start to meld together but it’s important you remind yourself which firm you’re interviewing with before the interviews and have some notes ready to prep.

Callbacks are the final round of interviews. At this stage, you’re going to have longer conversations with several interviewers. 4-6 back to back, typically 20-30 mins each. So, that means possibly 2.5-3 hours of interviews. It may be helpful to have coffee ready to hand or whatever will help you keep your energy levels high and remain engaged in every interview.

You’ll likely interview with lawyers from the practice areas you identified as areas of interest and usually a combination of associates and partners who will each evaluate you based on fit, culture, whether you’ll be a person others at the firm will want to work with. Your goal at this stage is to communicate at greater depth what your legal interests are and why you’re interested in the firm. But perhaps more importantly, your interviewers want to know if you’ll be a colleague they can depend on and enjoy being around. You’ll all be working long hours together after all! Be ready to speak about your reasons and your resume in more detail. I also found it really interesting that some firms have particular traits they ask each interviewer to evaluate for across the callbacks. (E.g resilience, communication, leadership, etc). It’s also helpful to have several questions ready because your interviewers may be tired and decide to leave it to you to direct the conversation much earlier than expected. It happens and it’s important you know how to roll with it and keep it engaging.

Offer. Once you get through callbacks and didn’t throw up all over yourself, chances are you’re going to get an offer. It seemed to me that callbacks were basically soft offers and it was yours to lose.

Anyway, once you get an offer, you'll really feel special. Recruiters, partners and associates you interviewed with will reach out over the phone or on email to connect. They’ll offer to help you work through the decision making process and connect you with other colleagues who you can helps answer questions. They’ll likely even fly you out for more office visits, send you gifts, etc.

This is obviously the most fun part. It’s like all this time you were doing the courting and then the tables get turned and the firms start to court you. Nevertheless you should take the decision making process very seriously because you’ll want to pick a place that makes the best fit for you. But more on decision making later.

Recruiting Successfully

The most important factor for recruiting is definitely your grades. That’s why 1L is the most and probably only important year. You’re going to be graded on a curve and your exam performance is what law firms will use to assess where you fall in the pack. Is this fair? Not really IMO. We’re all taking litigation based classes and yet most of us end up in corporate law. But then again, the LSAT is barely relevant in law school. Welcome to the legal profession: it’s just an endless succession of gate keeping. But that’s just what it is so do your best to get the best grades possible and you’ll have more options.

If you’re at a T14—I should say that although they’re important, your grades probably matter less than you think. 1) Unless you’re going for some of the V5 firms (Cravath; Wachtell, Sullivan & Cromwell) or you’re dead set on litigation at a boutique firm, your grades aren’t necessarily the deciding factor much like your LSAT score. I say this knowing none of you will believe me. That’s fine. I didn’t believe any of the upperclassman who told me that too. But frankly, speaking from personal experience and comparing notes with several friends, you can still get offers from other V5/10/20/etc firms despite not having the best grades. (Frankly this is probably another reason why it can be worth taking the time to get the right LSAT score so that you get into the institutions that maximize your recruitment chances).

How you define this will vary from person to person of course but just trust me when I say, there are other ways to stand out. That said, if you don’t have the best grades, you need to make sure you have great softs.

Further your grades stop mattering after the screener stage. If you make it to callbacks, the firm has already decided your transcript is good enough and at the callback stage, you’re getting evaluated for other skills.

Having strong softs that speak to your professional background and legal aspirations help tremendously. They also likely give you something substantive to talk about in your screener and callback interviews. There’s only so much you can talk about with respect to which 1L class you enjoyed most. It makes sense. BigLaw Lawyers work horrendously long hours. On top of that, they’re expected to maintain a high level of excellence. Firms will want to know if you’re up for that kind of commitment. Anything that helps demonstrate that in a professional setting will help. This is why I think students with strong professional backgrounds tend to do better in recruitment, whether or not they have the grades. So if you don’t have the best grades, lean into this to find your advantages! Further you don’t really need to have a long answer for why you’re interested in particular practice areas. Lawyers recognize how little law school even prepares you for the practice of law. They just want to know you did you homework and gave a thoughtful assessment about what you’re interested in and why.

Interview skills & clear narrative for professional aspirations help a lot. As discussed screener interviews tend to be between 10-20 mins at most. That means a short time period to make the best impression. Being able to communicate your answers clearly and concisely therefore matters. To that end, having a narrative that ties your background and legal aspirations together helps tremendously. Your interests and reasons may not be unique but much like your personal statement, the way you communicate them through your story is. Your narrative is what makes you special so embrace it and make sure you know how to steer the conversation to your areas of strength and the topics you want the interview to cover. Remember, your interviewers at the screener stage is likely to hear many of the same kind of answers across over 30 candidates. The ones that stick out are the ones attached to memorable stories.

I would highly recommend practicing your answers in mock interviews with a friend or advisor but take care not to over rehearse.

Networking matters much more than you may think. If you have a good idea about which firms you want to work for, it wouldn’t hurt to set up information interviews with several lawyers at each firm. They give you the opportunity to practice your responses to the typical questions you can expect. They also help you meet the lawyers and give you an idea about the overall vibe of the firm you’re interested in. This is also an opportunity to collect more information about them that can help inform your answers at the interview stage. It’s always helpful if you can mention who you met at the firm and how that has further informed your interests, for example. It shows you did your homework etc.

Just take care to remember that firms take note of every interaction. That means every email correspondence and meeting. You want to make a good impression but not be over the top. Depending on the meeting, the lawyer could mention something positive or negative to recruiters. It’s certainly possible to get a callback invitation and skip the screener stage if you make the right impressions.

My advice is to practice some mock information interviews with classmates before you reach out to firms. You can ask recruiters to put you in touch with lawyers at the firm or reach out directly to alumni at the firm. If there aren’t alumni, just email an associate and ask about their work. In my experience, I’ve found that most people are happy to talk about themselves. It’s almost more important to ask good questions than to necessarily worry about what you’re saying.

Here are some resources I found helpful during recruitment:

Making your decision

Congrats! It’s a big deal you made it to this point and have offers to choose between. It’s difficult not to get dazzled by the big names, vault rankings and glamorous depictions. Some people end up choosing the highest ranked firm they get an offer from. Nevertheless, even if you ultimately decide in such a manner, you owe it to yourself to make an informed decision, not least because you’ve worked so hard to get here!

I think that this is more of an art than a sciences but there are general guidelines you can apply to the decision making process. It’ll likely come down to a gut decision but here are some considerations to make:

1. Location/geography

Ideally, you approach the recruiting process with an understanding of which cities you want to work in. Most people start here, and it makes sense. Pick the market you’re most likely going to live in. Firms will also want to know you are serious about the office you’re interviewing with. I’d avoid picking different offices to interview with at particular firms because it sends the message that you aren’t sure about which location.

Other location specific factors can include: does this office have the kind of work you want to do? Do you want to live in this city? What are the exit opportunities you can expect in this location? Cost of living concerns? Family/SO lives there.

2. What type of work?

This is probably the most difficult question to answer because let’s be real. Unless you have lawyer relatives or worked at a law firm before law school, you don’t really know what lawyers in particular practice areas even do, at least not beyond a theoretical idea. And that’s another reason you’ll want to have as many conversations with lawyers as possible, if nothing else then certainly to find out what the day to day is like.

There are 2 major camps: (1) Litigation [think: researching and crafting arguments for courtroom lawyering. Typically stuff that’s over glamorized by TV but you get the idea]; and (2) Transactional [think: contracts, term sheets, helping individuals and businesses facilitate commercial deals or what I call boardroom lawyering.] Within each camp are obviously multiple specialty areas. For example, a corporate lawyer may specifically practice mergers & acquisitions (M&A) which involves the buying and selling of companies or capital markets which involves helping companies go public.

It’s helpful to also ask about what kind of work junior, mid level and senior associates tend to do in particular practice areas so that you have an idea about what a trajectory looks like. Other things to consider include what kind of exit options lawyers in such practice areas tend to have.

It’s imperative that you do as much research as you can about practice areas you want to potentially work in and why so that it helps inform your understanding for what you might be interested in doing. This helps with interviewing of course but it helps you decide which firms you want to work for based on what they’re known for.

3. What type of industry?

Once you decide which practice areas you’re interested in, it may be helpful to also consider which industries you want to practice within. For example, you may want to be a start up lawyer that works closely with tech companies, or maybe you have a particular interest in intellectual property and you want to work with lifescience companies. There are many permutations. What’s important to note is that firms specialty practice areas can vary across industries and markets. For example, a firm may be particularly known for regulatory work, and their Texas office is particularly known for their energy practice. If you’re interested in the energy industry, you might have better career prospects there then NYC for example

4. What kind of client do you want to represent?

Once you decide on practice areas and industries, the next thing you might want to consider is who the players are in the spaces you’re interested in and which type of player you might want to represent. For example: you want to be an M&A lawyer. But there are buyers and sellers. Do you want to represent large public companies? Company founders? Private equity firms? venture capital firms and investors that take stakes in the companies? Banks that help finance deals?

This might be too specific to know but I think it’s important to consider because it’s one thing to know what practice areas firms are known for but quite another to know what type of clients they tend to represent. It can affect the type of working expectations, culture, and relationships you have.

There are many other factors you can consider in addition to what I’ve shared above of course, but these are usually the main considerations to start with. Once you get an offer, you should take advantage of the firm’s offer to put you in touch with more lawyers to have conversations about how to make a decision. This is your chance to ask more candid questions about their working schedules, the nature of the work, why they chose this firm, etc. You can also use these guidelines to inform your questions.

At the end of the day, trust your gut but also remember to do your homework so that you make the best decision for yourself! Lastly, remember that even if you don’t make the “right” choice, for whatever reason that may be, there’s always room to change your mind later.

That’s all for now! I hope you found this mini guide useful! I learned a lot from those that went before me and just wanted to do my part to pass it on! Feel free to comment, ask questions or DM me!

The Real Mike Ross