Thanks.

ONE. This ONE relates to law school applications/schools. My general top tips for LSAT taking is in the link in the OP and comments to questions there. If you have specifics, feel free to ask.

Beginning. Law school applications are heavy weighted on LSAT/GPA, as law school rankings are weighted the same. So, my starting tips relate to the applicant. Get those numbers as high as possible, even if that means setting ego aside and delaying a year to retake an LSAT. If you are still in school and it makes sense, think about taking more credits than needed to graduate, provided you anticipate As or A+s. Otherwise, it's a drop in the cumulative GPA bucket and not worth the added time/expense. Once that is done, I suggest thinking about a decently concrete idea of your application and cohesive story to sell yourself. In the meantime, I suggest contemplating whether taking a gap year to work on a passion unrelated to law or work in a different country just for the experience might suit you personally in your own growth and development.

Middle. My middle advice is to get interested in each particular school. Look at the substance of each school and how that relates to/can serve you. What are you interested in? Is it big law and $, autonomy/resources to run your own practice, what about owning a business unrelated to law, or maybe a law professor path? Answers to these will help guide you. It's fine to not know these answers. This part is difficult to know at the start of law school and is more on the uncommon side to be dead set on prior to applying. The gist is finding a place that you think would best suit the idea of the attorney you in the future. Then, see how each school does to suit what you think would be best for you. Additionally, location and school rank is critical as well. The "middle" part is more about finding out schools that you personally would not fit well with or do not wish to attend. Sometimes the best approach to finding what you want is picking out what you don't.

Applying. While you may have preferences, you should be realistic in them. I was not when I applied. My suggestion when applying is to have one or two applications at each of the following levels: safely assume acceptance, coin flip or target, and a reach. I would suggest using numbers only to determine what level the school is for you, then maybe tweak depending on strong soft factors. I recall using a website that applicants can self report their numbers and results to assist with this. My "safety" school was USC (I was at medians for it), and I was waitlisted at almost all T14s I applied to (Harvard excluded - rejected). That was stressful. I would not do that again.

Also, apply EARLY. I am a serial procrastinator and sent all my apps in the last week of open admissions, most of which were rolling admissions. You already did 70% of the work with the numbers, so don't shoot yourself in the foot like I did and reduce admissions changes because of poor timing.

Finally, for a school that is realistically within acceptance range and one you can see yourself attending, start reaching out on LinkedIn and even show up to the school to meet staff/students in person if within your means. It's a bit forward, especially as an introvert myself, but merely showing up may lead to an opportunity/interaction that will change your path for the better. A casual, brief and respectful handshake introduction can make all the difference. It's also one more item to write about to the school when tailoring your application. Reaching out to schedule a meeting for a date/time with a student via LinkedIn when you visit would seem fairly easy to do. A coffee bribe is the trick! Students I went to school with generally seem open to those interactions. If invited for tour, it's great to attend. If you do, I suggest having some sort of interaction with each of the aids there. Just enough for them to recall you, but even better if you truly connect.

One small aside that most don't talk about is to figure out what each school is looking to do to increase its rank. Deans of law schools are under rank pressure, which I imagine increases exponentially as rank increases. I heard through the grape vine that SC was looking to increase its clerkship placements, as that would significantly help in its rankings. So, a personal statement that genuinely hints at a goal for a clerkship placement would probably be seen more favorably, for instance. Just an example. Each school will probably have its own goals for the cycle.

TWO. Trust and estate planning/administration. It's quite niche. I believe I was among 3/4 individuals in my class practicing it. Hopefully no regular court appearances for me!

THREE. Regarding "doors" opening for me personally, I'd say there are two kinds--law related and those not.

The law related open doors are interesting. Insurance defense pays decently (at the small price of your soul), but it's there and hiring like crazy. I can hop ship and find a job whenever in an area of law that is not necessarily related to mine, including general litigation, and still be a strong applicant and financially okay because of the inherent value of the license. That to me is awesome. It's having a license to practice and ability to work hard that, when combined, provide value that other's want/need and at decent salaries. Of course, there's always the opportunity to also stick to a particular path and form my own practice. I simply feel free and financially the same even if I choose to work in a radically different practice. I do feel less stress because of these open doors as well.

What is even better are the unrelated law opportunities. I did not fully appreciate the "glow" that a Juris Doctor brings with it. It's absolutely clout! Many of my classmates have gone on to successfully create or manage business. The law degree and the knowledge that comes with it is inherent value that is relatively scarce. If you choose to never practice law again, there's a certain and distinctive wow factor to a Juris Doctor applying for a job or seeking to join a team to form a company. You will get looks or opportunities far more than others. It's simply unique. While I haven't tested these unrelated law opportunities, I am confident of the doors a Juris Doctor opens.

DMed Question: Tips for getting better at the harder LR questions (the curvebrearker 4-5 star questions)

Answer: In my opinion, you need to diagnose the issue--are you missing those questions because of a substantive understanding issue or was it because of the time pressure? I.e. are you getting those questions wrong regardless of how much time you could have spent on it? If the answer is yes, you need to slow down in your studying and get rid of time being a factor (see below). An analogy: why try and shoot for finishing a marathon in three hours if you could not even finish a marathon with unlimited time? Focus on finishing (getting it right, and for the correct reasons), then speed.

What is your BR score? What is your goal score?

If your BR score is not at or above your goal score --> I would drill those 4&5 star LR questions untimed (use the 7Sage question bank to filter LR difficulty and PT range, then print those sets). Spend as much time as it takes to COMPLETELY break down the problem (label sentences that are irrelevant/filler, conclusions, premises, important words, tricks, AND your reasoning for each). I even spent two hours on some questions doing this. Your goal is to dig through each sentence, each answer, and WRITE DOWN your reasoning for marking it as correct or incorrect or why/what reason the sentence was there (or use a voice recorder and think out loud).

Doing this allows you to understand what you are thinking during the problem at each particular point.

Then, in retrospect, go through and figure out where your thinking was incorrect or how you could have arrived at the correct thinking quicker. After doing this detailed work, you can quickly figure out where your reasoning was wrong, or possibly find something critical that you initially failed to see. That is where the learning is.

It takes an enormous amount of time, but doing that enough times will change your thinking without you realizing it! It will make your intuition sharp, and will build trust within yourself (which is very important when trying to improve on the intense time pressured portion).

I liked to change up where I study. Picking a new study spot is refreshing, even if it's just in a different room of the house.

My diagnostic was a 144 and I finished with a 166 two years later.

It takes countless hours, but it totally doable if you really want the score. I wrote a fairly long post with advice I learned throughout my journey. It's on my profile if you wish to view it. My best wishes to you!

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

@ RC having more Qs is a good point. That should be concerning if RC isn't a strength.

Thanks. Yeah, the average is about 27 questions a section for RC, right? With LG around 23 and LR around 25 for a section.

That would mean RC is 27/75 of the test, a 36% average is HUGE.

Yes it’s definitely an edge to those who are good at RC.

I think I’m going to add to my previous statement about studying for the 5 section test. I’m going to continue studying as if I will take 5 sections to build endurance, but it may be worth treating the extra section as if it is RC instead of LR. Who knows which test we will be taking as the year proceeds. But we want to be ready for either.

As Gandalf from the Lord of the Rings says: “All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

Great idea!! I will be using this study method moving forward. Thank you :D

@ said:

@ RC having more Qs is a good point. That should be concerning if RC isn't a strength.

Thanks. Yeah, the average is about 27 questions a section for RC, right? With LG around 23 and LR around 25 for a section.

That would mean RC is 27/75 of the test, a 36% average is HUGE.

Con:

My two strengths are LR and LG. So not having a second LR section makes my weak RC section worth 1/3 of the overall score, rather than the normal 1/4. That's a big con for myself. ADDITIONALLY, keep in mind that RC typically has the most questions out of all the sections. Thus, an RC section makes up around 34-37% of the overall score on a flex exam vs the usual 24-27% on a normal LSAT. That's a 10% nerf to ya boy.

Pros:

The plus sides, though, are so massive. Being able to set a time one would like to take the test at, in a place where one studies for the LSAT already, is about as big as an advantage we can get. It's just like any old practice test!

Also, on my last LSAT I sat in on, I got an experimental LG section that was damn near impossible to complete within the time limits. I normally go -0 on LG and I finished that section without answering 8 questions. That totally screwed with my head for the rest of the test until I was given the 5th section of LG, which felt like an average LG section. Basically, until I reached the 5th section, I had a 1/3 chance that the impossible LG section I took was experimental, and I knew those odds when I took it. Not having to deal with an experimental section that can screw with my mind and negatively affect my overall score is also another huge plus.

I'm taking this Flex in an attempt to get off a few waitlists this summer. If I can't pull that off, then I hope to at least get some more $ from the school I'm accepted at. If I don't improve, I'm already accepted at a school and I can fall back on that. The risk is fairly small of losing an acceptance vs the possibility of increasing scholarship $$ or getting in to higher-ranked schools if I do well.

@ said:

What's your strategy for improving LR?

I stated three key reasons that were holding me back in LR in the comments above. That is what truly made the difference on test day for me. But there is no shortcut to knowing the material, i.e logic, conclusions, what the question stems are asking, ect.

I think that until around a 160 score, learning the basics should be a priority. After scoring a 160, studying should switch to 1) speed (intuition/trust), 2) bad tendencies, and 3) reading carefully. Aspects geared more towards addressing time. The logic behind this reasoning is that if one's BR score is right where they want to be at, then focusing heavily on substantive knowledge is likely to affect the BR score more than the timed score. Because of this, the focus should change to how to take the test with these timed conditions. It's one thing to do well on the test and it's another to do well with the time restraints and pressure.

I believe this was talked about in a webinar on this site, but a 160 scorer will have typically a 165-170 range for BR. This means our goal should shift away from figuring out how to answer the questions to closing the BR and timed gap by asking how to most efficiently answer them. I took this to heart and this is where I started seeing my LR improvement.

J.Y. gave some great advice on a random explanation that resonated well with me. He stated that 170+ scorers don't typically know the information better than a 165 scorer, they just bank more time than them and use that banked time efficiently. I totally agree with this as it makes sense why a 165 scorer can get close to or surpass the 170 mark on an untimed go. The challenge is being able to answer those "easier" questions quickly and with confidence. On the flip side, it's also knowing that a question is really difficult and should be skipped. I struggled with this and I eventually get better as I started trusting myself more. This all takes practice, but the second test I failed to heavily focus on closing my timed/BR score gap.

@ said:

Congrats! That's about my goal score and I'm chipping away with 7sage help!

LG question: I feel and see tangible improvements in LR. I grasp conclusions better and eliminate trap answers faster. I can feel my thinking processes change.

For LG however, how do you KNOW you've made improvements? IS there a mental checklist or process that gets faster or more accurate? For new games, I still freeze up after initial set up when I can't make any of the key inferences.

How do you think you've improved on this and how did you go about eliciting this type of improvement on inferential skills?

Thanks!

You said it yourself, "I still freeze up after initial set up when I can't make any of the key inferences."

The improvement is exactly at this point. As soon as you finish writing down all the translations and the gameboard, you should be in hunt mode, looking to write out all the inferences or split the board with no hesitation and with accuracy. This comes with practice. I think that's really why the 7sage method for LG is so great---inferences will begin to happen without much thinking. LG is 70% about inferences, 10% about knowing how to visually represent the game for yourself to best succeed, and 10% about reading correctly IMO.

Also, find out what method works for you. J.Y.'s method wasn't the best one for me. I like to solve for all game boards and run though the questions in less than one minute. J.Y. doesn't typically does not do it this way. So make sure you find out what works for you. As an example, if the game requires 6 gameboards to answer 5 questions, I would still do all gameboards. I can make the inferences quickly and solve for all possibilities right there on my paper. When asked a question, I already have the answer. Others like to make the rest of the inferences when the question asks. Either way works and they each have positive and negatives to the method.

@ said:

Logic Games Question - What prep tests do you think are essential for foolproofing? Some say 1-35 and others have a different range, like yours. I will be foolproofing soon and would love some guidance!

I don't have a specific range for LG, as I think all of them are essential for the "hard" game (usually the 4th one). I say this because LSAC doesn't typically reinvent a logic game to make it really tough. The are typically unique combinations of games put into one. Having a very good understanding of all major game types both saves time for the last one and it also aids in a quicker understanding of how to go about completing it.

For example, during my second take I vividly remember being on that 4th game with 19 mins left just confused. I messed around with the game board a bit and then the solution hit me like a truck five min later--I saw that the game was a sequence game using a subtle hidden trick of double spacings that I have seen before. I finished that game so quickly afterwards. This is what I mean by all games are important. We won't know what the hard game will be, but knowing the various game types though and though allows the mind to be more creative in situations like this.

Though if I had limited time to study, I would be using the newer LG sections to fool poof. The newer ones have been using reiterations from old tests with a twist to them (even the "easy" ones). While others are just straight in/out games with no twists, for example. In this sense, I think the newer LG sections offer more learning experiences per section than do the older ones.

@ said:

...this is like asking the high school teacher if she's gonna collect the homework after she's forgotten...

I nearly spat out my coffee.

I'm curious as to how the calculations could increase one's GPA. I do understand how it can lower it, though.

Mine stayed the same.

Thanks for the kind words!

So this is exactly what I leaned from a Sage and it helped so much.

I go to half speed reading when going over the rules. The time tradeoff of missing words in a rule is 10x worse than just slowing down in the first place.

Translate each rule to "lawgic" and put a horizontal line to the left of the rule AFTER the translation is finished. Repeat for every rule.

Now start with the first question, which is usually the acceptable situation question. Go back to the first written rule given by LSAC to eliminate an answer choice that violates it AND verify the initial translation was correct.

After using the written rule again for the first question, now put a vertical line by the rule. A cross, which is now formed by the method, means that you have initially translated it and it has then been double checked as being correctly translated.

Strengths: I like this method because it puts a bit of space in-between the translation and the double-checking. The time distance from the first read to the second is very helpful. Using this method I caught a mistake in one of my translations while on step #3 on my real take. Also, rather than translations being used to check for an answer in the first question (which could be incorrectly translated), the written rules are the source. This removes one layer of a potential mistake.

Weaknesses: What slips by this method is if one incorrectly reads a rule wrong and then after coming back to it 30-40 seconds later, they read it the same incorrect way. It also adds time. I would say it adds around 30-35 seconds to the section when using this method.

@ said:

Thanks for sharing! :) Can you maybe talk about what went wrong during the 2nd take? especially if you studied so hard for so long and got the same score? Nerves? Were your PT scores leading up to the second take much much higher than 161? Or perhaps it was hard to tell because you ran out of test material so quickly

Sure I can.

One of the worst parts about my second take was that I felt so ready. I had zero nerves at all and plenty of room at the test center in the back corner of it too (which is my favorite/preferred spot for classes in college). However, I drank too much water and was literally bouncing in my chair having to go so bad. I was seconds from disaster. It was VERY distracting.

I did take the test a few months later after it was released and I missed a ton of the same LR questions I did on the actual test. It seems I was just duped by the LR sections.

I was at a 165 average during that time and a 169 for the third.

Edit: I used up all the remaining LSAC PTs for the second take, I was that confident (sadly)! Luckily, one new PT was released and I got a 169 on that one.

I went over the second take and others with my tutor and he found big, overarching problems we fixed and my score went on the rise from there. It had to do with 1) getting rid of all anticipating, 2) getting rid of following strict "rules" I have internalized over the years 3) focusing in on precise language.

In other words, I would eliminate/pick answers because: I would anticipate a trap (LSAC knows what a 160 scorer would anticipate), it fits "patterns" I've seen over the years (which many have flipped on the newer ones) and, I would misread a very small word that changes the meaning completely (by design, of course). After I fixed those I was finally improving.

I would have never known about these bad tendencies I had if my tutor, Josh, did not point them out.

@ said:

@

for the experimental LG section, was there something about putting things into months? like for November, December, ... ? was that from the (using power score labels) 'Art on walls of a room' game or 'Authors of a scientific paper (grads, undergrads, scientists, etc)' game?

anyone else have RC LR LG LR LG

I think the 3rd section was the experimental LG? Can someone confirm or deny this?

Confirmed.

I had the same test as you.

How’d you do on the last game?

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

Is the LR section with a question on manufacturing a product if and only if a CEO approves real? That section also had a question on how female characters in fiction work only if there's a mismatch between that character's personality and the world (e.g. sensible character and topsy-turvy world). I felt like that section was the hardest of the 3 LR sections I got lol.

Doesn't sound familiar at all. lolol

I don't remember that either.

No, I didn't have that. I think it's experimental.

Nice video! Thanks. I almost forgot how important substance flaws are while studying for this test.

@ said:

Don't mention the question type*

Just wana let you know so u don't get dinged by the admins

@ said:

Do you consider LR difficult? Was it similar to PT73,PT86, or PTs in 60s?

The second LR I took was the first time I fully finished an LR section with time leftover to look at random questions after doing 2 passes. I don't know which one that was (substance wise), but the other LR was more difficult for me for sure. Either that section pressed my strengths or I was totally overconfident. I feel pretty good about it though, and that's pretty atypical for me.

@ said:

@ said:

Anyone know if the adjacent paintings / sculptures LG game was experimental?

It was game #4.

The other LG section was fairly easy. The last game was tough.

I BOMBED the sculpture game.

Yes! Word on the street is that it was crazy hard

My average for LG is -.5 and I had 7 unanswered questions when time was called. That took a toll on my mental. Thankfully, break was right after this LG so I had time to convince myself it was the experimental. It seemed WAY too tough for an LG section. It wasn't even built up by easy games like the first 3 were on the real section either. LSAC did us dirty!!

Anyone know if the adjacent paintings / sculptures LG game was experimental?

It was game #4.

The other LG section was fairly easy. The last game was tough.

I BOMBED the sculpture game.

@ said:

does anyone remember anything bout a internet search query or something like that?

This was experimental as mine was LG.