@ said:

@ You put a lot thought into your response, and I must say it's well written, and thank you for taking the time to respond.

So I'll give in on the low income/middle class premise, because I think you addressed that well and made some great points, but what about the whole idea of measuring a student on one particular day for taking this test? There have to have been days where you've taken the test and didn't feel great and consequently didn't do as well as you could do. I don't think this test should be completely done away with, but I do believe that it should not be weighted as heavily as it is in the admissions process. I think our low income student in this situation brings a lot more background and experience to his application than his wealthy counterpart. But on the flip side of that, I don't think a student should be discounted if they come from money. Quite frankly there probably isn't a perfect solution in this scenario, but I think LSAC and the law schools could make a better situation.

The problem with a single day argument is that everyone has a bad day. Bad days lead to people losing money, failing finals, etc. Just because something is weighted on a single event doesn't mean it's wrong if some people make huge errors on that event. That's why the LSAC lets you retake the exam. A test like the LSAT does its job by standardizing how schools judge applicants. Everything else is based on a million different variables. GPA is based on what program and school you choose, Work experience depends on opportunities in your location, etc. How do you compare an engineering major from like Indiana, Ohio to a pre-law in New York?

The LSAT is a single determinant with little ambiguity in which they determine what skills students need to know and how they rank compared to others in terms of those skills. The correlation to actual performance is pretty weak at best even using LSAC numbers but it's a better and alot less costly alternative than most others. Prep programs do blur that line if people only know how to beat an exam but there still needs to be some universal grading system that judges applicant equally in that same manner.

When you think you are ready is pretty much the main determinant. Don't pay to keep taking the official LSAT any more than you have to. Even if the LSAC are making it so that you can now take it as much as you can and more often, as stated before in the forum, law schools will take multiple attempts into consideration. They only need to report your highest score but they're free to judge you on your overall performance in any way.

If you have the money to not worry about testing fees, go through the complete 7sage program or whatever program you feel is best or get a 1 on 1 with a qualified tutor to work out your flaws. Take the exam because you feel comfortable with your performance, not because you can just redo it if you fail.

@ said:

If they really wanted to win our love, they could do a limited run of books right after grey day marked with the caveat that they are tentative and that the scoring should be double checked against their website. I actually might like to experience a test with a bad question to make sure that it didn't throw me.

Edit: I put v's instead of spaces in two places.

I don't think the LSAC cares enough to "win our love" to want to do that. It's extra fuss and will most likely leave them with unsold "tentative" copies if people would rather wait for the error-free final. The 72-80 tests are still for sale individually and more expensive that way. It's easier for them to print one edition and milk the individual tests for all that's left.

There's no extra penalty for leaving a question blank or for getting one wrong but if you don't understand the stimulus at all after reading it once or twice, you're risking time to do other questions. There really isn't much you can do. Guess and come back later or skip and come back later.

I don't know when it's dated but here's a summary list of top law school policies involving multiple scores. Many already state they consider your entire LSAT history while others only consider your highest. Imo, do your best the first time, try again if necessary, but just because it's an option doesn't mean you should take advantage of the unlimited tries.

https://www.velocitylsat.com/resources/law-school-multiple-lsat-score-policies

@ said:

Can anyone think of any negatives to this option? -- is taking the LSAT 'too many' times detrimental? And what would admissions folks consider as 'too many'?

It would depend on the school and how they react to it. This along with the LSAC upping tests per year from 4 to 6 probably will cause some issues with some of them. Redoing is one thing but I don't think any school would want someone who takes it 4 or 5 times within a year until they get a score they like over someone who only took it once or twice.

Plan for the worst case scenario, choose a section you have the most difficulty with so you're prepared on test day.

@ said:

I just spoke to a person at LSAC, and she said, "the 180 is no longer allowed because of the start/stop function."

Do you guys have an idea as to why that's a bad thing?

Unless It has sound, I'm guessing unfair advantage or people arguing with the proctor over how much time is left? Seems nitpicky to me.

@ said:

I think you nailed the reason. Their shouldn't be any significant editing since it is the same as the actual test except for the experimental section and printing does not take that long.

They should have been able to start printing and shipping them after grey day.

I guess, if I wanted to be generous, I might note they could be waiting for any questions to be challenged and those challenges to be settled before publishing the test in order to make sure the grading scale was absolutely correct.

Since PT 81 was the June LSAT, most likely they're giving time to challenge the questions like you said. Occasionally, questions do get thrown out and it's better to cross a question out now than dealing with people who email about them later. The rest is dealing with the usual production issues.

@ said:

@ said:

Circular games are pretty rare, only 5 have been circle games with the last one in February 2014.

http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/the-tenth-circle-of-lsat-hell-tiered-circular-games

Thank you! I wasn't even aware of the Feb 2014 one...

I believe they skipped over that LSAT as a PT so there isn't any way to see that LG but apparently it was a circular game.

Circular games are pretty rare, only 5 have been circle games with the last one in February 2014.

http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/the-tenth-circle-of-lsat-hell-tiered-circular-games

If it's not part of the picture and majority of the space is covered then it's fine. It's something on their end that gives some of them that white bar, happened to mine and the lady didn't notice or care. It's all up to the judgment of the proctors and the rules aren't so strict they have to bust out rulers any time soon. All they do is look at the ticket and look at your DL which isn't much bigger, anyways.

They use your best score, it doesn't matter when you took the test as long as you send everything in by the due date. A test 5 years ago will have the same weight as the one in December. Those schools are picky but it won't be over the date of your LSAT score.

Moonwalking with Einstein by Josh Foer gives you a good intro into memory techniques, it shouldn't change your current study plan but something interesting to think about and read. Anything that's by Michael Sandel, one of the more popular Harvard professors, is also recommended.

You could just make a word doc with rows and columns for your ACs and question numbers unless you're looking for something you can circle in.

@ said:

Yes, it is to apply to law schools. Traditionally speaking, your GPA is still supposed to be on there if it is above a 3.5.

I would say a resume follows resume rules and no, your GPA is not required if it's above 3.5. Anything about a 3.5 is nice for employers to see but I wouldn't put anything lower and it's definitely not required. They have your academics for your prospects as a student, the resume is your prospects to get the actual work experience.

^ Disagree with that, certain denominations of Asian groups are more common among applicants because of higher and more affluent populations back home. International Chinese students, in particular, tend to gravitate around and attend well-known schools and many have the resources to do so. When you have AA laws that wants to keep a certain ethnic make-up of the student body, you might see policies that stray in favor of underrepresented subgroups like Filipinos in the article.

LoRs are for the schools to know more about your character and work ethic, not getting an A in one teacher's class shouldn't matter too much and really depends more on the entirety of what she writes.

Honestly, you'll probably do well with any of them as it seems like they have a fairly good understanding of and can vouch for who you are as a student. As long as the letters are too specific to any particular school, it doesn't matter how many get them, especially if it's through CAS which sends the same docs to each school. Each school also has a maximum number of letters they'll accept, usually one or two more than their required so you should be fine in that aspect.

From personal experience:

Yes,you apply for Fafsa any time you wish to use federal aid, there's a limit to how years of aid you can get from certain grants like the pell grant, however. I believe it was 6 years (12 semesters) so it won't last the additional 3 years of law school unless you paid for some years without aid. After that, any federal aid you get will be severely reduced as those grants are no longer available.

If you're under 25 and don't meet certain income guidelines, you do have to file your parents' info. Need-based grants are given in set amounts to schools and the rule of thumb is first-come first serve but everything depends on the school. The only thing FAFSA does is tell the school of your family's expected contribution to your education, how much is the school's decides is based on that number. Best to always check the financial aid office of the law school you're going to but if you ask how much, most they'll give is estimates.

It's extra information because it's only there to name the source of the support used, that's all. There's nothing in that paragraph that remarks on what the historians believe is causation. B is wrong because it makes their expertise an issue; why does it matter when they are simply a point of reference for the observation? The historians themselves don't make an argument to connect Support to Conclusion, only the speaker is. What the historians think of that relationship is unknown and more importantly, irrelevant.

The expertise is only for that support but nothing that would relates to the conclusion because the historians aren't making that leap, the speaker is. If the historians notices that people across all cultures independently believe in some way that drinking cause High BP, it's the same premise and still wouldn't matter because the historians themselves are not implying causation, they have an observation that the speaker using to prove his point. The historians aren't saying anything other than X exists, the speaker is saying X exists so therefore Y. That's why B is wrong, because the historians only state X and never once make the connection to Y.

Took a class when I started, it's frankly a waste of time. The main issue is that you're basically starting from the beginning but not your beginning. They'll go slowly through a set curriculum built for newer test takers and to be realistic, you're either regurgitating what you learned from your 7sage or learning something that might conflict with what you already know. Either way, most of your money will likely be spent waiting for others to catch up to you. If you need the extra help; take the one on one tutor, tell them where you are and they adjust their plans accordingly or at the least, skip over what you already know.

No, I'm not saying anything is the historians'. What I meant in my second paragraph is that adding that they said it is extra information. The information could come have just as easily come from a survey or who said it could not be mentioned at all. It's a phenomenon that the historians observed in culture but they themselves offer no explanation as to why, much less why it is the most irresistible cause. The speaker could've easily mentioned the phenomenon on its own to make the same faulty argument.

To me, there's no real evidence for the conclusion here, only an observation that the speaker chose to believe is enough to substantiate the speaker's conclusion. The fact that it came from historians or biologists or whoever doesn't actually matter, it's merely an observation of that belief but there's no actual connection from any field to the conclusion that seeing someone yawn is the most common cause of yawning.

Well, the argument only mentions that according to them, the belief exist among many groups and that is completely within their field of examining culture (cultural beliefs in particular). Note that it's the speaker, not the historians, whose connecting that belief to be the "most irresistible cause" of yawning.

At most, the historians are the source of the supporting premise but they don't actually have any input in the conclusion. Hell, if you take out "if we are to believe historians of popular culture.", the argument stays the same, basically saying because the belief is so widespread, it must be the main cause. There isn't any actual physiological support or causation given and B is right only if the historians offered some biological causation to the occurrence like you said.

You might be too focused on the time if you're going upward, it's not a "natural pace" if you keep thinking about how long you're taking and upward requires you to shift more focus on the time. Set an 35 timer with an alarm and make sure you can't see the time or do single games with an expected time.

@ said:

Unclear - it could mean nothing. Then again, what is the point of having staff in on a holiday?

Probably just folks trying to clear a backlog of work before it piles up during the break.