This is my perspective:

No school, not even HYS, is worth $380,000 in debt strictly for Big Law. That is a crippling amount of debt that will set you back years. People here need to realize that $380,000 is equivalent to taking out a mortgage for a home in America. It's unfathomable to think about.

Now say you did get into HYS and you have to pay $380,000. Assuming you applied broadly enough, if you are good enough to get into HYS, then you are probably good enough to get into the other T-14 schools with (hopefully) a scholarship. If Big Law is the only thing that matters, then at this point choose the cheaper T-14 school over HYS on pure sticker price.

T-14 is not the only path to Big Law. Sure, you will have to work harder and there is no guarantee but you can get to Big Law from many regional schools (depending on the region). For example --> Fordham to NYC, UIUC to Chicago, UNC to Charlotte, Emory to Atlanta and so forth.

Ever play the game "RED LIGHT, GREEN LIGHT!" as a kid? That's how I approach RC. Let me explain:

As mentioned by the previous commenter, RC is about reading for structure. That means you should be less concerned with understanding everything and more about hunting and finding key ideas in the passage.

Therefore, when I read, I SLOW DOWN (like at a Red Light) if I see an important idea (author's opinion, shifts in perspective, etc.). But when I see supporting information like "For Example" or "In Addition," I just keep moving on (like at a Green Light). That means I don't take the time to really dwell on what those information are saying because they're not main ideas. I still read them but I just keep moving on and I trust that if the questions ask me something about it, I can always go back to the passage.

I used to be the person who tried to understand everything in RC. That didn't work out for me. Now, I read for structure and key ideas and I only then go back to the passage for small details IF the question specifically asks me to.

While I do agree with you that "some" on Weaken/Strengthen questions are often not the correct answer, it is not bulletproof. There are absolutely questions where the correct answer does hinge on "some."

What I will recommend though is this - if you are short on time or absolutely lost, I would use this "some" as an easy way to narrow the answer choices. But again, only when it's in that situation.

It generally is pretty late. But what I have heard is that if you are dead set on going to law school for the coming fall, make sure to ace the LSAT.

Getting a high LSAT score in January > applying earlier with a lower score.

In a perfect world, you would have a dream score and apply early but if you have to choose one or the other, the LSAT always wins.

If you are able to get to -1 and -2 on LR untimed, it means you know the material well. It’s time to drop the training wheels and rampen up the intensity by going timed sections consistently. This will be uncomfortable at first as your score will drop but that is where you really critically need to Blind Review after each timed section.

When you do timed, you fall back on the unconscious habits and techniques you have internalized. In the heat of the moment, you are going to do exactly what you’ve been doing, not what you think you should do. Hope that makes sense.

And then in BR, you should be asking yourself, why did I do the question like that? Why did I take so long? And then reflect on things you should have done, things you should have noticed and then internalize that for the next round.

So get in the boxing ring, get the shit knocked out of you, review the film for what you should have done against yourself opponent, internalize it, and then go back in again.

And then sooner or later, your score will keep going up and then the roles will reverse. That once scary beast of an opponent called “Timing” will start to get his ass handed to him daily until he is your little b****

That’s how you do it. Untimed is to build up the knowledge and fundamentals. Timed sections is now where you refine it. The more you delay timed at this point, the longer you delay your progress.

You know the material absolutely. So get in the boxing ring and beat this exam’s ass

I'm in that same boat but with former employers haha. I feel you with that sense of embarrassment.

The best advice I can give is this - just send a polite email explaining that you need his assistance again, thank him, hit send, smile, and just walk away :)

The key to shaking off embarrassment is realizing that nobody gives a shit about things that don't really affect them. They may spare you a thought or even check up, but once that is over, they'll just move on with life.

It's in moments like these where we realize nobody cares so you do what you need to do!

Plus, reusing recs are totally fine. I've been told that quality recs are difficult to get and admins realize that. So don't worry about reusing them because at the end of the day, the substance contained in them is what matters most.

Something I want to encourage people that I wish I had known at the beginning of my prep is to figure out what it means to study smart and not study hard. This is critical especially if you are trying to balance work and study. Let me explain...

Mike Kim elaborates on this in The LSAT Trainer about the purpose of good habits. Good habits are what will help you succeed on the exam more so than hard work.

The LSAT is a unique skills test. It tests very specific skills on each of the sections. That means if you can hone those skills in the time that you do have, then you are much better off than pounding away on questions.

For example, Logical Reasoning tests your ability to figure out why an argument is bad. Rather than doing 20 questions hurriedly in 2-3 hours that you do have and being like: "Nice, I got the correct answer here!" or "No, I got this wrong. Ugh!" your time would be better spent on just 5 questions and really sitting on how to break down the stimulus. What is the conclusion? What are the premises? What are key words in the conclusion that don't show up in the premises? What assumptions is this argument making? Why is this the correct answer? Why are these the incorrect answers?

Even 1 hour spent figuring out the above and then storing them into the correct habits will GO FAR and AWAY at helping you be better at the LSAT then pounding away on questions for however much time you have.

Good LSAT studying is about quality, not quantity. You can succeed on less time if you know what you need to do to develop those good habits. Why? Because the same LR question types show up, the same flaws, the same game types, the same passage types and so forth. Everything repeats so wouldn't it be worth your time to figure out the correct way to consistently get to the same answer over and over?

If you are short on time, I encourage you to spend some time actually thinking about these things. I promise you that if you really do think about the specific skills you need to hone, you will save a lot of time, money and even heartbreak in preparing for this exam.

I think Loophole has definite benefits but I don't think it's the world-beater that Amazon and other places rave about.

A huge chunk of its rave reviews stem from 2 very specific techniques called Translation and CLIR. But Translation simply means reading closely in a way that makes it easier for you to remember what the stimulus is saying. To me, that was just slowing down and thinking about what each sentence said before you go on.

And CLIR is simply just predicting the answer before you go into the answers.

These 2 techniques are very good but they have been preached about for a long time by many tutors and companies. Reading carefully and aiming to predict the answer is at the heart of LR fundamentals. So it introduces 2 things that have already been in place for a very long time.

So it is definitely good but I wouldn't say it will necessarily lead to magical improvements simply by reading it. If your fundamentals are poor, use the book to build better fundamentals up and your score will get better.

You will not be penalized so go ahead and do it!

But I do think LSAC is aware of this supposed advantage so do be mindful they may twist things up a little. What I mean by that is that they may use synonyms or so in the answers so that you can't just Cntrl + F everything. They have to make it a little interesting. It's one of the observations I noticed when doing RC in the 80's.

So go ahead and use it but just be mindful of what LSAC may potentially do!

The honest, brutal truth of the LSAT is this - "if what you are doing isn't working, you need to change something." It sounds obvious but that's the reality. The LSAT is a skills and habits test. It tests certain specific skills that are honed via good habits.

If you're not scoring where you ultimately want, it is in your best interest to reschedule. I know that's probably not what you want to hear but I only say that because it's very difficult to make updates to your strategies and skills drastically in just a few days. It takes some time to hone the new skills and strategies that are most effective.

Spending an extra $200 to reschedule is much better in my opinion than to risk having another score on your record that you do not want. And then spend that extra time reflecting on possible new techniques/strategies that would be more effective to you.

For example, I didn't start scoring consistently better on LR until I started reading the question stem first and skipping aggressively. Those 2 things were things that I NEVER considered trying until someone suggested it. I then tried it and my score flew.

I think this particular passage is a great example of why you should not get hung up on trying to understand the entire passage, but rather to focus on understanding some of the key points and the overall structure of the passage. If you have superior memory and can understand everything, more power to you but I think it is absolutely not necessary and it can actually hurt you because you spend too much time reading and trying to understand everything.

This is how I mapped out the key points and structure of passage:

Paragraph 1 - This is what neurobiologists once believed but they were confused about a part of it. So in comes the alternative theory.

Paragraph 2 - Alternative theory eventually wins acceptance but there was an obstacle. But aha! we have new evidence to solve that obstacle.

Paragraph 3 - Here is more discussion on that new evidence.

Paragraph 4 - This new evidence has further implications on other areas of science.

That is literally all I focused on and everything I needed to complete this passage in 8 minutes. And when I wasn't sure, I just went back to the passage using my map above to guide me.

Focus on the forest y'all, not on the trees. I honestly believe these dense passages are LSAC's way of tripping people up. Remember, you don't need specialized knowledge to succeed on the LSAT. The exam tests specific skills and here, it's all about seeing the key points and where to find them in the passage.

It should be noted, however, that LSAC will most likely make an announcement when they will remove Logic Games for good - meaning it won't come out of nowhere.

LSAC has generally given ample notice when they make major changes - they announced way ahead of time when they were moving to full digital, when they were going add back the experimental section and so forth.

My opinion is just purely speculation but I would reckon LSAC won't do anything with LG over this coming cycle with the chaos of COVID. If they did eventually choose to remove it, I think they would start next cycle (at the soonest but even that is probably too soon) and they would make an announcement way ahead of time.

I'm in the exact same boat as you. I was in mid to high 160's and got a score in the 150's.

I actually teared up. I couldn't believe it. I hadn't scored so low in over a year.

I would not be surprised if they overcorrected it but what would they have done is what I am wondering?

Would they tighten the curve by doing a -8 to -6 for a 170 or -20 to -17 for a 160?

I dunno, I'm just as lost as you.

This is one of those questions where I believe the Negation Test may actually be hurtful if you don't use it correctly versus just reading the answer choice as it is. Remember - it's a Necessary Assumption so this needs to be true or else the argument doesn't make sense.

The argument rambles on and on about this maximum wage law and how it will stop executives from cutting their employees' wages.

(E) comes in and just says "If the law is enacted, one or more executives won't cut wages."

Well, yeah... that has to be true. You spent all this time talking about wages and how this law would stop executives so yeah, we should expect one or more of them not to cut wages.

Sometimes, the correct answer on NA are just so glaringly obvious assumptions if you take the time to understand what the answer is saying in the first place.

Stressed as well but hoping for the best! At this point, I'm just mentally worn out from this exam. I want to be on the other side and done with this forever!

Great points but one more thing I want to mention that I think would GREATLY diminish test day penalty - Aim to do EXACTLY what you would do on your real thing as you would on a PT.

That probably seems easier said than done but I think it's worth noting still. Most people who struggle with test anxiety feel a need to do something DIFFERENT on test-day. It could be as simple as hesitating on an easy question that you would normally just move on from, just because it's the real thing.

For me, I once suffered a test-day penalty because I felt the need to SPEED things up for some darn reason and it cost me. My process is always to go slow as slow = accuracy and accuracy = speed. But nope, I just sped up for some reason out of anxiety and I paid the price.

Try to strive to do your absolute best to do EXACTLY what you would do on a PT and aim only for that.

There have been research that shows that when you are introduced to new stimuli (aka a new environment, a new format, etc.), it takes some time to adjust to it, which explains why your score could have dropped.

I don't believe at all it is indicative of your abilities but rather that you're just not fully used to the format just yet. Totally normal. Spend the next couple days practicing in that format and sooner than later, you'll get the hang of it :)

I think #27 is a great example of why it's so important to confirm against the passage rather than relying purely on memory. Unless you have an exceptionally good memory, the broad idea you would get from reading the passage is that the author is not really a big fan of the traditional ethics method. So with this in mind, I went into the answers with something like: "Author is negative about it."

But after reading the answers and seeing how similar they were, I went back and noticed Lines 18-19 which says "a traditional ethics course CAN be valuable." So while he isn't a big fan, he does concede there are some positives to it.

That was enough to eliminate A, B, and D, which all say "disapproval of all its effects" and make it much easier to eventually choose the correct answer.

I would wait until the prep course. And here's why - if you take preptests even before you finished the core curriculum, you are going to miss questions simply because you were never exposed to that concept just yet. Plus, it's during the curriculum phase where you start honing good habits and strategies.

The purpose of taking preptests should be to assess how well you know the material in timed conditions while using good strategies. But if you don't know what you don't know, as well as having bad habits, then why take it anyways?

Finish the curriculum and start going hard on PT's then. The LSAT is a journey, not a sprint. Take the time now to form good habits and learn well. You will do better on PT's then.

Yes, I absolutely do this. But it's not necessarily conscious, meaning I'm not thinking about doing them in the moment. I just do it because it's become a habit.

That's kind of where you ultimately want to be in your LSAT journey. Form good habits/techniques that become so automatic that on test day, you're not even thinking of doing them. You just do them.

Hmmm if there are no other factors that could be contributing to the lack of stamina, then I suppose it could be worth delaying to October. I'm just hesitant to suggest that because if you score in the 170's, you are clearly ready material-wise. But I do suppose it's a factor in considering to push back.

If you know 100% that stamina is holding you up from scoring your potential, have enough PT's to hold you through, and are okay with testing later than you would have expected, then it does seem like a sound reason to reschedule.

But again, please consider rescheduling carefully.

A couple of things to think about:

When you take the exam, do you take it an optimal time for your brain? I notice a huge difference in focus and stamina if I take it in the morning after coffee versus after work when I'm exhausted. That alone could be the difference.

Do you "check out" because of the experimental section? I was guilty of this early on because knowing that it was not scored made me treat the section a little more lightly than I should have in my PT's. That could play a role in the score dip.

Give yourself some distance between those passages and revisit them a few days later to apply the technique. There is nothing wrong with repeating passages but some distance will help you refine the technique.

I also want to note that you can literally apply the Memory Method anywhere, anytime. It's literally about forcing your brain to remember as much as possible. The more you test it out, the better you'll get at remembering.

So I encourage you - try it out on a blog, an article, a newspaper, whatever. Bite off a few paragraphs and apply your technique there.

I know this won't really sound like helpful advice, but I honestly found that conditional language just takes time to absorb and master. Unless you thought conditionally your whole life, being at a point where conditional language just comes naturally takes time. For me, a few months to be exact.

What I will say is that you can expedite this process by weaning off flashcards and practicing constantly via questions. LG also have a ton of conditional language so you can practice there as well.

It's always through real practice through questions that familiarity and mastery is bred, not be regurgitating terms on a flashcard (of which I am guilty of).

Hey man, this is actually a pretty common sentiment so I hope you know you are not alone.

I myself saw a drop in LR when I hit the PT's in the 80's. I also thought they were just way harder than older LR.

What I think now is the LR is different, but not necessarily harder. They are different in the sense that they may use terminology or synonyms for words in the stimulus that you would not expect if you are looking for a specific word. Or that they are different when they completely ignore a conditional chain statement in favor of an inference that hinges on one or two words.

So it can seem harder, but I would argue that it's just different. If you were putting up -3 to -5 previously, you definitely have the skills to ace LR. Think of it instead as adaptation. You have to adapt slightly to face your new opponent.

There is a reason why people stress practicing with the most recent PT's. It gives you a sense of how the LSAC could be evolving and how you need to adapt to fight your opponent.