You have a great shot at the T14 with such a high GPA and that LSAT score. Also, taking another "gap year" won't hurt you at all; in fact, it might even boost your chances as it gives your more work experience (which is what you should look at those "gap years" as).
http://mylsn.info/r/pre-law/admissions/graph/
However, idk if a fourth take would hurt you. I haven't read anything that said it would, tho.
johnrielromero636
Which LG are the most relevant nowadays? I read somewhere that if I have limited time to prep, then 50 - 79 would be best to master. Should I include even before 50, or perhaps even after 50?
I've been using my ID as a straight edge when diagramming for LG. Are we allowed to have our IDs on our desks during the exam?
I'd be glad to look it over :)
@ said:
Moving beyond the philosophical arguments, let's take a pragmatic approach:
Yes, you will have to perform well, and better than URMs. You probably can't bank on getting anything lower than the median GPA/LSAT for a school you want to attend.
Does that mean if you're a splitter AND Asian-American your chances are doubly bad?
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
Title says it all. I'm very curious to know!
By checking Asian in the box, its already a different league. No doubt. And it's not at all for the better.
:(
There really isn't a noticeable impact on admissions decision for Asians. Asians are not as overrepresented in law school as in undergrad. Additionally, the process is so intensely numbers driven that schools cannot afford to require higher numbers of Asians. Chances are basically the same as for whites or any other non-URM(under-represented minority).
Or at least as someone who checks the box, I'm pretty sure admissions chances are nearly the same and don't see the difference in my own results yet.
Although you're Asian (I think that's what your last paragraph implies?), you also have a 180, so I'm not sure how representative your cycle would be.
If Asians do score higher than the LSAT than other ethnicities, coupled with a comparably higher GPA, (not sure if that's true, but I wouldn't be surprised seeing how it is clearly true in undergrad admissions and in medical school admissions), then shouldn't we be seeing higher numbers of Asians at some schools than we currently do?
Congrats! Genuinely happy for you. You definitely earned it.
Edit: woah, so you're the guy with the flair (if you know what I mean). all this time I hadn't realized
@ said:
Just FYI I had a friend who had a 2.9 uGPA, studied hard, got a 177 on the LSAT, then got admitted to nearly every T-14 school (including Harvard!). He ended up going to UVA on a full ride.
You can do it!
Was he URM or non-trad?
You're basically a guarantee with a 170+. Going by LSN with your creds I'd be shocked if you didn't stick at at least one T14.
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
I agree that you should back off on the PTs. I was doing 3 or 4 PTs a week leading up to my first attempt, averaging 174, and scored a 165 on the real thing.
On my second attempt, I took only 1 PT during the two months of studying. All I did was drill LR and RC, and foolproof LG. I got a 172 that time.
There is a lot to be said for taking the time to thoroughly review problems that you have already seen. That is where I learned the most.
Of course, this may be anecdotal. But at least in my experience, I saw the biggest improvements when I STOPPED taking PTs.
Gratz, I've seen a few stories like this. Where did your drills come from - were they new materials or from PTs you'd already taken? Also, did you take them as timed sections with BR?
I just used the 7Sage practice sets to drill, so I'd say half and half new and old, just depending on if I had taken the PT before.
All drilling/PTing/foolproofing I ever did was timed. The only untimed work I would do was BRing LR after a timed PT/drill section.
Really, the time constraints were the biggest limit on my performance though, so untimed work might have benefits if you struggle more with other issues.
Thanks for your help.
@ said:
I would really only say 2 PTs max, but ideally just 1. All that taking full PTs really does is help you get used to the timing of the test, build stamina, and gauge your progress. BRing them helps learning, but that can also be done in individual timed sections or drilling.
Have you watched this webinar? https://classic.7sage.com/webinar/post-core-curriculum-study-strategies/
That will give some tips on drilling and how to progress through your studies. I think you'd overall be better off just focusing on foolproofing and maybe doing timed LR sections.
I've seen that webinar, but was still unsure of how to proceed. For LR timed sections, am I supposed to be using old or new materials? I'm worried about "wasting" fresh PTs that could be used to replicate test day conditions.
@ said:
I agree that you should back off on the PTs. I was doing 3 or 4 PTs a week leading up to my first attempt, averaging 174, and scored a 165 on the real thing.
On my second attempt, I took only 1 PT during the two months of studying. All I did was drill LR and RC, and foolproof LG. I got a 172 that time.
There is a lot to be said for taking the time to thoroughly review problems that you have already seen. That is where I learned the most.
Of course, this may be anecdotal. But at least in my experience, I saw the biggest improvements when I STOPPED taking PTs.
Gratz, I've seen a few stories like this. Where did your drills come from - were they new materials or from PTs you'd already taken? Also, did you take them as timed sections with BR?
Edit: I've FPed the LG Bundle, but I'm considering going through it again before coming back to new LG sections. Thoughts?
Since finishing the CC I've done 7 PTs, with a 170.7 first take average and a ~175 BR average.
Section splits: -1.9 LR, -2.7 LG, -3 RC.
For LR there's no particular Qtype that's messing me up, and I think I'm getting the hang of RC now. However, LG has always been my weak point, and I just went -6 on my most recent PT (LG section rated easier).
I'm currently doing 2 PTs/week, but I want to bump it up to three while continuing to foolproof LG. My rationale is that that would give more exposure to new questions (instead of drilling old material) and experience under test day conditions.
Is there a reason I shouldn't be too impatient and instead take my time, maybe go back and drill some older LR sections? Or is it okay to go ahead with the PT number bump?
Many people thought PT 84 had a hard RC, but I don't think it asked anything new. Just harder maybe. I wouldn't worry about it. Also, sometimes you just have a bad PT day.
Sat the June 2018 exam - scored much lower than my PT avg.
Took it again after receiving my score and without looking at answers - scored a 178.
I second what lady said.
#help
I still don’t understand why (A) is wrong.
If Sklar believed chess promoted mental maturity, wouldn’t it be inconsistent for him to say that chess has no societal value? Because mental maturity has societal value.
Thoughts?
@ said:
Subscribe to the Youtube channel. May not catch them all but that should help.
Thanks, but I actually want to screenshot a particular message I received haha.
johnrielromero636
Sometimes we'll receive a notification or message about a webinar or a message about our progress. I think they appear in a little chat box when you first receive them. How do I access those? They're not in my inbox.
Edit: Found them! They're on the Contact Us page.
#help
Can I get some help? I see that there's an unrepresentative sample flaw, but I initially chose B and am having trouble eliminating it.
Isn't the argument flawed because it jumps from an effect - gossip is popular - to the that publishers intended for it to be so. What if publishers include gossip for content diversity's sake, and it just so happened that that was what became popular? How can the argument assume that publishes have these "false assumptions" in mind which drive their intentions?
@ said:
I had to do at least 20 sections before I hit my first -2 on a fresh section. Everyone is different though and you're making great progress! Just keep hammering away...
@ said:
I'm not sure exactly. I may have reached a -2 fairly early, but didn't regularly get timed -2s for any significant length of time.
Before foolproofing I started out really struggling to get to the last game, but there could have been a time or two on a PT I made it far enough into the final game to end up with a -2. I would say I was probably averaging -4 with a range from about -2 to a high end of -8.
For me it wasn't about getting to a specific number of misses, but just getting to be able to finish the section. I did this within the 35 minutes for the first time about halfway through the bundle maybe PT 18 or 19. I know I didn't happen to miss any that first time I finished on time. I couldn't regularly finish until close to the end of the 35 and even after that still had trouble every sixth test or so on average.
When I finished the section, I always averaged about half a mistake. I would miss two about a eighth of the time, 1 about a quarter of the time, and 0 about 5/8ths of the time. But my average misses would have been higher(but probably not as high as -2) because when I couldn't finish I would revert to about -4.
Anyways I got to an average below -2 by the end of the 35 test bundle, but I still had enough variation from those sections I would struggle to finish to keep me worrying and foolproofing more sections right up to the test where I got a -1 on the easy September games.
After finishing the games section on the September test, two thoughts went through my head during the break "Don't mess this up on one of your good sections" and "Please don't let that have been an experimental section." Thankfully I didn't mess it up and my experimental was an RC section. Some people get good/confident enough to prefer an experimental games section. I don't understand them, but I hope you are one of them.
Good foolproofing!
Thanks for the advice, guys. I just finished a fresh take of LG from PT 6 and went -4 in 44 min. The fact that most people seem to think that the earlier LGs were easier worries me. Simply reaching -2, not even averaging -2, seems unlikely by PT 18 at this rate.
Deleted.
After completing the LG CC and fool-proofing the problem sets using the Pacifico method, I've gone through PT 1-5 of the LG Bundle. I've seen ~108 unique games at this point. LG has always been a weak point of mine (the first simple seq game problem set took me about 3 hours), and the CC seems to have really helped my accuracy. I'm around -2 average.
However, my timing is still much too slow. It's been taking me around 10-15 extra minutes to finish each section in the bundle.
I'm going to continue with the Pacifico method. If anyone's been in a similar situation, at what point in the bundle, or in the PTs phase, did you start to see your LG reach -2/below territory?
Yes, please. I too need some motivation while studying for the June exam.
Anyway, there are splitters on r/lawschooladmissions with acceptances at several T14, including UVA, Penn, Mich. Just off the top of my head.
With your LSAT, you'll probably get in at some T14 and some great $$$ at T20. Be ready to write some LOCIs. Still, it's pretty early in the cycle.
#help
It seems like (E) could also strengthen. Or, it could also weaken. But the strengthening argument seems more plausible?
Strengthen: Poison oak and ivy like human presence so why would they develop urushiol as a defense mechanism to hurt humans? They wouldn't.
Weaken: Poison oak and ivy have a high presence where humans are active, so they developed urushiol as a defense mechanism against humans.
What score are you expecting?
Your goal is 170+. I wouldn't sit for the LSAT unless your most 5 PTs are in the 70-80s with scores 170+. Given that you likely won't be able to do that by the September exam, I suggest you apply after you've taken the November exam and raised your GPA.