@nielsinha488 You sir, are a real superhero. Thank you so much for your help. Luckily I still live pretty close to Cal and so might be able to hit up a professor there and ask for a research opportunity (in the time I would normally study for the LSAT). I know scrape up two other good letters of rec from professors at my community college if those are worth much and probably do pretty well on the GRE. Might just be dropping this whole JD thing for good than. Probably need to talk to a couple of folks but it seems right. Thanks so much for that advice again!!!!

@nielsinha488 Thank you SOOO much for all the advice! My worry about doing only a PhD is that unless I get into a top program, I also have no guarantee for a job. Even worse, I have nothing else that I am qualified to do. If you get a crappy adviser or don't get job right after graduating or don't get into a top 8 school for you field of study, your PhD becomes more a burden than a gift you know? Instead, with a JD I might be able to open up the possibility of academia but still be able to land another job if that doesn't work out. Furthermore, based on what I have read about admissions decision, I have abetter shot at a T-14 law school than a T-8 Poli Sci Ph.D program because I think I will do pretty well on the LSAT but my letter of Rec and my past research experience aren't top notch for a grad program though my GPA is ok (3.76) Do you think my train of thought is OK here for want to go to law school to possibly pursue academia?

@dinobunny576 Hmm. Interesting. I just checked, California Community Colleges will let you teach with a BA in the field you want to teach and a JD. That sounds promising and doesn't require research with I do enjoy but less than teaching I believe.

In your experience, do JDs need to go to an elite institution to be recruited as professors? Also are most of the professors you know who teach with only a JD full time? I know clinical prof. often are not.

@dinobunny576 Most law prof have a JD but not PhD (note a JD by itself def not enough to get a teaching position in law school

I'm not sure I completely understood what you meant here. Are you saying most law professors at your campus have a JD but no PhD but have something else (like work experience) that makes them qualified to teach? Because if a "JD by itself is def not enough to get teaching position" how do they have these positions?

Some big things: 1) LG is like math. When you're right you're right. You can't be more or less right which can sometimes be arguably in other sections a bit more. If it is a CBT question and you find that it could be true circle it and move on.

2) brute forcing is usually a last resort. Most questions should have at least 2 or 3 answers you can eliminate without trying them. Sure there are some you have to just try all of them but I'd would say 2 tops per game.

3) relate to the above, if you put enough work up front you can often just scan the ACs for the right answer. Often times its going to be an inference you made in your set up or in a previous question.

4) relate to the above, ussualy you want to take time up front and don't just dive into questions, if there are a lot of rules especially. T

5) Practice. A lot. Repeated games a great as you might know from the PB method. You need to internalize inferences.

There are some small things like not writing numbers works for me in small sequencing games because I can tell where the places are and you should be a lot rougher when drawing your board for specific answers. But the big ones are the above. Also know some games will take 15 minutes and that is OK as long as you can do the easy ones fast.

Think about it this way: if you build a house on a poor foundation, you will hit a point that no matter how much you add you it, it will keep falling apart. Kaplan is a poor foundation. You can't just go back and try to add some extra cement. You need to take the whole house apart and rebuild. Retake the 7sage course slowly from the beginning and rewire your brain. It's going to be hard but Kaplan probably instilled in you some bad habits you need to break in order to move past your plataue. I'm also taking in February so if you want to chat and maybe BR together let me know. I work full time but sometimes have time during the week and always study on weekends.

@2543.hopkins no they don't. Only Mexican and Puerto Rican Latinos. All others don't.

@wraith985-4026 the thing is that the LSAT can be made for accessible and affordable in very easy ways were as rebuilding the higher education establishment is much harder. Why is it that those that go through the super intense means testing for a free LSAT are only give 2 free preptest? 2! Is that really suppose to be enough? Come on. Preptest should be free or atleast a lot more should be given to those that pass a the exteme means test but LSAT would rather focus on profiting than evening the playing field. These are the practices I hope critiquing the system will change. And inspire others to bring out transformative programs like 7sage. I'm honestly not in favor of throwing out the lsat and am not even sure it should be given less wait but I don't think that someone who critiques the inherent unequal playing field it produces should be attacked.

Furthermore, URM status is truly out of touch with reality. How do Central Americans not receive URM status when they are also very oppressed? But you touched on some of the other ways it also is a blunt tool for a delicate task.

My problem with the people arguing against the social-economic barriers placed against the LSAT are the name problems I have with the classic "pull your self up by the boot straps" conservatives. People, who have never been poor, passed hunger, not had a home, go out and tell poor people, often of color, that it is all up them to make something of themselves. They say that "hard work pays of" and "if you try, you can be whatever you want" but when they do they keep hitting walls they need to climb over by a very thin rope. And these people telling them to work hard are the same ones building the walls so that they can't get over. Many of these people were once poor too or otherwise disadvantaged and come with the attitude of, "If I did it why can't you? Loser."

Look, the inherently discriminatory nature of the Law School does not begin as test material for the LSAT. It begins at birth. It is a standardized test for gods sake. People who have attended good school, more often than not those that are rich (and more often than not those that are white), are taught how to perform better on standardize test since a young age. I didn't know what the SAT was until I was in community college. No teacher ever talked to me about it. Why would they? No body in my class was thinking about college anyway. The skills to succeed on the LSAT begin far before materials need to be bought. But if we are going to talk about materials, the freaking Preptests alone can cost you $300+ and taking the test? It's a f'ing privileged to be able to afford taking the test 3 times at $200 each for people needing to put food on the table. The truth is, most people considering taking the LSAT are already in a privileged position with a BA and homelessness and hunger are not as big of a deal as with the rest of the population but they still exist. And even getting to that place, for many people, is often a struggle met by SO many challenges that it is completely unfair to say that "it does not favor the rich."

It does. Most things with this country do, but the law school process even more. To say it doesn't is to lie. Yes, to say that this can't be overcome is also to lie but lets be real and put things in perspective. I agree with @974, we should use our energy to critique the inherently discriminatory systems in an effort to change them instead of attacking those who do the critiquing. No need to jump on the OP's comments about the process if they are true. They are true. I don't take from his comment on the system favoring the rich that those aren't rich shouldn't try, they should just be damn sure that it is going to be a lot harder. It is a lesson I've had to learn and the advice I give the high school kids I mentor. The American Crony-Capitalist Oligarchy is built on inherently racist, classist, and colonialist believes and the law school process does a lot to support this concentration of power and not just limits the access of many people to a legal education, it leads to the inaccessibility of many to people to have quality legal representation. Those at the bottom must work hard to break this barriers. Admitting to this is the first step in helping to break them down for others. Saying it is all about "hard work" is the opposite.

Sorry but this doesn't sound like a break and based on you last few post I really do believe you need a BREAK. Not like a couple of hours away but more like a week or two without the LSAT taking up your time. Working on logic in order to improve your LSAT is still working on the LSAT. A break involves using your free time to hang out with friends, cook some bomb food, exercising, picking up a new hobby, traveling, playing video games, reading a book, watching a show, and etc. But even playing Sudoku to improve your logic reasoning I would argue is in violation of a real break. When you come back from your break, these logical indicators sessions might not be a bad place to start but for now please take some time away from this all.

@nordeend22 DUDE! I tried you strategy (more like mindset) today on a PT and I saw great results. Went -2 and -3 in LR from about -5/-6 on average before. I should note that the -5/-6 was on newer PTs (51, 52, & 70) and this was was on a older one (40) but I have to say it is a good way to approach the these sections. Thanks again.

@alp7q523 like that if I go to anything short of HYS for sticker then I'll be eating ramen and bartending deep in debt for the rest of my days. (I'm not saying there may not be some truth to that).

But like nah. There isn't much truth to that at all. Sure if you go to some school with 20% bar passage and 70% loan default you are putting your self a big risk of that ramen life but if you go to USC (#20) or Davis (#34) at sticker you can still do just find and even get a 160k a year big law job if that is your jam or something else that is prestigious in its own right. I'm from Cali so I don't know too much about schools outside the state but I know people that have gona to both of those school at sticker price and are doing just find and people who have gone to Bolt with pretty big scholarships and are sort of nowhere. You make what you make of it... for the most part. Again, if your options are for-profits or schools that showed up the NY Times articles these last few weeks for sticker price I would say think twice and not to rhyme. But If you get into a top 40, especially if it is by where you want to work, and being a lawyer is actually what you want to do than F#%@ TLS and what they tell you. Do you, try hard, and you'll be fine.

@974, As always, your advice is amazing, thoughtful, and very much appreciated. Love the experimentation and journal idea. Thanks so much!

@nordeend22 Wow. Great advice. I'm going to try implementing that strategy a bit more. I often have 1 maybe 2 Q's at the end that are long PR questions I skipped but I do often catch myself hitting the answer choices without being very sure about what I just read and wasting way to much time per answer choice. It's better to spend 1 minute per stimulus and 10 seconds per answer than it is t spend 30 seconds on the stimulus and 30 seconds on each answer choice.

First, just want to advice I would take anything that Kaplan taught you with a grain of salt. They have a reputation of being pretty bad at teaching the LSAT.

But more precisely on the strategy, it doesn't sound too convincing. The LSAT writers are not really doing this thing where middle questions or the last questions are hardest any more. "Hardest" is relative term to. I for one, and a lot of people I think, spend a great amount of time on parallel reasoning questions. Sometime up to 3 and 1/2 minutes. Yea, its bad. So I learned to skip them. Th problem with the strategy is that you still force yourself to answer tough questions that maybe time sinks and that maybe worth skipping. My advice, go in order but skip question you find hard or more importantly time consuming no matter the number. Sometimes that means reading simply seeing the text or skimming the stem and being like "not way, not now" other times that means reading the stimulus and saying "wtf did I just read?" and moving on. Circle them and come back at the end. Low hanging fruit first.

Lets take a minute here and distinguish "cannot" and "don't want to." They are different. I'm not sure what your situation is but it is very likely that you can postpone when you apply but you do not want to. What difference is there between applying this year or next year? Law School will still be there. Who knows, maybe with all this NY Times pressure, they might even be cheaper if you wait. If I am missing something in your personal life that makes you have to apply this year please let me know but if it is because you do not want to wait another year it is a whole different story.

Now here are some question:

What is more important: getting into the best school you can/ getting the highest possible scholarship you can or applying this year?

If the answer to that is applying this year, well than: If you have postpones twice, why did you just start PTing?

A month of PTs is not enough time to increase you score in the way you want I think. No amount of advice on this forum will change that much. But if you really do have to apply this year this is the best I got:

For timing on LR, skip hard or long questions. Finish the easy ones first. This could mean skipping question 5 or skipping questions 16-22 and than going back. It is important to skip, specially if you are not finishing on time. I suggest you try to finish you first 10 questions in 10 minutes. 20 in 25 minutes. Leave 10 minutes or so for the 5 hardest questions and review if you still have time. Make sure you clean sheet Blind review your tests and circle all questions you have even the slightest hint of doubt. DO NOT SKIMP ON BR. You don't have time for that.

If you are sure it is do-or-die on the December test, which again I think is a very bad idea unless there is something hyper-unique about your situation, start taking PTs in the 70s asap. You want to get use to those. Maybe switch off between a PT in the 70s and one in the 60s for the time you have left. Know that if you do this, you are using you very best study material and if you do decide to retake later, you will have partially wasted these crucial test.

Basically: PT with very strict day like conditions, BR the $%!# out of it the test, bullet proof games between test to get your games as low as possible, and repeat but do not over do it. Give yourself at least an entire day of every week.

Best of luck.

I recommend trying to do 10 of the first 12 questions in 10 minutes. This means skipping two harder questions if needed. Keeps you moving at first where it easier to waste time spinning your wheels. Also read J.Y. (?) article on why you need to skip questions on the LSAT (it is about coconuts). If you aren't skipping questions in your first run through of LR sections, you are doing it wrong unless you are a unicorn (in the words of @2543.hopkins).

http://classic.7sage.com/lesson/why-you-must-skip-questions-on-the-lsat/

Honestly, I think you started PTing way too late for the Dec LSAT. I depends what score you are aiming for of course but a 160+ is unlikely to happen in a month of PTs even if you are studying the whole time.

I would suggest you postpone. You don't want to do more than 3 PTs a week. 2 is a much better number for your last month of studying. That would mean 8 to 12 PTs tops before the test which likely isn't enough for a substantial increase.

This is the LSAT so there are no magic bullet. Only time, hard work, and careful work will pay off.

If you insist on taking Dec I would suggest you focus on games. You can still get those down to -1/-2 maybe even -0. Bullet proof method games between PTs. But LR will take more work and RC is a heavy load to push up. Really think about whether Dec is right for you. Your stress and eagerness will only make things worse.

"You make some money and you upgrade your apartment, you upgrade your dog..." - JY.

Lol.

That would be amazing. My biggest question would be: how did you conquer RC? Did you have to work up to it was in just a natural talent? If you had to work for it, what did you do? Because I SUCK at RC.

@cbarker3241656 I wouldn't worry too much if you see a difference in your BR score. After finishing the curriculum I think your BR should be a lot higher than it was before because that shows you learned the material. The timed score may just be lower because you are not in practice of being under so much pressure to take show what you know but with time that will probably come up. I'm in a similar place as you but still have about 20% of the curriculum left. PTed this weekend and got the same score as my PT before I started 7sage but after I did PS bibles but my BR was 7 points higher than my timed test without even BRing games. I think you'll pull closer to your BR score with practice on timed tests but if you are BRing low than it is a sign you might not have learned much in the course and should review. Just my thoughts though.

Dec. 2016 Lsat?

Thanks everyone for the great advice. Honestly it's a relief that I don't have to hammer out RC for the next 3 months because I hate it. And I actually really enjoy doing games even if repeated through fool proof method. Often do 2 in the morning with breakfast so I'll make that more routine and throw some in during the afternoon. I'll let ya'll know how it's going as I progress.

@974 thanks for the thoughtful advice. I understand where you are coming from and I know that is the 7sage philosophy "slow and steady like good BBQ." But honestly I'm not sure I buy into it 100%. My mentor at work, nice guy but not the smartest monkey in the barrel just hard working, studied for 3 months with PS and a test masters course and went from a 154 to a 172. I know his story isn't everyone's and he wasn't working full time while studying but I don't think studying for a year is nessesary or sufficient condition for a good score on the LSAT. Beyond that, the idea of studying for the lsat for an other year, which means waking up an hour early every morning and staying in every Friday night to PT early Saturday morning, sounds pretty awful. I know law school should be enough motivation for me to do it but honestly I'm not passionate about law. It is interesting to me, I like my legal assistant job at a small firm, I enjoy helping people out (it's to employee side labor firm) but it's not what I've always wanted to do. It's just better than other careers I've considered by quite a bit. So honestly I don't know if I can stay motivated until possibly Oct of next year for a single test. Plus all I really need is a 5 point increase to have a good shot at UCLA, USC, or even Bolt or Davis with a full ride because I did pretty well in undergrad.

And if I feel I'm not there my mid January I can always reschedule. Risking those $90 doesn't like a bad bet for possibly being done 4 month earlier. Plus the schools I'm looking at take the highest score and don't average so if I retake it's not the end of the world. I know this mentality doesn't fit in with the predominant 7sage philosophy, I just don't think the 7sage philosophy fits for everybody.

But again I ALWAYS appreciate and consider your advice since I know it thoughtful and sincere. And sorry for the long rant, it's just something I've given a lot of thought to lately and had to get out. You are just the the poor victim who had to hear it. Sorry :/