I had planned to make this post a month or so ago, but projects at work have kept me pretty busy.

As I end my LSAT/Admissions journey, I'd like to express my thanks to the people who make up 7Sage. I started on this forum after having meager results with what one YouTuber referred to as the "Holy Grail of LSAT prep." Immediately, I was welcomed into an encouraging community that was as informative as it was supportive. Of course, there's some people who have gone above and beyond in offering their support: @BinghamtonDave , @keets993 , @"Cant Get Right" , @LSATcantwin, and @Alex . I genuinely hope that I will be able to follow along as you each find your way through law school and beyond.

I'm thrilled to say that I recently accepted an offer to the University of British Columbia (UBC). Throughout my LSAT prep, getting into UBC was one of the main motivators for pushing my score, so it's reassuring to have that the time and effort pay off. It's a fantastic school, and I'm excited to be moving to Vancouver in September. (If any fellow 7Sagers out there are also beginning at UBC this September, DM me; I'd love to connect.)

Of course, there are similar posts to this one, and in each one the OP has offered some advice regarding what strategies were especially effective for him/her. Because I don't think I can add much to what people have recently offered, I'll just give one suggestion, steeped in hindsight bias. If there is one thing I wish I had implemented sooner in my prep, it is the skipping mindset advocated by @NotMyName in his 7Sage AMA (https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/18950/7sage-podcast-episode-11-7sager-notmyname-148-to-174-lsat). Going into each PT shooting for 4-5 points below my average was key to helping me overcome my "perfectionist fixation" on certain questions. It's really true that there are LSAT questions on which a quick skip should be considered a victory. After spending a few weeks developing this habit, I found that skipping some questions was actually able to contribute to feelings of confidence and control rather than anxiety and failure. Like most deities, the LSAT gods reward sacrifice. ;) For anybody out there who's still in the midst of preparation, I cannot emphasize enough how valuable are the shifting wavelengths on that podcast.

Finally, I'd like to give a massive shout-out to the tutoring services of @BinghamtonDave . Anyone who's spent a significant amount of time immersed in the 7Sage CC will tell you that one begins to hear J.Y.'s voice while taking PTs. ("'A' What!?!?! What does that even mean?!'") While this remains true for myself and LR, Dave's voice began declaring squatters right in my brain when tackling LG. Dave's knowledge of the test is outstanding, and he's a fine human being. Without Dave, I strongly doubt I would have made the cut for UBC. I cannot recommend him strongly enough.

I'll continue to hang around the forum and offer advice assistance where I can. If you have any specific questions, you're welcome to DM me. :)

Anyone who's been on this forum for more than a couple weeks probably realizes that this is a complex and controversial topic. While I value a wide variety of opinions, I'm particularly keen to hear from persons who have taken the LSAT multiple times. Hopefully, those with similar quandaries to my own can also benefit from this thread.

I'm currently slated to write the test in June, and though I'm pleased with the progress I've made so far, I'm fairly confident that I have some wrinkles to iron out before I'd be scoring in my preferred range (170+). My current average is in the 165-168 range. In addition to taking the June test, for the past couple months I've planned on retaking the test in September. I have a flexible job that works around my studying, and I sincerely enjoy the project, so an additional 2 months of prep isn't a con.

That being said, here's my question: what are your recommendations as far as canceling my June test and only taking September versus taking both tests? Weighing in my mind are a couple questions: should I be walking into the test if I'm less than confident that I will earn satisfactory score (I know for many this goes against 7Sage orthodoxy); would taking the June test help to calm nerves in September by providing a sense of familiarity with the experience; would knowing that I have a retake planned help to alleviate some pressure during the June test and, theoretically, help me stay composed?

Though I don't want to put anyone on the spot, I understand that @LSATcantwin , @"Cant Get Right" , @"Seeking Perfection" , & @Alex might have some experience in this area? Any insights you might offer would be greatly appreciated!

Hey all,

I have a question regarding references on which I'd be interested to hear some thoughts. I'm a Canadian applicant, and I've already submitted my applications for Ontario law schools, which allow three referees. However, I am just finishing up applications for UBC, UVic, and Dalhousie. UVic does not accept LORs (which, in my opinion, lowers their program on my list...but, anyway). UBC and Dalhousie, on the other hand, ask for only 2 letters. Thus, I'm in a position where I have to decide which two referees to ask to submit letters to these schools. Here are a few relevant specs for each referee.

Referee #1: An Associate Professor in psychology who I completed roughly 8 courses with over the duration of my program. I haven't seen the letter he wrote, but I often received back positive comments on my performance and a few times he asked if he could provide my papers as a model for future students in particular courses that he taught. However, I never worked as a TA or research assistant for this individual.

Referee #2: Instructor in sociology. Due to a health condition, he is not able to fulfill the requirements to be a full professor at this time, keeping him at the rank of instructor. However, he does have his doctorate from a prestigious American university. I worked as a TA for him for 4 years, returning each year at his own request. I also worked as a research assistant for him during a summer. I expect the letter would be quite good.

Referee#3: The Vice-President Academic of the university where I graduated. Unfortunately, I never completed any courses with him. Our relationship revolves around his supervising an academic writing fellowship that I was offered, and am now completing, at the the university. His comments to me have been favorable, and he described his letter as "glowing." However, I know that the amount of personal experience with me that he has to drawn on is more limited than the other two. At the same time, his title is impressive.

In many respects, the question this comes down to is...Do admissions committees tend to regard more highly the title/position of the referee or the amount of experience shared with the applicant? Thoughts?

So, I write an exam on Monday for a job opening for which I'm applying. I wrote a practice test this afternoon to get a feel for the test; apparently, I overthought the following question that appeared on the test.

Twenty percent of your work now involves clerical duties, whereas these duties took 30 % of your time two years ago. However, the 20 % of your time spent on writing the quarterly report two years ago has now increased to 25 %. You also note that 25 % of your time is spent classifying files, as it was two years ago.

What conclusion(s) can be justified based on these findings?

Can anybody guess which answer I "incorrectly" chose and why I chose it?

*(The full test is available to the public on the Government of Canada website.)

When I began formulating my personal essays/statement, I tried to focus on providing an interesting narrative that I thought helped to explain how different specific events have lead me to a way of approaching the idea of the law. I've tried to maintain a narrative form, rather than going all-out abstract essay.

However, I was recently reviewing some personal statements online, and I noticed that a number of people made note of their academic achievements. For instance, UofT, arguably Canada's #1 law school, provides this online document for prospective applicants: https://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/JD/UofT_Law_Personal_Statements_Examples.pdf

What have other people's experience been with this? Is it best to "slip" these in? Gotta say, when I've tried to work them in so far, I kinda feel like a prig.

So, I'm currently completing the sufficient assumption section of the CC, and I have a question about diagramming. When I'm currently doing the practice problems and problem sets, I find that I am most successful (95% and (1min) with these questions when I simply focus on the passage and be clear in my mind where the gap is in the argument, without drawing any diagrams, and then move onto the choices.(/p)

From those who have completed a strong number of PTs, is this setting myself up for failure when I encounter more difficult or more "unusual" questions of this type on tests? I did spend quite chunk of time working through the logic sections of the CC, so I know I am working through some of proper process in my head...but, should I be concerned about my head failing me for some of the more taxing/complex questions?

As always, any thoughts are appreciated!

Is anybody else having technical difficulties with printing off materials from 7Sage right now? Normally it works fine for me, but right now the documents are printing out with reddish text. I’ve tried to troubleshoot by printing some documents off other sites, and it doesn’t seem to be an issue. Any suggestions @studentservice

For the past several weeks I've found recording my PTs quite helpful.

But I'm curious if people have any strategies they follow when reviewing their footage? Are their specific aspects that you focus on?

At the moment, I have two main aspects of my review.

First, I record my times for each question to try and focus on which questions I struggled with, even if I was confident I had the right answer once I selected it. This has been helpful because, then, I go ahead and review those questions more in-depth even if I got them correct under timed conditions. Second, I try to keep a notebook of various observations about my strategy, trying to tweak my timing to be more parallel to my confidence level (e.g. I can tell from the footage that I was 85(ish)% sure that I had the right choice after A (and did), but I spent too much time closely reading the other answer choices.).

Are there other techniques that people have used that they find helpful? @"Cant Get Right" , I was listening to your AMA the other day, and you seemed to be a strong advocate for video recording/review. Any suggestions?

Thanks, everyone!

Hey everyone,

So, I'm working through my analysis of this question since, yes, I got it wrong on my last section drill, and I'd be interested to hear some of all you smart people's thoughts on the question/choices. For context, it's a MBT. As I read it, the contribution law outlined in the stimulus could be translated logically as,

Contribution of $100 by a nonresident who was not a former resident ---> contribution must be registered with the city council

The author notes that no nonresidents contributed to a particular candidate's campaign. So, from my understanding, the sufficient condition outlined in the stimulus is failed (but not necessarily the necessary condition). So, when I glanced at "C," I immediately thought that they were trying to tempt me with a mistaken negation, purporting that it must be true that no contributions to the candidate's campaign needed to be registered with the council. The thought that popped into my mind was, "Well, but there could be other reasons why a contribution might need to be registered with the city council." But, in this case it seems that I and the LSAT writers are not of one mind. :P

Is part of my misunderstanding rooted in that it introduces the particular law in question as "The law..." rather than "A law..."? Should that indicate to me that there is only one law and, thus, only one reason for registering a contribution with the city council?

Love to hear you're thoughts!

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-2-question-25/

Hey everyone,

I stumbled across 7Sage after it was mentioned in an LSAT curriculum I've been using. I've since been using the free trial and have been really impressed with the techniques and sense of community. Consequently, I've been flirting with upgrading to the Ultimate grade in order to continue developing my skills. At the same time, I've been looking at some other online courses that offer one-on-one guidance, which I suspect would be helpful in terms of accountability to make sure that my score continues to increase (currently, I'm usually scoring around 163-166 on my PTs). I've been studying for the LSAT since November, and I'm hoping to break the 170 threshold on the June test.

While I wouldn't consider myself to be lazy or a procrastinator, I know from when I completed my undergrad that I always excel in settings where camaraderie pushes me to be better. All that beings said, do people have some thoughts on whether they have found the 7Sage curriculum/community to push them to be consistent in their prep?

Any thoughts would be appreciated!

Hey everyone,

I've recently begun recording myself as I complete sections and Full PTs. It's been immensely insightful, especially for evaluating my ability to stick to various strategies.

That being said, I'd be interested in putting them out to some persons in the 7Sage community to receive feedback, but I'm not sure if this is permitted under the LSAC licensing that 7Sage has. Anybody have experience in the this area?