If you're still interested in chatting with someone about Allard, feel free to send me a message. I'm nearing the end of my 1L year at the school. :)

Joining @ and @ at Allard!

Way to go, @ ! Couldn't have asked for a better sounding board over the past (Heck!) 1.5 years of studying. Hopefully we'll bump into each other...either in Toronto or at the Law Games sometime. :smile:

Way to go, Man! You've been a huge support to this community. :smile:

Just got it!

My suspicion is that the curve will be closer to a -9/-10.

@ If you're using an iPhone, then what @ and @ I think would work well. If you'd don't have a gooseneck, then I've done the same set-up as @ , using books, and it seems to do the trick.

@ What sort of recording device do you have available?

Of course, C is the best choice, and I did choose it under timed conditions. However, I did think, given that this was a MBT, that the wording in answer choice C was too strong. The stimulus says "usually," but the choice seems to assume a direct conditional relationship. When I've encountered "usually" on the LSAT, I've typically translated as a "some," if not "most." When reading the stimulus, I would interpret it as leaving open the possibility that some research could be done with rats that are kept in conditions that are normal and healthy, something that does not include a small cage. Thoughts? Have I been interpreting "usually" in too soft a manner?

#help

@ , my strategy is slightly different for PR and PF questions...is there one in particular that's proving an issue?

I'm not sure I understand how you're using the "~", given that you use "no" as the negative in the first statement. But, the contrapositive of "no A are B" (A -->/B) is "no B are A" (B-->/A)

Hope that helps!

@ Have you checked out the powerpoint slides from the RC Workshop that was hosted by Daniel S.? (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/8rtwtswbq4kspt2/AABiG7z29wB0mXcZO5zE8buTa?dl=0)

Much like LR and LG, a helpful way of attacking passages is having an understanding of the sorts of moves that RC passages make. If you know what you're looking for in the passage (i.e. what's going to be helpful when answer the questions), you be more aware of them when you're reading the passage. Thus, not only will you have a better recall for the information, but you will also be able to find that information more quickly when returning to the passage. I often return to these slides, and then I try to build on them in my own notes. It's been mighty helpful.

@ It's been an honor. :wink:

I did PT77 on Saturday, and the passages seemed pretty standard. But, there were definitely a large number of tempting trap answers, and answers that required a good understanding of the overall structure of the whole passage in order to pick up on some of the more subtle nuances that made the trap choices incorrect.

Are you referring to the test in general or specifically the RC?

Do you record yourself? One of the biggest challenges I've faced with RC is being comfortable with moving on at a lower level of confidence than either LG or LR. Watching video footage is especially potent for revealing how much time is wasted on trying to gain 100% certainty regarding a specific AC when the other four are pretty dismal candidates. After a couple times of watching myself and yelling, "Move on!", I've come to move choose choices and move on more quickly. One of the biggest threats with RC, for myself at least, is wasting too much time on one answer, resulting in a rushed reading of subsequent passages...and it just snowballs from there.

The second piece of advice is skipping questions that you're uncertain about where in a passage you can find the answer. I'm a big supporter of going back to the passage for quick checks, but don't try and scan the whole passage to find the answer to one question...it's just not worth it. Especially since, sometimes the inference questions that are the most challenging are one's that require you to make complex connections between seemly disconnected portions of text. Those are the one's where you should smile...and give it to LSAT writers; you'll be able to more confidently grab 3 or 4 following questions, leaving you still the victor. It's not about getting all the choices, it's about making sure that the LSAT writers don't prevent you from getting the points that you could've gotten.

Finally, and this helps with the returning to the passage, read for structure. Instead of trying to understand the specifics of what the passage is suggesting/describing, pay attention to how the various elements of the passage are working together. Sometimes, for me, it's helpful to remember that it's called reading "comprehension" --it's about pulling things together and understanding the relationships at play.

Hope it helps!

I would direct you toward @ 's comment, along with the suggestion that you don't think to much about timelines until after you've completed the CC. Sometimes the movements is gradual from a 140 to a 170, other times it can have a few jumps along the way if something clicks well. Unless there's a very particular time constraint you're operating on, and thus you want to evaluate what sort of goal is realistic in that time range, I would avoid thinking about how long it will take to get a 172. Chances are that if that's the kinda score you're wanting, you have some pretty good schools/scholarships in mind, and thus it will be worth the time it takes.

Of course, the concern with studying too much is the ever-present risk of burnout. In my experience, limiting one's prep should be measured less by how many hours are being spent studying and more by how well you are able to maintain your concentration. Our capacity to focus/concentrate is much like a muscle, and so we need to be aware of when we are beginning to give way to fatigue. It's also important to remember that maintaining a healthy sleep schedule and diet, as well as reducing life stresses, is important in allowing our brains to engage effectively with the materials.

As a short answer, I prep about 6-8 hours a day, and that has been a good amount for me. However, I will do a short day if I begin finding myself easily distracted in the midst of drilling.

I would recommend trying 8 hours a day, and then allowing your self to adjust that based on how you feel. If you're near the beginning of your prep, you'll probably find that 8 hours is pretty exhausting if you're being thorough. But, as you become more familiar with the content, in my experience, it becomes less draining.

Hope that helps!

@ & @ , thanks for the comments. I also chatted with a couple of the proffs at the school where I work, and they agreed with you guys--go for someone who has experience on which to draw.

@ , ah...that is a point with which I've been wrestling. I am apply as a Regular Applicant. However, I did read on another law students forum that some students who were applying in this category did have reference letters sent in, and UBC did indicate that these letters were reviewed. I'm still debating whether I'll ask my referees to send in a letter. Thoughts?

I work full time, so 3hrs/day seems to be a good fit for me. :smile:

Thanks @ and @ !

Must say, considering that I haven't written a nice personal narrative piece in a long time, this is kinda disappointing. Oh well, just keep playing the game. :smile:

@ said:

For clarity, are you only applying to Canadian schools? I think this answer may be different for schools in the US vs. Canada.

Nice catch! Yes, only Canadian schools.