@ well done, instead of dancing around the OPs question, you answered it succinctly. Shows true mastery.

@ said:

@ there should at least be a period of time where you feel good about your apps and before we go into worry mode about law school😁

I had probably a good week after my LSAT. Than it was worry about my score. After I got my score, it was worrying about whether I'd get a offer. Once I got my offer, the most worrisome of them all, was thinking of law school and the road ahead as a lawyer.

Hey, you sound a lot like me. I studied on and off for 2 years. Would burn out after going hard for a month or so. Felt like I didn't get certain things, progress was slow and/or eventually got distracted with life events.

I started seeing improvement when I did more PTing. I didn't manage to finish any of my prep materials including the CC. But I didn't want to delay another year so I just jumped into doing the PT phase. I started with 1 a week, followed by BRing the questions I flagged (skipped BRing RC cause I didn't have time). I would than grade the exam and review all the questions I got wrong - look at the question and watch the explaination video.

I would than check the analytics for the exam and pinpoint the top 2 or 3 question types I got wrong and go back to those modules in the CC and review the lessons. When reviewing, I redid the drills at the end.

I saw improvement on my next PT. I then cranked it up to 2 PTs a week and at one point I was doing 3 PTs a week.

Over about 1.5 months, I saw an increase of about 10 to 15 points depending on the PT I took.

On test day, I outperformed my PT average by about 5 points.

Not the best way to do it, imo. Follow at your own risk.

Looking back, I think I would have went with a traditional prep company that had classroom/tutoring to guide me through the lessons and keep me accountable. I think if I had done this, instead of 2 years of on and off studying, it'd have probably been 6 months, 8 months max.

Worry about law school :)

Congrats!

:)

:)

@ said:

All of the "gotcha" methods like time sinks and games that are supposed to take abnormally long are counterproductive to the entire purpose of the test in the first place.

The time pressure is already going to make test takers perform worse than if they were allowed to not have to rush through sections, so all of the extra BS if anything is just another barrier in getting an accurate evaluation of someone's true capabilities on the test as opposed to if they are savvy regarding the methods the test makers use. Why should you be penalized if it takes you 2 minutes to answer questions as opposed to 1:30, or because you didn't complete a game you actually could've finished because you were wasting time with a time trap? That says more about the circumstance than what you are truly capable of.

Knowing to skip a game or passage has no translation to any skills but can put two equally capable people into entirely different brackets of scores, in turn giving them entirely different law school prospects. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Shouldn't we be less worried about others "cheating to get a higher score" and more so why the LSAT goes so far out of its way to make people jump through hoops that don't matter and are irrelevant to being a lawyer?

TL;DR - Worried about the wrong issues

I have a couple friends who are in law school and they say the skills they learned studying for the LSAT, they use in and out side of law school. One buddy from columbia uses conditional logic to break down scenarios on exams, also he can read through dense material looking for the relevant material quickly.

What the LSAT is testing for is your success in law school. In my opinion, it is a good indicator of how well of a law student you can be as the skills needed to get a fantastic score is transferable to law school studies.

If we all had unlimited time to do the test, than yes we can see our true and maximum potential. But we live in a world where getting the right answers quickly and efficiently is more valuable than whether you can eventually get the right answer.

@ said:

think there are some misconceptions here about the amount of information needed to be constituted as cheating or having an unfair advantage. lets be clear, ANY information about the exam before going in to the exam will give those people an advantage. this is where you can argue how much of an advantage but there is no denying that there is one. the default reply to this is "how does knowing which game/passage/etc. was hard and help you do anything" i've even seen people try to argue "how does knowing the type of game help or i knew the game and what type it was and it still didnt help." this just baffles me, if you know which game is hard you know which game to save for last to attempt and even just save most of your time trying to get 3/4 games perfect before even attempting to do the last game. yes, this doesnt give you any additional points for that last game/passage/etc. but it also gives you a very clear strategy to attack that section without having to waste time or thought in to how to do the section in the most efficient way possible, and in turn, leading to a higher score than someone who had to parse through the section and waste time to do this with the same strat. for those people that even question if this is cheating clearly did not study this exam or have any clear understanding of it...

tl;dr - knowing things prior to the exam is cheating

Yup, totally agree. This is exam is a beast and having ANY information regarding the content of the exam is considered cheating because of the reasons you listed. The problem is, these discussions are bound to happen, there isn't really a way to regulate/control it. If people were not to discuss here, they would discuss via DMs and/or on another forum like reddit. So in a sense, discussing these themes in an open forum gives the savvy student an equal level playing field from a student who is getting this information from his/her friend who took the test.

@ said:

I think there are merits to the slow, gritty hard worker and merits to the 2 month genius. The 2 month genius may have the mental hardware to be able to parse really complex concepts quickly, to read faster with the same understanding as a slower reader. The slow gritty student has the persistence to work hard when hard work is needed -- maybe on those Friday nights or weekends when everyone is at the bar and they're disciplined, staying home to study. I have to say for SUREEEEEEEE I value my accomplishment as a slow, gritty worker of getting my score WAY more than my genius buddy who studied a couple months and got the same score. Since I value my achievement more you can bet your butt I'm going to be a more serious student (sample size 1 ;)

Haha. I know what you mean and I hope that's true.

Alot of people disagree with me on this. But I think you should take a couple PTs in between the core curriculum. I'd suggest taking 3.

I.e. at 30% completion take your first, 60% take your second, and 90% take your third. Doing it this way will give you a chance to review specific concepts that are still fresh in your mind, see if what you learned is being used effectively, and give you a chance to get used to exam conditions sooner rather than later.

The other side of the argument is that your wasting PTs. While this may be true 5 or 10 years ago with less total availiable PTs, this isn't true now with over 80 PTs availiable. I'm pretty confident most LSAT takers do not even go through all of them before doing their LSAT.

@ said:

I am going to be a bit of a Karen, spurred by posts I've seen across the internet.

Is anyone else rather concerned at the level of leaked information out there regarding these exams? This forum, reddit, elsewhere, are all getting into which passages are the most difficult, which games are the most difficult, and so on. Indeed, I've seen several posts now of people happy they took the exam later since they knew what to expect.

I am entirely ok with someone saying a section was difficult. But when people get into the specifics of say, passage 1 is very hard, 2 is easy, 3 is easy, and 4 is very hard, it gives an absolutely massive advantage in avoiding time sinks, if not anything else. Advantages that people who take the exam earlier miss. Hell, even just saying "X passage/ game was really difficult" opens the door for me to easily strategize.

It is mind boggling how few unique sections this LSAT seems to have. As far as I can tell, there really aren't that many section options. In fact, it seems to come down to 1 of 2 sections for LG/RC/LR (might be wrong). People are still getting the same sections I got back on Saturday!

This is a problem. I am curious if the LSAC will notice scores creeping up as the week goes on.

There's definitely an advantage to taking the test later and getting information you would not have otherwise. It seems from what I read, there are 2 versions of the exam. So 4 different LG themes, 4 different RC themes, and 2 different LG sections. Just knowing which theme you got can kind of mentally prepare you, like you said to avoid a time sink and/or what ever other strategy you can use to prepare yourself.

Whether this gives someone a significant score boost, I don't think it would.

On the other hand, I think what is more worrisome is since its so prevalent of people discussing the exam.

What are people discussing behind closed doors?

I think people can sell/give in depth information on a particular topic/game/question. For instance, someone could say this game was grouping with these specific rules. In that case, people would have a huge advantage and it would totally be unfair.

I guess that's the problem with these LSAT Flex, LSAC likely knows this is happening and will see if the problem is negligible or a big issue. If its a big enough issue, they will have to make more tests and/or switch back to live testing.

But even with live testing there are issues. All testers don't test on the same day due to accomdations/religious holiday/international, so same problems of people selling and giving in depth information. Its just a matter of how prevlalent cheating is and how much of an impact it has on live vs flex formats.

@ said:

@ said:

To be devil's advocate (there always has to be one), I'd say yes. Law school would be more difficult for the person who took longer to score the same as the person who didn't take as long. They might have built the same skills in reasoning, reading, etc that are necessary for the LSAT; but what other inefficiencies does the person who took 4 years to score 174 have from the person who scored 174 in 2 months? Probably a lot.

I'd say the person who took 4 years probably has a lot of bad habits to begin with too. These habits can resurface if their skill set acquired isn't kept fresh through practice. While the other person likely has these good habits ingrained and could probably maintain these habits for a longer period of time (marathon).

Personally, I went from 135 to 160 (about 2 years studying) and I would like to think it's all sun shines and rainbows; but I know for a fact I got bad habits lingering in the back of my head in regards to reading, writing, and speaking (all important skills for law school and eventually for being a lawyer). If I am not constantly refreshing these skills, I think I'd fall back into my bad habits. Hell, it's only been about a month out from doing anything LSAT related, if I were to test now; I'd probably get 145 to 150 lol.

sample size = 1 lol. I don't think it's more "inefficient" to take 4 years to get to a 174 vs take 2 months to get to a 174. A 174 is a 174, regardless. And whether or not you take the LSAT again is a moot point once you get into law school. Of course, I'm assuming that hard work leads to built-up grit, which in turn is a better predictor of academic success than natural talent (which by itself is simply the amount of myelin sheath you have accumulated on the neuron pathways that are exercised in studying for the LSAT)

My example is definitely anecdotal. But so is everyone elses statement here. There is no way we can prove this specific example, its all speculation.

How can you argue that taking 4 years is not inefficient compared to taking 2 months to get a 174. That's a big gap in time, and I'm sure most would prefer the latter. Okay, so you built up some grit, dedication, and got some juiced up brain muscles; but according to your LSAT score, you just played catch up to the guy or girl that was able to score a 174 in a very short amount of time.

I bought a 50ft ethernet cable to have a wired connection. Things get wonky when people take control of your computer and access your webcam. Also, I'd recommend a pretty good laptop/computer. If you got a cheap $200 to 300 dollar one and a bad internet connection, bad things are bound to happen.

To be devil's advocate (there always has to be one), I'd say yes. Law school would be more difficult for the person who took longer to score the same as the person who didn't take as long. They might have built the same skills in reasoning, reading, etc that are necessary for the LSAT; but what other inefficiencies does the person who took 4 years to score 174 have from the person who scored 174 in 2 months? Probably a lot.

I'd say the person who took 4 years probably has a lot of bad habits to begin with too. These habits can resurface if their skill set acquired isn't kept fresh through practice. While the other person likely has these good habits ingrained and could probably maintain these habits for a longer period of time (marathon).

Personally, I went from 135 to 160 (about 2 years studying) and I would like to think it's all sun shines and rainbows; but I know for a fact I got bad habits lingering in the back of my head in regards to reading, writing, and speaking (all important skills for law school and eventually for being a lawyer). If I am not constantly refreshing these skills, I think I'd fall back into my bad habits. Hell, it's only been about a month out from doing anything LSAT related, if I were to test now; I'd probably get 145 to 150 lol.

Depends how the schools you apply to look at multiple takes.

I know my top choice averages lsat takes, so in your situation I would definitely cancel if this was the case.

My 2nd choice says they take top score but take into consideration multiple takes, the less the better.

My 3rd choice says they take the top choice and disregard everything else.

Give it a day or two and weigh the costs and benefits of cancelling.

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

Hey everyone,

Seems like some of the RC themes were different than the one I took. I had Cloth Weave, Medieval Instrument, Physics vs Chem, and Law Tech.

Also my order was different than some of you!

Mine were identical. My Proctor disconnected me at the Physics vs. Chem question right after I read the passages. Lost some memory by the time I could resume the exam.

Sorry to hear about that. Physics vs chem was pretty easy too... why were you disconnected?

I found the cloth weaving and medieval one the hardest of the four.

But overall nothing was out of the ordinary.

Also, when people are saying diplomats are you guys referring to the cloth weaving one? I don't think the main point there was about diplomats lol...

I found the medieval instrument one the most painful one to digest. It was dry and utterly boring, so it was hard to retain the details.

The Proctor claimed HE could not see me, though my webcam had no issues on my end. So my exam was paused and closed on me, until we were actually transferred to tech support. It was not quickly resolved (15-20 minutes minimum), so by the time the exam was re-opened, I already had forgotten many details of what I read.

Bummer, sucks how proctor did that.

Agree, medieval one took some double backs.

@

You can submit a complaint, saying you had tech problems. They might give you a retake.

@ said:

@ said:

Hey everyone,

Seems like some of the RC themes were different than the one I took. I had Cloth Weave, Medieval Instrument, Physics vs Chem, and Law Tech.

Also my order was different than some of you!

Mine were identical. My Proctor disconnected me at the Physics vs. Chem question right after I read the passages. Lost some memory by the time I could resume the exam.

Sorry to hear about that. Physics vs chem was pretty easy too... why were you disconnected?

I found the cloth weaving and medieval one the hardest of the four.

But overall nothing was out of the ordinary.

Also, when people are saying diplomats are you guys referring to the cloth weaving one? I don't think the main point there was about diplomats lol...

How about the ones that leave comments saying "yaas I got 23/23 on this problem set" or "yaas 100% under 5 mins". That's all I really saw in the questions when I went through 7sage last year. Annoying as hell.

For Western Canada, most schools take last LSAT in January. Some schools take last LSAT in February - TRU and U of S. Most applications for the following admission cycle is closed in December.

Congratulations! I came from the 130s too. For all those out there, ITS POSSIBLE!

Dont drink too much like I did last time and needed to go to the restroom in between 2nd and 3rd sections.

I would start practicing with a glass of water/juice/pop now if you are going to drink something.

@

It was a weird process for me as I studied on and off over 2 years. I haven't even completed the CC, 100%. I left some of the harder drill questions at the end of each of the topics. But where I found most improvement was during the PT stage. During the last 3 months, I've done about 15 PTs. I only BR'd the questions I flagged. After each PT, I would look at my analytics and see which question type I struggled most with. Go back to review those questions, than go back to the CC and relearn the strategy/approach. I would then drill these questions.

I found I constantly struggled with SA, NA, and Flaw; so I worked on those the most for LR.

For LG, I struggled most with grouping games and worked on improving that.

For RC, I didn't really pay attention to my analytics and just tried different techniques; finally settling on LSAT Lab videos on YouTube which talk about PIVOT Points and Common Themes you can box specific RC passages in. J.Y kind of touches on this.

I also bought Ellen Cassidy's book The Loop Hole which helped me break down LR stimulus better. I didn't even finish that either (common theme here lol)...

But all in all, if I were to do it all again; I would definitely hire a tutor and/or go with a course where you have someone pushing you to show up and complete the work. As motivation was a big factor in why I kept studying on and off. I would also start PTing a lot earlier, there are over 80 PTs and you "wasting" a few right off the bat isn't going to harm anything. I wager most students studying for the LSAT do not even complete all of the PTs. The value in PTing earlier is that you can solidify which you already have studied, I would think of it as kind of a midterm or quiz of what you recently learned. This gets you acquainted to the test sooner, rather than later. Also this will let you know sooner which you need to work on. You can pretty much PT 35 to 50 while going through CC and still have close to 40 fresh tests in the bank for when you start to PT 100%.

Hope this helps...

I had a diagnostic of 135. Took me about 1.5 years of studying on and off to get to 160. If I could go back and do it differently, I would have got a tutor or taken a traditional prep course (with classes/tutor style) to keep me accountable. Wasted so much time getting burnt out and giving up.

I had a similar score trajectory as you did. On some tests, I'd get low 160s, on others, mid 150s, averaging at about 155.

Did a couple of the PTs in the 80s and my score did drop to low to mid 150s. Week before the real deal, took a break did one practice test 3 days before and scored a 157.

Was pretty nervous because I needed 160+ on the real deal to be competitive in my top choice school, which is also in my home town. But on top of that I had a kid coming in 2 months, tested in last intake for September in January, and had a girlfriend who had a full time job paying 6 figures.

With tons of pressure and probably my last chance of getting into Law School, I did the test and scored a 160. Out of the 3 schools I applied, I got two formal offers and one wait list. I accepted the offer from my top choice school. I will be attending this September.

Fortunately for you, you got some time and a goal score that can be achieved by just about anyone who is willing to put in the work.

The only thing I'd suggest is reviewing your analytics to pinpoint your top 2 or 3 weaknesses for the LR section and go back to the module/s corresponding to those LR types. For me, I started to see a pattern of mostly NA/MSS question types I had issues with. So naturally, if the test/s had alot of these question types I would do bad and if they had the question types I was good at, I would do good.

Also, I found I missed alot of critical/key stuff when reviewing the corresponding module to the question type I struggled with. I started to clearly see and understand why I got a certain question type wrong after going through J.Y's lessons and drills again. It really is only about 30 to 60 mins of going through the lesson and a couple drills, but I found it prepared me better to tackle the particular question type again on the next practice test.

I would repeat this process, I probably reviewed NA/MSS 4 or 5 times before I had a pretty good grasp of it. I also reviewed other question types like strengthen/weaken, etc, when they were in my top 3 of incorrect question types. It was kind of a punishment for getting those wrong and doing something about it.

At scores below 165, I found most people do not really have a good grasp on the best/recommended strategy on attacking specific question types.