@ said:

@ said:

I had LR (26Q) RC LR (26Q) LR(25Q) LG

I thought the 25Q LR section was the easiest, and the 2nd LR with 26Q was the hardest.

I'm not sure if anyone else felt this way, but the first LR section with 26Q really felt like a lot of the questions were in past LSAC Preptests.. I've done PTs 42-74 and it almost felt like they had stuck a whole LR section from a past PT somewhere in that range in. It was actually pretty distracting, to be honest.

That's interesting. I also had 3 LRs, and in one of the sections I swore there were repeat questions--they sounded very similar to questions I had done before (both in content, and the logic required to answer them).

Glad I'm not the only one that felt this way. And yeah, I felt it in both the content and the logic. There was a question, it was somewhere around the range of Q19-21 in that section that had a pretty distinct topic that I swear I've done before. My brain's pretty fried and I don't remember exactly, but I believe it dealt with some sort of scientific topic.

Unfortunately, I feel like I kind of got slowed down due to distracting thoughts of whether these were actually repeat questions, and then trying to remember the logic of the question when I blind reviewed it (if it truly was a repeat question)..

It sounds like this section might have been the experimental one, although I'm not completely sure.

I had LR (26Q) RC LR (26Q) LR(25Q) LG

I thought the 25Q LR section was the easiest, and the 2nd LR with 26Q was the hardest.

I'm not sure if anyone else felt this way, but the first LR section with 26Q really felt like a lot of the questions were in past LSAC Preptests.. I've done PTs 42-74 and it almost felt like they had stuck a whole LR section from a past PT somewhere in that range in. It was actually pretty distracting, to be honest.

It's not necessary nor is it sufficient.

I PT in the high 160s to low 170s, with a consistent BR score of 177+ and I still watch/read explanations for every question. Even on the easy ones, I learn ways to solve them faster or see new ways that I could have used to eliminated answer choices. There are times when I don't see certain inferences but will find out about them through the explanations. This has allowed me to burn through the easier questions faster when PTing, which ultimately saves you more time for the harder questions.

This is a very time consuming process though. I also don't watch the explanations until I'm completely certain that the answer I chose is right. When I do get questions wrong, it's usually because I missed some sort of inference or misunderstood an answer choice.

It's important to keep in mind quality vs quantity. If you aren't BRing in the high 170s then there is room for improvement. Focus more on increasing your BR score instead of looking at it as trying to get through lots of PTs.

As far as getting an answer you had correct on PT wrong on BR, this usually means that you didn't completely have the question nailed down and there's an opportunity for you to learn from it. There shouldn't really be any reason to be scared, since at the end of the day your BR score is just part of your prep and a tool to see where you are at.

@ said:

Oh and a note - if you bring a sharpener, it must also be manual!! No electric/battery powered sharpeners.

I actually whittle my pencils so that I can customize their tip length. Now they are never too long (just begging to snap during a crucial LG bubbling sesh) or obnoxiously short (a la golf pencil). One caveat is that it takes a lot of time to master. You're going to need to pencil in some time during LSAT prep to get it down but it'll be worth it in the long run.

@ said:

@ Note that 25th percentile is not part of the USNWR rankings. The biggest factor (40 percen) is, essentially, reputation, which is one reason the rankings are so sticky and also self-perpetuating.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/law-schools-methodology

Interesting, thanks for this. While I've always kept up with the rankings of various schools for the last few years, I guess I never really looked too deeply into the actual methodology of how schools are ranked. I thought that medians played a bigger factor.

I think hearing people say things like how law schools would likely choose an applicant from a state university with a higher GPA/LSAT over one that went to a prestigious university but had a lower GPA/LSAT because law schools report their medians to US News played a factor in this misconception of mine.

I was definitely surprised to find out that how big of a factor peer assessment and assessment by lawyers plays, that's for sure.

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

What helped me improve my Reading Comprehension was drilling it in a similar manner as fool-proofing for logic games. A lot of people will mention reading dense material like The Economist, and, while I don't doubt that that would be beneficial, I still think that the most effective and time-efficient manner is to do as many passages as possible.

What I do is I take a 35 minute timed reading comprehension section. Afterwards, on a second fresh copy, I'll do blind review. I do each passage, one at a time, and time myself. There's not necessarily a restriction, but I try and finish the passage and answer the questions as fast as possible like I would during a practice test. Even though I've read the passage and seen the questions, I think this is beneficial because it's just more practice with time constraints. Right after this, I'll re-read the passage and do a true blind review of the passage; I spend as much time as I need until I'm confident that I've answered all the questions correctly. Once this is done, I'll view the explanations. Then it's on to the next passage. I started this method with PTs 1-20, and then did 19-38 almost twice; currently at RC 35 for my second time around at the moment. I've taken PTs 42-73 as full length tests, and once I get to 38 I plan to start at 42 and continue using this method (don't have 39-41).

There are high scorers that make lots of notations, and high scores that don't make any notations. Find a system that works for you. You mentioned how the memory method didn't work for you. I felt the same exact way. When I first started the drilling method I described above, I experimented with various techniques and eventually developed a notation system that I now consistently use. It's kind of similar to how you have a certain method for writing down your rules for logic games.

I found what worked for me was boxing key terms, putting brackets [] around viewpoints, underlining things I thought was important, and putting a curved line ")" on the right side of the passage for a few things to help me with the structure of the passage.

For viewpoints, if the passage says, "Some critics argue", then my passage will look like this: [Some critics] argue blah blah blah.

If the author introduces their view or makes an argument, I'll put a ")" with a capital "A" next to it. The top of the curved line starts at the beginning of the relevant text and the bottom is where it ends. This is also helpful when the passage will say, for example, "There are three distinct features of the iPhone 69x." I'll put a )1 encompassing the first feature, )2 for the second, and )3 for the third.

I also put a ">" on the left side of the passage whenever there's a shift.. I'm having a little trouble describing what I mean hear at the moment, but if the passage says, "The court ruled that in this case, the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation. However, some lawyers argue that the defendant should have been given a community service sanction and been reinstated on probation." Then I would put a big ">" next to "However".

Like @ mentioned, structure and knowing where to find things is really important. That's the goal of my notations. Again, this all comes down to personal preference, but I've come to realize that at the beginning of my drilling I was notating too much, particularly with underlining. It was a little messy and there was so much underlining that it didn't really help.

It might seem counterintuitive, but what I found really helped me for timing was not dwelling on questions where I wasn't completely sure that the answer I chose was correct. What really helped me with timing was trusting my gut when I wasn't completely sure about the correct answer (but fairly confident), circling it in case I have time left over to revisit it, and moving on. It was pretty weird but I found during blind review that sometimes I would be stumped on a question for a long time (sometimes spending 15+ minutes on that question alone) and eventually choose a different answer than my initial gut reaction choice, only to find out that my gut reaction choice was correct.

Amen x 100 to this. My notation strategy is almost identical. But I wanna emphasize circling ANY DATES has been super important in my prep. And you can bet your money that everytime the author says but/yet/however, there IS going to be at least one question from that portion. And drilling RC sections from PT 1 to 40 and all the super prep, C2 and feb 97 and repeating all of them or passages that gave me trouble has been immensely helpful as well. Just like LG, foolproofing RC is important IMO.

Glad you are on the same boat as me! As far as dates, I didn't mention it in my post, but for dates, I use parenthesis; if the passage says, "In 1969, the dildo was invented." Then I would notate it with "In (1969), the dildo was invented." For circling, now that I think of it, I don't have an exact set of rules, but one of the main times that I use it is when like the passage says, "Recent studies show that dildos are shaped like a banana," and I would circle 'Recent studies'.

My notation strategy isn't completely explained in my previous post, but I think your reply is a perfect example of how each person should come up with their own strategy. It sounds like we have pretty similar notation strategies, but while you circle dates, I place parentheticals around them.

Reading your reply was definitely refreshing though!! Glad to see that we are thinking on the same wavelength!

Hahahha hello hello

Yes alliances like ours help reassure others who may have doubts AND us who keep honing these notation strategies that what we do is working haha. I also box(rather than circle) recent claims/previous claims/conventional wisdom and if they oppose each other I put a big fat =/ on the margin to keep track of who likes/dislikes whom!

Btw,I havent done any PTs in the 50s and 70s. At first I thought there was a passage on dildos. I laughed out loud in public. Thanks. LOL

Haha, I've been studying for the LSAT for a really long time. I can assure you that there isn't a passage on dildos.. for now at least LOL. Thinking about these things with a sense of humor helps me stay sane. Is the "=/" supposed to be like the frowny kind of face that people use in text? If so, that's pretty interesting haha.

After doing so many passages, I feel like I've sort of developed a sense of pre-phasing questions! I honestly don't really look at the questions before reading the passage because I feel like it's not worth the time spent. But I've noticed that as I'm reading the passage, I will have a feeling that there will be a question about it and make sure to put a big notation by it so I can quickly refer back to it. And a decent amount of the time, there is some sort of question that involves being able to locate that area of the passage!

https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=206480

Use the Dixon Black Ticonderoga

@ said:

@ said:

169... Bittersweet but I guess it takes off some pressure off for the June LSAT. It really sucks not knowing what questions you got wrong.

I feel a 175 in June

Haha, that would be amazing. I've taken plenty of practice tests and a couple official takes, and I really do think that there's a decent amount of luck involved for what your official LSAT score on paper is. How you feel the day of the test for starters. And each individual person has their own specific strengths and weaknesses, and certain tests will be better for them than others.

169... Bittersweet but I guess it takes off some pressure off for the June LSAT. It really sucks not knowing what questions you got wrong.

I also got a 169 this morning from the March exam. I do feel like I underperformed a little bit, definitely sucks not being able to see what questions I got wrong.

If you can get a 169, there's no reason why you can't get a couple more questions right for a 170+. I'm shooting to apply this fall but already registered for the June LSAT and am considering the July one as well since I believe you can cancel your score after you find out what you got.

@ said:

@ couldn’t agree more with your assessment! Haha Suits is full of great quotes 😂

Agreed. My all-time fav is:

Harvey: What are your choices when someone puts a gun to your head?

Mike: What are you talking about? You do what they say or they shoot you.

Harvey: WRONG. You take the gun, or you pull out a bigger one. Or, you call their bluff. Or, you do any one of a hundred and forty six other things.

Congrats on the score!

@ said:

Hi friends.

I was pretty surprised by my score yesterday. I scored somewhere between 3 and 5 points lower than I was expecting to score, very close to my first score despite beating the low 160s plateau in my recent practice tests.

I've been thinking through what could have possibly happened--I felt extremely good about LG, and I felt about normal with the rest, even with one slightly easier-than-normal LR section.

I remembered that when I logged onto the forums afterwards, I heard people talking about one real LR section with 26 questions. I didn't remember 26; I remembered 25. I figured I just misremembered. But I know I finished every section, and I'm wondering now if maybe that was an indication that I bubbled the last few ACs on the wrong lines. It almost perfectly explains the scoring discrepancy between what I expected and what I got. I was typically falling around -3 or -4 on each LR section and -6 on RC, with LG at -0 to -2 depending mostly on whether I finished. I finished LG on January's test, so a -14 or -13 seemed like a reasonable expectation. Misbubbling 22-26, for instance--which is around where I remember skipping a question--would get me from -13/-14 raw to around -18/-19 raw, which is exactly the difference between what I expected and what I got.

Is this something a handscorer would check for? Would they be willing/able to discern the difference and credit me the incorrect bubbles? Or am I screwed? Want to know before I spend the extra $100. Anyone have insight to share?

https://www.studyusa.com/en/blog/1179/should-i-have-my-lsat-hand-scored

Check this out.

I don't have any direct experience with this, but based on what you've said, it sounds like most likely you skipped bubbling in a question, so that your answer choice for Q22 was marked in the bubble for Q21, Q23 in bubble for Q22, and so on.

The article mentions handscoring for issues like not sufficiently erasing, not sufficiently bubbling, and unintentional marks. It also mentions if you had skipped a line, and your answer for Q21 was in the bubble for Q22, Q23 was in the bubble for Q24, and so on, then you may be in luck. However, this sounds like the opposite of your issue.

https://www.lsac.org/lsat/taking-lsat/scoring/handscoring

In red, the LSAC tab for handscoring says, "Please Note: LSAC will not handscore answers recorded in the test book." This would explain why you might be in luck if you skipped a line - since all of the answer choices are filled in. But if you skipped bubbling in an answer, it seems problematic to try and determine which question you really skipped, since they don't rely on your test book. Maybe you skipped bubbling question 20, but the argument could be made that you just didn't fill in question 26.

Again, I don't have any direct experience with this, but if the first scenario I described is what you think happened, then I think you're probably out of luck.

I would try Blind Reviewing all of the questions. That's what I do. This will address your issue of missing questions that you don't circle. I've also found that going through the BR process helped me go through the easier questions faster. There are also times when I spot ways to eliminate an answer that I didn't notice while trying to answer it during my timed PT.

@ said:

I called the LSAC about this year and you can have multiple watches and they can be on your desk.

You can also have a single highlighter but it can have multiple colors.

Thanks for the info! That definitely gives me some more comfort. As far as the highlighter part, are you saying that the LSAC told you you could only have one highlighter pen? Highlighting isn't a part of my test-taking strategy but it just seems weird that they wouldn't allow you to have, say, an individual green highlighter as well as an individual blue highlighter on your desk.

@ said:

@ You are not allowed to have more than one watch (on your desk). I had two on my desk (one for backup since I was paranoid about batteries) during the (last) June sitting and was told to place one back in my bag.

Not all of the proctors will catch you (or even know about the rule). But yeah, just a heads up.

Would you be able to provide a little more detail on how the conversation went? Like, was it the vibe where if you produced a printed out e-mail from LSAC saying having multiple watches is okay that they would have let you leave them on your desk? Or were they really adamant about it?

@ said:

@ said:

What helped me improve my Reading Comprehension was drilling it in a similar manner as fool-proofing for logic games. A lot of people will mention reading dense material like The Economist, and, while I don't doubt that that would be beneficial, I still think that the most effective and time-efficient manner is to do as many passages as possible.

What I do is I take a 35 minute timed reading comprehension section. Afterwards, on a second fresh copy, I'll do blind review. I do each passage, one at a time, and time myself. There's not necessarily a restriction, but I try and finish the passage and answer the questions as fast as possible like I would during a practice test. Even though I've read the passage and seen the questions, I think this is beneficial because it's just more practice with time constraints. Right after this, I'll re-read the passage and do a true blind review of the passage; I spend as much time as I need until I'm confident that I've answered all the questions correctly. Once this is done, I'll view the explanations. Then it's on to the next passage. I started this method with PTs 1-20, and then did 19-38 almost twice; currently at RC 35 for my second time around at the moment. I've taken PTs 42-73 as full length tests, and once I get to 38 I plan to start at 42 and continue using this method (don't have 39-41).

There are high scorers that make lots of notations, and high scores that don't make any notations. Find a system that works for you. You mentioned how the memory method didn't work for you. I felt the same exact way. When I first started the drilling method I described above, I experimented with various techniques and eventually developed a notation system that I now consistently use. It's kind of similar to how you have a certain method for writing down your rules for logic games.

I found what worked for me was boxing key terms, putting brackets [] around viewpoints, underlining things I thought was important, and putting a curved line ")" on the right side of the passage for a few things to help me with the structure of the passage.

For viewpoints, if the passage says, "Some critics argue", then my passage will look like this: [Some critics] argue blah blah blah.

If the author introduces their view or makes an argument, I'll put a ")" with a capital "A" next to it. The top of the curved line starts at the beginning of the relevant text and the bottom is where it ends. This is also helpful when the passage will say, for example, "There are three distinct features of the iPhone 69x." I'll put a )1 encompassing the first feature, )2 for the second, and )3 for the third.

I also put a ">" on the left side of the passage whenever there's a shift.. I'm having a little trouble describing what I mean hear at the moment, but if the passage says, "The court ruled that in this case, the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation. However, some lawyers argue that the defendant should have been given a community service sanction and been reinstated on probation." Then I would put a big ">" next to "However".

Like @ mentioned, structure and knowing where to find things is really important. That's the goal of my notations. Again, this all comes down to personal preference, but I've come to realize that at the beginning of my drilling I was notating too much, particularly with underlining. It was a little messy and there was so much underlining that it didn't really help.

It might seem counterintuitive, but what I found really helped me for timing was not dwelling on questions where I wasn't completely sure that the answer I chose was correct. What really helped me with timing was trusting my gut when I wasn't completely sure about the correct answer (but fairly confident), circling it in case I have time left over to revisit it, and moving on. It was pretty weird but I found during blind review that sometimes I would be stumped on a question for a long time (sometimes spending 15+ minutes on that question alone) and eventually choose a different answer than my initial gut reaction choice, only to find out that my gut reaction choice was correct.

Amen x 100 to this. My notation strategy is almost identical. But I wanna emphasize circling ANY DATES has been super important in my prep. And you can bet your money that everytime the author says but/yet/however, there IS going to be at least one question from that portion. And drilling RC sections from PT 1 to 40 and all the super prep, C2 and feb 97 and repeating all of them or passages that gave me trouble has been immensely helpful as well. Just like LG, foolproofing RC is important IMO.

Glad you are on the same boat as me! As far as dates, I didn't mention it in my post, but for dates, I use parenthesis; if the passage says, "In 1969, the dildo was invented." Then I would notate it with "In (1969), the dildo was invented." For circling, now that I think of it, I don't have an exact set of rules, but one of the main times that I use it is when like the passage says, "Recent studies show that dildos are shaped like a banana," and I would circle 'Recent studies'.

My notation strategy isn't completely explained in my previous post, but I think your reply is a perfect example of how each person should come up with their own strategy. It sounds like we have pretty similar notation strategies, but while you circle dates, I place parentheticals around them.

Reading your reply was definitely refreshing though!! Glad to see that we are thinking on the same wavelength!

I'm interested to see if WUSTL makes a jump in rankings. Median LSAT of 168 and median GPA of 3.82; both higher than Georgetown. The 25ths are a little weaker though: 160 and 3.39.

What helped me improve my Reading Comprehension was drilling it in a similar manner as fool-proofing for logic games. A lot of people will mention reading dense material like The Economist, and, while I don't doubt that that would be beneficial, I still think that the most effective and time-efficient manner is to do as many passages as possible.

"Really hard" might be a slight exaggeration, but I took PT 72 two weeks ago and got a 166 which was definitely a score drop. Up until this point, my scores had been in the 168-173 with the exception of PT 72, PT 70 (165), and PT 57 (164; dinosaur game) for the last 30~ practice tests (started at 42 and took them chronologically).

I do feel a shift in the nature of a lot of LR and RC questions. It may be more difficult but I think a lot of it is getting used to the changes. This seems pretty consistent with what I've seen other people post in various threads regarding the PTs in the 70s.

If you're actually serious about this, you should take a look at the assault statute for your jurisdiction. For example, where I live, there has to either be intent to cause fear of bodily harm/death or intention to inflict/attempt to inflict bodily harm. If intent is an element that's required, it'll probably be pretty tough to prove there was intent given the circumstances of this incident.

@ said:

My advice is to head over to TLS for this topic. 0L's really don't know anything about jobs.

Be sure to try and negotiate with UVA!

My sentiments exactly.

@ said:

Just some really quick feedback for those who are a little nervous about studying for the digital version. I HATE, absolutely HATE the idea of the test being digital. I've always been a big pen/pencil and paper fan. After taking my first practice test using the software, I felt like I had either the same or more time on my side than usual.

One weird benefit of studying using the digital software is that it's really forcing me to absorb what I am reading, especially on Reading Comprehension. It is a little annoying to have to scroll through the passage to find desired text, but overall, I think practicing this way might even yield some benefits to you over time. The better you are at holding the information in your head, the easier I think the questions will go. I wrote Low Res summaries on scratch paper as well -- a number for the corresponding paragraph and a small 3-4 word comment/abbreviation for it.

My Logical Reasoning speed was like lightning. I zipped through that much much faster than usual.

As for Logic Games, this is where I think the transition to digital lacks a bit. I really don't think there can ever be a successful substitute for writing next to the questions and knowing exactly where all your mini game boards are. My advice is be super detailed with your scratch paper -- clearly write down the number of the question you are working on.

It is definitely going to be a change, but as a HARDCORE skeptic and technologically inept individual, I think that if I can get through it and actually (kind of) like the experience that anyone can.

As for the machine I'm using, I'm testing with a Dell Inspiron 15 7000 2-in-1 laptop. Hope this helps anyone feeling a little anxious about the switch!

Can you talk more about the scrolling of the RC passage part a little more? I was playing around with the digital LSAT PT on LSAC's website on my laptop, but don't have access to a tablet right now.

It seems like you use your stylus to tap the various buttons for Underline text and the different highlighter colors. Say you have one of the highlighter buttons selected. If you want to scroll down on the passage, do you have to uncheck the highlighter button, and then scroll down by dragging the stylus?

I was able to scroll up and down the passage without unchecking the highlighter button, but to scroll down by clicking my mouse button and dragging it up/down, I had to uncheck the highlighter button first.

The change for RC is my main concern. It's my weakest section, and having to completely revamp my passage notation strategy is annoying. I benefit from writing short phrases right next to the text. I've been practicing RC passages the last few days and have been trying to make a lot less notations. I noticed this has been saving time, and now that I think about it, there's a good chance I was losing time from over-notating. I definitely agree with you about how the new format will force you to practice by retaining more info in your head which will benefit you in the long run.

The other strategy I was potentially considering was writing P1, P2, P3, etc. on my scratch paper and writing notes next to each.

For Logical reasoning, I don't really see any downsides. If anything, the digital LSAT seems to make this section easier. For Logic Games, I'm not too worried because I'm typically pretty neat when making new game boards for each question, and most of the time I don't write the game boards right next to the question anyways. If I'm making a gameboard for question 2, I put a 2 with a circle around it. If I'm making a hypothetical to test answer choice c of question 2, I'll put 2C in a circle next to the gameboard.

Hmm, I had a different experience. 171 on PT 73 and 166 on PT 72. 169 on PT 74. I'm still getting used to the subtle changes in the late 60s and 70s as well as the dual passage in RC.

My general routine is an easy LG, easy RC passage, and answering every 3rd question of an LR section. I don't check to see if I got the questions I got were right or wrong (until after the test). When I take an official test again I'll be sure to use ones that are easier since it's a warmup and I don't want to psyche myself out if I have trouble with a question.

Ideally, by test day, your LSAT prep should have built upon enough mental stamina that the warmup doesn't contribute to a mental wall during the test.