Why law or medicine? Why not research?

@ said:

@ said:

First of all don't beat yourself up. Putting time into CC upfront is the way to go. That said, it's okay if CC alone, especially for LG, doesn't all stick and translate to immediate improvement. I found that to really improve on logic games you have to practice and ideally fool proof them. When you just get through CC you have an idea of the techniques to use, but you haven't done the practice to quickly know what to apply when, so it's normal to run out of time at first.

I recommend creating a spreadsheet with a row for every game you encounter. Create a column with the ideal time for the game, and create a bunch of column for the time and score for various attempts (e.g. Attempt 1 score, Attempt 1 time, Attempt 2 score, Attempt 2 time). Use the fool proof method to log games and attempt them until you master them. It'll be hard and tedious at first, and it may take a while to get there, but you will improve with practice.

Hey, thanks for the response! I actually meant to say that LR was my worst section. Sorry for the confusion. Do you have any tips for LR?

No worries! LR is a beast. There are so many different question types, and it's daunting at first.

First off make sure you do thorough BRs. It'll be painful and long at first, but it pays off. I'd also track the LR questions you struggle with by question type, and further by argument structure (cookie cutter review). There are patterns across LR questions in their structure, that once you learn to recognize, make questions go by a lot quicker.

I think it's worth it for LR! By reviewing them you will reinforce the reasoning you used and get faster.

Revisionist history is great! Thanks for sharing

First of all don't beat yourself up. Putting time into CC upfront is the way to go. That said, it's okay if CC alone, especially for LG, doesn't all stick and translate to immediate improvement. I found that to really improve on logic games you have to practice and ideally fool proof them. When you just get through CC you have an idea of the techniques to use, but you haven't done the practice to quickly know what to apply when, so it's normal to run out of time at first.

I recommend creating a spreadsheet with a row for every game you encounter. Create a column with the ideal time for the game, and create a bunch of column for the time and score for various attempts (e.g. Attempt 1 score, Attempt 1 time, Attempt 2 score, Attempt 2 time). Use the fool proof method to log games and attempt them until you master them. It'll be hard and tedious at first, and it may take a while to get there, but you will improve with practice.

I'm in the same position and the general advice I've heard is that you can keep your essays for the most part, but should tweak and update them, at least a little.

Take a break, ranging from a day to a week. Do things you enjoy that aren't LSAT related. Then, review and drill questions from your lower scored PTs. I'd even redo timed sections and see how they go. & try to analyze your performance. Maybe there's no rhyme or reason as to why your scores have dropped. Maybe you're just burnt out. Or maybe there are sections you performed worse on or question types that you consistently missed. Identify your weak points, own them, and work on them. As you become confident that you are mastering the questions you missed, start taking fresh PTs. Do give yourself breaks though! They may seem like a waste of time, but they can energize you and make you more efficient in your prep.

Putting more time into CC is usually worth it. That said, what I did is create an excel spreadsheet of games I encountered with the goal time and my attempts (including time and accuracy). I gave a couple of games a shot every day and logged my score til I felt comfortable with the game (finishing within the time frame + scoring 100% + using efficient problem solving techniques).

I can 100% relate. When I graduated I took a litigation job and I had a lotttt of late night federal filings, coupled with early morning state court filings, and a lot of stuff I just could not plan for. What really hurt me was not being able to establish a consistent study schedule around work hours because my overtime fluctuated unpredictably. & on days I didn't have overtime, I'd be stuck in horrendous traffic eating away 2-4 hours of my day.

I ended up having a conversation with the partners and associates I worked for about how this wasn't working for me and how I needed to block out time for prep. This kinda worked in that on most days I could come in later (~10:30 am) and study in the mornings and over lunch break (7-10:30 am + 12 pm - 1pm). But as the LSAT I had registered for at the time approached, one of my cases really ramped up with multiple ex parte appearances-I had to drop prep entirely for a couple of weeks. This left me really derailed, which ultimately led to the decision to quit and study full time (my firm wouldn't accept me temporarily being part time).

Full time prep was nice in that I did have the whole day to study, but at the same time, if I did use the whole day it was very draining, and at a certain point it became inefficient. Still, I got to a PT average I was comfortable with and sat for the test in Nov '18. Unfortunately, I underperformed, which really sucked since I had left my job to study full time in September and I thought that would have been enough.

After I got my November score I decided I wanted to give the LSAT another shot, but I knew full time study really wasn't motivating for me. So I looked for a part time legal assistant job I was interested in, and I eventually found one, applied & got hired. Part time work was the sweet spot for me. It balanced prep and work really well. Having engaging breaks from long days of LSAT prep (work days) was energizing. I also now work for attorneys who are 100% supportive of me taking the LSAT & respectful of my schedule and time (even though I still work in litigation). I sat for the June '19 test and a partner I work closely with even texted me a pep talk before and after the test.

That said, I know not everyone has the luxury of working part time. If that's your situation, I think your best bet is to carve out time during the work day to study/drill/do timed sections/BR and take PTs on the weekends. Do you use public transport or carpool? Can you do some studying then? Is it hard for you to leave the office for the day once you get in? If so, can you get to your office earlier in the day and study at a nearby coffee shop before work? Can you study on your lunch break? & when you do carve out time to prep, let the people you work with know that you're unavailable at those times.

TLDR: My anecdotal take is that studying full time doesn't necessarily translate to a better score; carving out time during the weekdays (working full time or part time) can be just as effective if not more.

Congratulations! Doing the evens or odds of 70s-80s is a great idea. Good luck!

@ said:

Ive been hearing this alot. What do you mean exactly when you say "read for structure"? I thought I should ask this because I am getting through all passages but my accuracy is slowly improving. Hopefully if I can master this, I would get more points

For me, reading for structure started out by actively asking myself as I went through each sentence something like "So what? Why is this sentence here? Is there support for it? If it is, then maybe it's a conclusion or subsidiary conclusion. Is there no support at all? Maybe it's a premise?" Reading for structure is zoning in on the purpose of each phrase in an argument and picking up on how the author is supporting a conclusion (or how third parties the author is reporting are supporting their conclusions). I have a running spreadsheet with the cookie cutter structure of passages I've struggled with, and I try to look out for one of these structures when I take timed tests.

Something that really changed the game for me in reading comp (I used to only get through 3 passages, but I can consistently get through all the questions with a minute or so to spare) is learning to trust my gut on some questions and not digging through the passage for minutes for just one question.

Also, when I finish passage 2, I always glance at passage 3 and 4 to see which one has more questions. I do the one with more questions after passage 2, just in case I'm running short on time. That way, worst comes to worst, I can do a quick read of the passage I have left and hit the broader questions correctly at the expense of a detail question or two.

Hope some of that helps!

Maybe do a warm up before your PTs/test day with one or two games? I find that I just need to do warm ups before I take PTs/time sections, otherwise I don't perform my best.

@ said:

Thanks everyone, this is what I figured but wanted to be sure. Additionally, I've only been working part time for the past four years. Is this something I should also disclose, or that I will be asked?

Some schools ask that your resume have how many hours/week a job entailed. So in that sense you may have to disclose it.

@ said:

If there is more to the story, it is OP's job to tell us. It is not our job to assume that additional information exists. Nor is it our job to ask if other information exists.

????????????????????????

I'm not going to assume that an assault took place and I doubt that LSAC would either. The rest of you are not being helpful by making that assumption.

& yet it is helpful to assume from, what is by your own admission, an incomplete set of facts (e.g. "But your post does not suggest that they touched you..."), that the assault did not occur ("As it relates to the alleged 'assault,' smacking the pencil out of your hand does not count) and that OP is just exaggerating?

Also people aren't assuming the assault took place...they're just offering advice as to whether/how OP should make OP's case to LSAC. LSAC wouldn't "assume" whether the assault happened or not either, it would make a determination...

@ said:

But if we didn't love our first essay and we just took in June, we have a year to submit a new essay using our own computers, right?

Think so!

I was pretty nervous about taking PTs at first, because I was scared of seeing my score. I really had internalize that my diagnostic score, and every other PT after that, was an opportunity for me to work towards my goal score, and an opportunity to see what I could do well, and what needed work. That shift in mentality really helped me overcome some of the anxiety.

Games wake me up, so I always do a warm up with games that I track on a spreadsheet (with the game, how long it took me vs. how long it should take me, and my accuracy). I also do games before PTs and actual takes.

@ said:

@ said:

How did you set the game up?

I treated it as an in/out game with subcategories (days). For each day you have 3 slots in, 2 slots out.

Timed & upfront, the only inference I made was that L must be in on Saturday, because P is already occupying 1 of the 2 out slots, and kicking L out would kick out M too, putting 3 players in the out group.

You also have a total of 9 in slots, with 5 players, each of which can be in a maximum of 2 times (b/c none of them can be in all 3 days). So, 1 player goes in once, and the rest go in twice. If M goes in twice, then L must go in twice, with M. This distribution inference helped me out on a couple of questions (20/23).

I set the game as a standard 3x3 grouping gameboard. I understand the distribution mechanisms that at least four pieces need to repeat once - but that is not enough because every piece can repeat in theory. With respect, I disagree with respect to the inference about L.

"On any day that Morse works, Lentz also works." - only means that M -----> ML. It does not mean /L ------> /M. L can exist without M. For example, slot 1 (Thursday) can have LPQ and does not violate any rules.

Thanks for sharing about the In/Out method. I will experiment it now.

I'd diagram "On any day that Morse works, Lentz also works" as M ------> L. /L ------> /M does not mean that L needs M. It's the valid contrapositive of M ------> L. If you were to diagram L needs M, that would be L ------> M, not /L ------> /M.

If you're feeling shaky on your conditional logic, I'd return to in CC. Also, check out the question bank and filter for logic games that are "In/Out - Subcategories" to practice.

I usually do the questions in order unless one looks really hard (e.g. rule substitution). But after game 2 I always glance at games 3/4 to see which one has more questions and tackle that one first.

How did you set the game up?

I treated it as an in/out game with subcategories (days). For each day you have 3 slots in, 2 slots out.

Timed & upfront, the only inference I made was that L must be in on Saturday, because P is already occupying 1 of the 2 out slots, and kicking L out would kick out M too, putting 3 players in the out group.

You also have a total of 9 in slots, with 5 players, each of which can be in a maximum of 2 times (b/c none of them can be in all 3 days). So, 1 player goes in once, and the rest go in twice. If M goes in twice, then L must go in twice, with M. This distribution inference helped me out on a couple of questions (20/23).

Edit: I've definitely found myself with uncomfortably open in/out subcategory games. But if you do the set up correctly, and keep a close look on that out group, the questions shouldn't drain you of time.

Thanks for the shout out!

At the UVA application reader webinar last night, asking someone who left the company or someone who you could trust not to reveal your ultimate plans to go to law school to the rest of the company was recommended.

Also if you had a good relationship with professors when you were in school, I don't think it would hurt to reach out to them and rekindle the relationship.

It's self-reported and only a snapshot, but you can plug & chug into mylsn: https://mylsn.info/6x29e6/.

I think it'd be interesting to hear why you want to go to law school w/your BS in physics.

What schools?

down!