@ said:

Don't know if your doctor mentioned this to you or if you're already aware, but SSRI's take about 4-6 weeks to start working in your favour, should you be so lucky as to be prescribed one that works for you.

In my experience with an SSRI, they kick in after about 15 minutes. My psychiatrist did talk about this grace period though.

@ said:

Hey guys! I hope you're all doing well! I just wanted to ask if any of you guys take anti depressants and if so, if it affects your studying at all? Or if anyone has suffered from depression and anxiety and how that fared with preparing for this test. I'm asking because although I have been taking an antidepressant (wellbutrin/dopamine reuptake inhibitor) now for over a year, my doctor has recently prescribed to me an SSRI, serotonin medication. This actually isn't for my depression as I've been pretty content and not depressed for a while now, thankfully. But this new medicine is to help me treat my OCD. I ask because SSRIs are typically used to treat depression.

I've had my prescription filled for my new medicine and haven't taken it yet. I wanted to hear if any of ya'll have prepared for a big test like this while taking antidepressants and battling mental health issues since they affect concentration, sleep quality, appetite, etc. Also, I know this is a sensitive topic so I am sorry if anything said in this thread is offensive! xx

I took an SSRI for about 6 months after reaching out to a psychiatrist during a low point in my life. Going to school for the first three days on the drug was weird, it definitely took some getting used to. But after that I felt mostly normal. The pills were great for sleep. I could get like 2 hours and wake up feeling like I got 8. And they made me not sad, so I was happy.

I ended up hating them though because they made me, like, unable to feel sad at all. I'm pretty sure if my dog died I wouldn't have been able to be sad about it. Like, I would've understood and acknowledged the emotion but not actually felt it. I hated that. It was like I was a pianist and somebody took all the Ds and Es off my piano. Also during that initial period where your body is acclimating to the drug you feel like you're micro-dosing ecstasy, which is pretty shitty.

But back to your question. You should be fine taking an SSRI as long as you don't plan to sit for the LSAT during your first week on the drug.

@ said:

I was pretty much fine until last night when I had my first memorable LSAT-related nightmare.

I dreamt that I went to my LSAC page to see if it was grey day yet, but my score was already there! A bold 149. My diagnostic was a 147. My dream self was absolutely heartbroken that all I got was two points after having studied for over a year and maintained a far higher PT average.

When I opened the response sheet, I saw that I got a 120 in one of the sections (I think it was RC), which isn't possible because, well, we all know that sections aren't graded on a 180 scale. There was another page that had my bubble sheet scanned in (idk how this differed from the response sheet, lol), and I had a question where I bubbled two ACs, so I didn't even get points for the question.

I think the shock of it all woke me up and it took me a few solid seconds to convince myself that it wasn't real.

I can't wait for this wait to be over.

I had a dream this morning that it was the 29th. Didn't actually get to see my score though. Shit is getting to me.

There aren't really any tips and tricks for the LSAT.... maybe the negation technique for NA questions but that's the only one I know that works. If the ACs are throwing you off do not read them until you completely understand the stimulus and can make predictions on what the correct AC might be. Cover the ACs until you're ready.

I haven't been through the admissions part of 7sage much yet. Forgive me if there are already answers for these.

How to go about contacting schools about continued interest? Is there a best time? Letters vs knocking on the door?

How to negotiate scholarships?

My boss can't write. Can I edit his letter of recommendation?

@ I remember learning about blocking the alternative but not what video JY talks about it in. Can you link the video you're pulling your info from? I wanna make sure I undstand completely before I feel comfortable explaining it.

I'm going to be commuting home for the beginning of this webinar, does the service allow people to call in from a cellphone?

I did that and still do sometimes. You're eliminating the real bullshit ACs which is good, but now you're having trouble choosing between the correct AC and the trap AC. Working on reading the stimulus and AC closer and understanding the parameters of each question type should help.

With the closer reading you're going to be less susceptible to missing things like picking an AC that talks about all cars when the stimulus talks about German cars and stuff like that.

Understanding parameters of the question types is going to help you understand what is fair game for an answer and what is off limits. Like not attacking premises in weakeners.

I think this part of your study needs to come from you though. You should keep track of every question that tricked you into picking the wrong answer and make sure you think about why and how you got tricked so that it happens less and less.

@ said:

I know that with strengthening questions you are looking for the answer choice that strengthens the argument and blocks the alternative. I am a little confused on what exactly does it mean to block the alternative. After looking at the explanation of the webinar video for this question it seems as if blocking the alternative is an answer choice that provides another alternative. Is that correct? I believe that the whole concept of "blocking the alternative" is going over my head and I would like further clarification on this strategy. In addition, can someone explain how A strengthens the argument....A does not seem like it supports thew conclusion if the conclusion is saying that the fungus contributes to the decline of moths and A is talking about that the population increased.

In strengtheners the answer should strengthen the argument or at least block an alternative. Sometimes the correct AC for strengthening doesn't seem like it directly strengthens the stimulus, but it does by way of blocking an alternative.

A is the correct answer because it says "this other group of moths have an immunity to the fungus and they're all doing fine," which supports the conclusion of "the fungus is the reason for the reduction in moths without the immunity (the moths from the stimulus)."

E actually weakens the argument by saying: "in this other forest, where there is no fungus, moths are dying at the same rate as in the forest where the fungus actually is." Which weakens the whole "the fungus is the cause" thing.

@ said:

You're on an LSAT forum. I have a feeling you know what the resounding answer here will be...

This

@ said:

We don’t have enough information to say “take the GRE” yet. It’s just too risky. The LSAT is a winnable, tried and true method for admission at top schools.

Also this.

I feel like applying to law school with a GRE is a less streamlined process right now. Just try the LSAT. A 3.9 in BIO, you're probably smart enough to do well on it.

Interesting to consider taking both though... I can't imagine an admissions officer giving anyone an advantage for applying with both and I think a law school would ignore the GRE given a choice between the two. But I have no idea.

If you're geting like -x in LR and RC already and -xtimes2 in LG, I'd recommend skipping straight to LG.

Obviously you want to do all of the CC in the order it's presented, but sometimes it can be worth it to skip around.

The best thing would be to skip a cycle and apply next time with a years worth of improvements under your belt.

@ said:

i am taking the LSAT in September for the first time and I need at least a 160. I scored a 145 on my first cold practice test. Is it possible to make that big of a jump in scoring in such a short period of time??

Not if you're wasting your time on here asking if its possible :p Adding 15 points to a score is not small potatoes. It's definitely possible though, especially if you got your 145 without answering any LG questions.

@ said:

It's a fine balance of knowing when to time and when not to time yourself, if there are specific areas of concern definitely focus on those and evaluate your thought process and then look at the explanation of the question.

Doesn't make sense to time yourself for material you haven't mastered.

Once you see the questions enough time won't be an issue, 7sage and people on this forum state time and time again speed comes with mastery and practice. good luck

I actually don't think there is much of an argument for not timing yourself on a section or full PT. Regardless of your mastery of the content, your first pass of a new section should always be timed and then you can spend as long as you want on review. By not timing yourself you are wasting virgin material (couldn't think of a better word but it works for what I mean). Sure you need to learn some way beside the CC, but I see no reason to waist a limited resource like the PTs by not timing yourself. No matter how long you wait before retaking a PT it will never be as true a representation of a score as taking a PT for the first time.

Oh man there is one where hes like talking about a floater or something and says "hes off getting high somewhere" cant remember what PT though :[

He talks about weed a lot though I've noticed...... hmmmm :trollface:

Just spit balling here:

der legal spiegel

setting the bar

jargon

case to be made

standing

law school dossier

bar downed (if named this, blog must include hockey)

7says

sage review

many leather bound books about law

case review

the opening statement

re-tort

I think I had the same layout LR,RC,LR,LR,LG?

Most people were pointing to the first section being the experimental, which sucks because I think I nailed that one. I think I did OK on the LR all together though. I liked all the point of disagreement questions.

I had the most trouble on the LG. I finished the first one in good time, mapped out the second one but saw no inferences right away. I moved on to the third, finished in good time. Then got to the forth and was struggling with it. Ended up running out of time and had to guess on all the questions for game 2. :[

RC I only struggled with the sulfates one.

@ Assumes without giving justification that what was true in a previous case(confederations cup) will be true for the current one(world cup)??

@ I thought they were the "greatest generation"

golden generation just means there were a lot of high caliber players born in the same generation

I like Belgium just because they're a small country but their team has top tier players at every position right now. Realistically I think its going to come down to who doesn't choke and to me that seems like Germany. England and France have not looked solid to me in any recent high level showings. Spain's young talent isn't keeping up with their old talent and also I don't like Spain. Same for Italy except I like Italy. Brasil got Brasil-ed last time out. I think I'll be rooting for Columbia though.

Definitely my favorite part about the world cup is watching some relatively unknown player shine and then get offered a big contract, like James Rodriguez last Cup.

A big part of getting better at this test for me has been learning how it likes to trick people into wrong answer choices, especially in LR. When you go back over your answers are you thinking about why the answer you picked was wrong and why the right answer was right? As long as you do this you should improve. You talked about having this problem last night and are worried that after 24 hours nothing has changed. Maybe you need a week for the material to set in, that is not unusual. I wouldn't get hung up on this especially if you're new to the material. The more time you spend with the test questions and the CC the more familiar you become with these concepts.

I know JY ordered the CC in a way that makes sense logically, exposing people to foundational concepts first then building on them, but you do not need to do the CC in that order. Maybe its time to employ a skipping strategy and go on to the next section and come back later.

@ said:

Like I'll get the questions right that only 35% of people got right, but I'll get questions wrong that 95% of people got right. Maybe I just need to slow down in general.

Exactly! I was going through the same thing. To me those statistics screamed reading errors. So I tried going back to my original question approach (reading the question top to bottom, not looking for the question type first) and conceding a certain amount of points at the beginning of a section. What I mean by that is I was only looking to answer 17-18 questions in my 35 minutes. If I could do more, great but no rushing. This helped me worry less about time and more about picking the right AC for every question I got to.

I stopped looking for the question type first because I felt like it was changing my initial reaction to the stimulus, like I was looking for something in the stimulus and not just absorbing what was there.

The idea was to conceded less and less points as I got better, and it's been working for me so far. Hopefully this helps.

@ No. I meant if you left the LG section blank in the test where you got a 145.

I think a JD from a regional school and some business sense could get you to 6 figures. It's just about finding a niche and filling it. But if starting your own firm seems scary, the top ranked school to big law route is definitely positively correlated with big money.

@ said:

This is actually something that most women have struggled with including myself. To be successful as a women you have to somehow become hardened. You can never show weakness or emotion. I know some men struggle with this as well. It would be nice to one day be able to genuine and humble while still being able to be respected and successful.

Feeling that kind of pressure to be tough started for me in elementary school. I'm not sure but I think women don't really feel it until they hit the workplace, which is kind of handicapping if you're expected to be on the same level emotionally as your male peers.

I think a lot will change by the time our generation is established in the profession but as long as trials have winners and losers some things wont change. If winning is what makes a successful trial lawyer, those willing to do what ever it takes to win, however abhorrent, will be the most successful. Hopefully in the future things wont be as bad as these articles make it out to be.

Also the few female trial lawyers I've met have been pretty bad ass people. Makes me wonder if it's a product of their work environment or if they were born with that kind of poise and presence.