Anyone meet their SO in law school? Looking for inspiration/law school romance stories.

Hi 7sagers - I am looking for advice today. I can consistently score about -5 to -7 on the 2 sections of LR and LG combined. My RC section is always what is throwing me into the 160s range. I have worked on the Memory Method from the CC and tend to do a decent bit better on BR. Does anyone have any tricks/methods they've used to help improve speed for RC? I take my first real test next month and really don't want this one section to bring me down.

I am currently going thru my finals and at the same time having Lsat a week away from now.

This situation prob have triggered something in me. Can’t really concentrate on both.

The prep score was improving right on track but once this whole final began, I seem to be lost a bit.

I got 167, 167, 169 on the last three preps before the final began but once it got started, yesterday I scored 162 with 15 RC wrong and today 165 with 6 RC wrong.

On the last 3preps i got 3 wrong on each RC. Messing up like this a week before the real test is making me feel not really relaxed... Actually it’s making me really worried now.

Good thing is that the final’d be over in 3days.

Would this be a temporary thing which can back to the right track once the final ends?

Wonder if anyone has a similar experience.

Advice or tips from anyone would be greatly appreciated.

I’m going through each LR answer and writing down why each wrong one is wrong and why the right answer is right. I would love to keep track of my reasoning. Anyone have any resources or know of any?

Hi all,

I was wondering if folks have come up with any consistent/effective strategies for use of the 3 highlighter colors and underlining function on the Digital LSAT? This could be something like “Use yellow for premise, orange for conclusion, or use pink for key indicator words” etc.

I could make my own but I’m willing to bet someone else has figured out a good system. If there’s another thread on this I’m missing please feel free to link it!

I have a question regarding transcripts that I am hoping to get some clarity on. I emailed LSAC about this but wanted to see if others have had a similar experience.

During one of my undergraduate semesters, I attended a study abroad program through the School for International Training (SIT). While I was abroad in South America for the semester, all components of the program were organized by SIT, a US based program with organized, semester long study abroad programs all over the world.

I received transfer credits for the 5 courses I took while studying abroad, and while the course titles and grades I received for the courses appear on my official undergraduate transcript (for the school from which I received my Bachelors degree), the grades were not included in my undergraduate GPA.

Does anyone know if it is necessary to request a formal transcript from SIT for this semester, or if the fact that these 5 courses do appear on my official undergraduate transcript would be sufficient?

Some of the information I read on the LSAC website led me to believe it was not necessary to ask SIT for a transcript, but I wanted to check as I did not read anything that described my exact study abroad situation. I also did not see a section for adding an institution such as SIT, as it does not seem to fall under any of the existing categories. I was also not entirely sure if you could request a transcript from an institution if the institution is not listed in CAS.

Thanks!

Quick resume question: I am 3 years out of college, so I currently have my Experience section listed first, but I also had multiple internships while I was in college. As a result, I was planning to organize my resume sections as follows : [Post-Graduate Experience, Education, Undergraduate Experience, Undergraduate Leadership and Activities, Awards, and Skills].

I am wondering what others think of this organization strategy, or if it would be better to condense my experience and undergraduate experience in to one section: [Experience, Education, Undergraduate Leadership and Activities, Awards, and Skills?]

The latter felt strange to me, to have all experience, including internships I held during college, listed prior to my education section (and as a result pushing my education section to the second page of my resume), but would love input.

To provide some context: I'll be applying for this upcoming cycle (October 2019). I am currently working full time (medical research) at a job that would allow me to work flexible hours and attend law school part time. For this reason, I'm interested in one school in particular in my city that has a part time, evening program. I would love to continue to work while attending law school, and would be interested in transferring into a legal position at my current company or a similar institution.

Would it be beneficial to indicate my preference for this particular program? The school does not have an additional, 'Why Us?' essay.

Is it normal to get a significantly higher score on one section of LR and a lower one on the other section? I average 22-23 right on one section and 15-17 on the other section...

From LSAC's website (https://www.lsac.org/lsat/taking-lsat/lsat-faqs):

LSAC is updating their test-taking limit policy later this summer, and it will go into effect with the September 2019 LSAT administration.

Starting with the September 2019 test administration, test takers will be permitted to take the LSAT:

Three times in a single testing year (the testing year goes from June 1 to May 31).

Five times within the current and five past testing years (the period in which LSAC reports scores to law schools).

A total of seven times over a lifetime.

This policy is forward-looking, not retroactive. Tests taken prior to September 2019 will not count against these numerical limits.

In addition, test takers will not be permitted to retake the LSAT if they have already scored a 180 (perfect score) within the current and five past testing years, the period in which LSAC reports scores to law schools. This aspect of the policy will be applied retroactively.

There will be an appeals process for test takers who have special circumstances and want to request an exception to this policy.

If you're considering a job in public interest, or just wondering what "public interest" really means, check out our new lesson. It goes over some of the pros and cons of public interest jobs and touches on the question of median starting salaries.

:cookie: as if that weren't enough, it's got a SUPER CHEESY STOCK PICTURE in the header.

Come. Gather. Learn. Smirk.

https://classic.7sage.com/admissions/lesson/what-is-a-public-interest-job-and-why-should-you-consider-it/

In the stimulus, James says: 'Chemist have recently invented [Deleted: Copyright]'

I really don't understand what James is saying. I've come up with:

I don't really get the last two sentences. How does it connect at all to the first sentence? Is it simply saying that chemist figured out a way to extract rhodium from nuclear waste, and because of this, new catalytic converters for cars can be created. And because catalytic converters remove noxious gases from car exhaust, the nuclear waste (nuclear power??what?) is sort of contributing in creating a cleaner environment?

Thank you in advance!

Anyone else just get this email from LSAC? Thoughts?

(I just copied the most relevant part)

“In effect starting with the September 2019 test administration, test takers would be permitted to take the LSAT:

Three times in a single testing year (the testing year goes from June 1 to May 31).

Five times within the current and five past testing years (the period in which LSAC reports scores to law schools).

A total of seven times over a lifetime.

This policy is forward-looking, not retroactive. Tests taken prior to September 2019 will not count against these numerical limits. “

Hello everyone,

I finally finished the CC after 7 weeks of studying and I have around a month to do PrepTests and Blind Review but I am kind of lost where to start from here. Should I take a day or two just to review the CC content or should I just take a PT tomorrow morning? Also how should I manage fool proofing the logic games until July? Is 2 hours/day for fool proofing enough until next month?

Thank you for your advices in advance!

Given the survey population is a representative of the whole, let's say that a survey result showed 50% of people polled believed that Sally is silly, whereas 30% believe that she is not.

Is it valid to conclude that more people believe that Sally is silly than believe she is not?

Any chance that there is a package that offers tests only to buy and practice online at 7sage. If I can't afford the whole curriculum, I should still be able to practice on the new beta testing for online exams if that kind of package is provided.

Thanks!

test

Okay I plan to take the test on September 21 and want to get at least 167. I'm using Khan Acadmey guide to the LSAT. I took the diagnostic test and got 159. I've taken three practice test since then but my score has gotten lower with each test going to 155, to 151 and 149. This is really frustrating me and stressing me out as now I'm doubting my skills to do good on the test. Whenever I practice with their practice questions I'm doing worse on them as today I took about 4 different sections focusing on Logical reasoning with regards to strengthening/weakening the argument each with 6 questions and only got at most 2/6 right and 1/6 at worst which further ruins my confidence in my ability to get the score that I want. I try to practice an hour each day by doing these practice sections and I've been doing it since around April but so far there's been no improvement. I'm really getting annoyed, stressed out, and angry at this and fear I won't get the score I need on the actual test. I'm especially having trouble with all aspects of logic games in analytical reasoning, assumptions, flaws and strengthen/weaken with regards to logical reasoning as well as humanities sciences passages with regards to reading comprehension. What can I do to improve my score, and my confidence in taking the test?

Does anybody know the formula US schools use to convert Canadian GPAs?

I have a 3.7 (A-) in Canada but not sure what it will be when I apply to a US law school.

Does anyone else now prefer the digital test? I took PT 37 last weekend, and it was the first PT I'd done in a while. Not just that but my first with the digital. It just felt so much less stressful not having to think about bubbling things in, not worriedly double-checking bubbles, etc. Maybe it's also from being an internet addict. I matched my highest PT score. Having the countdown timer is also kind of nice. The only section where I can see needing a watch is LR maybe since it's good to shoot for 10 in 10, 15 in 15, etc. But even that is something you ideally get down instinctually. I'm taking July and praying for the digital version. I feel like my goal score is going to be more attainable with the digital test - hopefully this won't result in adjustments once the data is in on the new version.

I should add the biggest adjustment was getting used to doing LG digitally. I don't see any way to filter out "signal" from noise without using the highlighter function. I will be doing that myself moving forward, as I previously would circle important details.

Okay, so I've been taken ~2 PTs/ week for the last month, and I'm still having issues with my timing for reading comprehension. Often times, I need an extra 5 minutes to finish all 4 passages + questions. Does anyone have any tips/advice for improving my reading speed?

Thanks!

I started studying for the LSAT barely able to answer a single question on games. With no training in logic, I essentially had to start from the ground up. I credit 7Sage with allowing me giving me the tools become competent in games. I have been tutoring for about 8 months now and have been working on a system that I try to impart onto my students. Any parallels between the following steps and the advice that others have dispensed is purely coincidental. None of this is reinventing the wheel here, but rather some thoughts I have on LG consistency.

I have titled this thread "The Four Pillars of LG Consistency" for a reason. Notice that I didn't title this thread: "The Four Pillars of LG success." This is because 1.the definition of "success" will vary slightly from person to person, 2. Success has more elements to it than consistency. Consistency is a part of success. This post is better able to answer the question: "how can I keep my sections from being riddled with errors?" rather than "how can I get a -0?" The "pillars" are what emerged for me after doing over 2,000 games and teaching LG for several months. The general thread that runs through each aspect of the pillars is 1.to try to eliminate any "sloppy" errors and 2. knowing the exam well enough to be confident in our approach. Zooming out, what we are trying to do is build competency and eliminate any "mystery" the exam might present. Lets get started:

1.Develop your system whatever your "system" is, develop it and keep it rigorously consistent. Do you write your game pieces in the upper left hand corner each time? Then keep doing that. Do you write your gameboard to the right and your rules to the left? Great, keep doing that. But go deeper, make sure you are making "tick marks" next to your rules each time you write one down. Write your game pieces twice separated by a line: one set you never touch and the other you can scribble out to see what piece is left or what piece is the "floater." Have constant checks that you have properly translated rules. After you have translated all of the rules start from the last rule and read up to the first rule, each time checking that you have translated the rule correct. Read and extract precisely what each rule is telling you. The slogan here with check is: pay now or pay double later. If we made a mistake in translating a rule, we want to be in a position to catch it with our 20 second check rather than midway through the game (we all know that feeling :( ) when you have burnt 2 minutes. Have built in fail-safes. What also goes along with this first pillar is: be neat in your writing, what you are doing is worth money in scholarships.

I will tell a quick story here. When I first started studying for game I spent 6 months and did 1,400 games. I thought I knew what I was doing, I thought I would have that coveted -0. When I did my first timed section, I missed 7. Partially because I drew a "V" that looked like a "U," thereby messing up a rule and ruining my score. All of this stuff has to be solved item by item. For games we are looking to extract three basic things: the rules, our pieces and our gameboard. This information will often be partially contained within the "stimulus" (the block of text to begin a game before our rules.) I cannot understate how important this step it. I have calculated that for us to be consistent on an LG section between 16 and 19 things have to go well. We have to make sure we are translating the rules correctly, we have to make sure we have a neat and coherent system etc. But for things to go bad, just one or two of those things have to fail.

There are several ways to find the inference of a game. The most obvious is to focus on rules in which a piece is mentioned more than once. So if rules 1 and 3 both mention piece "A" we should be asking questions about what these rules mean in combination with each other along with the inherent constirctions of the gameboard (things like we are choosing 5 out of the 8 available in an in-and-out game etc.) Asking questions is a very helpful way to help us find the inference. So if a rule for a grouping game says something like: "piece A must be with exactly one other piece," we should be asking the question: who could that piece be? If in a five space sequencing game we have three pieces that are "followers" we should be asking the question: who can be first?" I believe that essential to finding an inference is asking the right questions.

What can aid us in asking the right questions? That is where the concept of the other side of the coin comes in. A coin has two different sides that express the same thing, we could be looking at the "heads" or the "tails" of a penny and those of us familiar with the penny will know that it is a penny and it has this particular value. Rules on LG are often presented to us in "the positive" or "the negative." By trying to find the other side of the coin we can help ourselves possibly find the inference. So for instance if we have a three group grouping game and piece A cannot go in the tennis group, by telling us that piece A cannot go into the tennis group the other side of the coin for that rule is: A must go in the volleyball or soccer group. It is the same thing stated in a different way, except now we have "the positive" of the rule or "the negative." You probably already do this, but often times the other side of the coin with rules is valuable information. It becomes valuable because questions will often be predicated on us knowing the other side of the coin. Take the aforementioned example. Piece A cannot be in the tennis group, which means piece A must be in the volleyball or soccer group. Another rule might tell us that a piece that piece A must stay away from piece B and a question might tell us that piece B is in the soccer group, which means, since we know the other side of the coin, that piece A must be in the volleyball group.

The other aspect of this step is building on an analogy I use quite a bit with my students. That is where do we start our analysis of the question? The analogy I like to use here is that if the car won't start before we replace the transmission, let's make sure that the car is not just out of gas. This is a variation on Occam's Razor. We start with the least complicated solution-a $5-$10 quick solution- rather than a $700-$900 complicated and long solution. In LG we can often eliminate an answer choice or two from a question by a mere application of our rules. Some choices are never going to work no matter what "If" condition they give us in the question stem is. By starting our analysis here we can possibly eliminate all the wrong answer choices quickly or efficiently or we can eliminate enough o make our "testing" of the available options quicker and more efficient. Take for instance PT 11 game 1 question 2. If we start our analysis of this question by first eliminating what could never be true with a mere straightforward application of our rules, we know that answer choices (A) and (B) violate rule 5 and answer choices (C) and (D) violate rule 4. We essentially do not have to do much work here because we have worked simple to more complex and we eliminated all of the incorrect answer choices on the basis of "checking the gas" i.e. a mere application of our rules. Always try to run answer choices against the rules or your inference or mini inference unless you know the answer from a sub-game board or split etc. We maximize our chances of getting the question correct in many instances.

Knowing the questions also comes down to knowing what to look for when they ask you a straightforward MBT: this is more than likely (but not 100% of the time according that my knowledge) a point that they are rewarding you for finding the inference.

Knowing the questions also comes down to counting the "steps" away something like an "If____, then what MBT?" question form takes. +90% of the time the answer to these questions will be between 1 and 4 steps away from the condition they gave us. So for instance if the if condition they gave us tells us to place something somewhere, we ask ourselves what does that trigger (by consulting our rules that are neatly placed next to our gameboard) that should trigger something, that is 1 "step" away. That thing should trigger something else according to our rules and pieces: that thing is 2 "steps" away. one can effectively predict the answer to these questions by knowing the amount of "steps away" something is from what they have asked us. The LSAT will rarely ask us for 1 step away and will rarely ask us for 4 steps away. Instead, they will be looking for 2-3 steps away most of the time.

LG has stayed remarkably consistent for the better part of 30 years.

4.Knowing what you know and executing that knowledge The last pillar here is the actual application of your knowledge to new games and timed exams. It is one thing to know how to dig deep into the games, it is another to be so comfortable with being able to do that that you can apply that knowledge to new games in a concise and coherent fashion. This is where a focused process of drilling comes into play. When you drill, look at all of the above pillars, consciously apply your system to the game, do each game several times, you will start to see the patterns upon which the games are built.

Feel free to reach out with any questions.

David

So happy, I suck at using scantrons so this will help me a ton

Around how long should the personal statement be?

Has anyone heard about the possible changes of the retake policy? I read a reddit post today (https://www.reddit.com/r/lawschooladmissions/comments/bzl6ku/lsac_imposing_limits_on_number_of_lsat_retakes/) and called the LSAC. They said that these changes can be implemented after the July Test.