I'd appreciate another set of eyes to cut mine down. Let me know if you're interested!

The discussion forum will be temporarily unavailable today for maintenance.

The maintenance will start at:

5pm Pacific

6pm Mountain

7pm Central

8pm Eastern

(very soon!)

We are planning for the maintenance to take an hour, although we hope to get it done faster. Sorry for any hassle!

EDIT: And... we're back! 14 minutes downtime on the discussions. Thanks for your patience while we did that!

With a week left in my subscription, I wanted to say thank you to this awesome and supportive community, as well as a huge thank you to JY for creating and continually innovating this 7Sage program.

I know my stats aren't amazing, but after 2 years studying on and off for this exam and working full-time, I was able to go from a 139 diagnostic,144, 147, 152 and hopefully 154+ (Nov) on the real LSAT's, so I'll take that dub.

7Sage definitely has my recommendation, and the people on here are amazing. For what it's worth, i'll finish this post by saying what i'd change if I can do it all over again.

Dedicate studying for this exam full-time for 5 months

Burnout is real, but I also felt great momentum was the biggest factor in my score increasing. I have been studying inconsistently, but the time I took a 4 month hiatus from Jan through April then began to study for the Sept 18 LSAT has so far been my highest score. Point is 2 years studying for this exam was too damn long.

Sit for the September LSAT

That was my highest score, and as a teacher who gets the summer off, I thought getting those two months completely off was a huge difference and its also pretty early in the cycle. I would think this is also the case for students. Sure, things start ramping up in August and September, but its not so bad, right? (syllabus stuff? lol)

NOT BECOME SO FREAKIN OBSESSED, WORRY ABOUT STUDYING ONLY!

The current market for attorneys, medians, obsessing about stats, on and on. Sure,its reality and it is important. I'm not denying that. But it won't matter until you get the sore you want, and you have to bump all that noise until you're done busting your ass for this test.

I wish all the best for everyone on here. Your hard work will pay off. Happy Thanksgiving!

Cheers,

Carlos

LSAC notified me that one of my recommenders has submitted his LOR few days ago. Should I write that professor a thank you note right now or wait until I know the admission results? I kinda want to thank him now but don’t want to seem too kiss-assy either .. any advice?

So with the LSAT going digital soon, we are entering into a whole new era in a major way. Though I am personally glad to have done my LSAT on paper, this change is long overdue and will ultimately be beneficial for everyone. Inevitably though, it will impact the way we study, and as an LSAT tutor, this is something I've been thinking a lot about. Here's a few things I've come up with, and I'm really interested to know what everyone else thinks!

Opportunities:

Extra time: You won't actually have time added on to your section, but just as good. Added all up, bubbling takes about two minutes for most of us. Not having to bubble, we can bank those couple of minutes to put towards an extra question or two. Major win. Also, no anxiety over bubbling errors! (Also, no actual bubbling errors!)

PT Reports: So this one will take some time and programming, but it's the thing I'm most excited about. Taking your PT's on a screen offers an enormous return in data. I'm imaging a PTing program which accounts not just for your answer choices but for your time management. This will paint a much better picture of your test than just right/wrong answers. If you spend four minutes on a question, it doesn't matter if you get it right or wrong: It's an error. Computer PTing can generate reports with this kind of consideration, and once it's available it's going to be an enormously powerful tool for empirical analysis.

Instant Scoring: No more agonizing wait for scores. Future LSAT testers will correctly look at this as inhumane. The concept of "grey day" will melt into obscurity, an odd terminology no one will understand the meaning of when pulling up old threads. Also, you'll know right away if you need to get back to studying for a retake.

No more "Test Dates": I think this won't be happening until later, but eventually the LSAT will be administered more like the GRE where you just sign up to test pretty much whenever you want. This will make discussions of "aim for your score not your test date" somewhat different, though people will still set personal deadlines that won't be realistic for target scores. Hopefully the added flexibility will be beneficial for this. Also, I think certain test day anxieties will be alleviated. "Test Day" just won't be quite as big an event.

Gamification Potential: This will take some development, but I can't help but think a digital LSAT will be highly gamifiable. I'm imaging PT/drilling software with different options for developing specific skills. Working on time management? Maybe there's a feature for that where the screen changes from white to green to yellow to red as you spend more and more time on a question. Working on more effective POE strategies? Maybe a PT plug-in can show your odds improving from 20% to 25% to 33% to 50% as you eliminate AC's; then as a part of the report we can track your outcomes over time just for 50/50 situations. I could sit here and come up with these all day, but y'all get the idea and Alan would probably prefer I stop!

Speaking of gamification, how about Sage PTs via Twitch?: This could be a cool feature. Watch a Sage take the latest PT live! This could be really cool if anyone has the courage to do it!

Obstacles:

Instant Scoring: This one is maybe a double edged sword. While the instant score return will save a lot of agonizing, it will also rush the decision to cancel or not. This will make for a higher pressure decision without the benefit of reflection and advising.

Transitioning: This will be a short lived con for those of us that came up on paper, but we'll have to reimagine certain procedural things about how we take the test, and this will take time and energy that we'd prefer to invest elsewhere.

New testing issues: Software crashes, screen malfunctions: Hopefully tech issues won't affect many of us, but certain problems feel inevitable, and I'm not sure what kind of solutions are going to be available.

No paper: Okay, this one is a bit observational, but I think it's important. I like being able to feel the test and to mark it and interact with it directly. I think you get scratch paper which is good, but there's something about working via screen that feels detached to me, and I know this will be a factor for many others as well.

No pencils: Again, not all that insightful, but a sad passing for many old school testers. While the pencil isn't really that important, I had enormous fun trying out tons of pencils to find the perfect one (Staedtler Noricas, obviously). The pencil thread will sink into oblivion and only maybe resurface with a chuckle as a relic of the past when things were quaint and simple.

Well, these are a few of the things I've been thinking about. What do you guys think? What have I missed? Overall, I think the opportunities far outweigh the obstacles.

Hey guys, so I have a dumb question. I just started my CAS stuff on LSAC.org. But where do I write and submit my PS, resume, etc?

Do they have to be individually submitted to individual schools, or through CAS?

Were you disappointed when you saw your score? Do students tend to over-predict or under-predict there scores walking out of the test?

To be fair most people on this forum who have written multiple times probably did so because they did poorly the first time so we might have a bit of a confirmation bias here. But is there any consensus that students generally overestimate / underestimate there score on average?

I have a sentence in my diversity statement that reads "The X that I faced gave me thicker skin and a resilience to bend to others’ expectations and adversity." A few people read my DS and didn't notice it. I didn't even notice it until I had already sent it out to a bunch of schools this week and the last. I meant to say that I gained a resilience to bendING not to bend, which means the complete opposite of what I intended. The way it's phrased now sounds like I DO bend to other peoples' expectations.

Please help! What should I do? Is it understandable enough to leave it as is or should I email or call the schools and ask to send in an amended draft?

Hi all-

I'm in the middle of full-proofing, and sometimes I come across a game that's categorized as "MISC" and they always give me a really hard time. How have you all approached these type of games? Do they get easier as I finish full-proofing? (I'm only on section 5 of 35)

Thanks.

There has been some discussion lately about the difficulty of PT 83,84 and 85. I want address an aspect of these discussions I have yet to see fully articulated as of late. I am by no means the first person to come to this conclusion, but I hope you find my take both helpful and reassuring. This process is what has worked and continues to work for me personally, I mean this advice as respectfully as I can.

Several people have written about the difficulty/subtly of these newer exams. Yet, almost by definition, the exams should not truly be that different from the previous exam which shouldn’t be that different from the previous exam before that and so on, because if they were markedly different, the LSAT would no longer be standardized in a way that any meaningful data could be gleaned from someone taking the exam. The exams would become “non-standardized” at that point. Imagine the shock for instance, if you sat down for an LSAT PT marked “PT 95” after all the hours of drilling valid argument types and the common flaws only to find the entire exam was a manual on how to disassemble and troubleshoot the transmission of a 2006 Honda Civic. Then the entire process of taking this standardized exam would be defeated.

Obviously, no one is claiming that the exams are now that different from previous exams, but nonetheless: this raises a question, if the newer exams are different, what are the primary differences? The answer to this question is usually something like: the reasoning patterns on LR are more subtle or “the answer choices are wrong because of the inclusion of a single word,” or “the flaws aren’t really as cookie-cutter as they were on older exams.” Obviously, there are more tangible differences between the PTs in the 80s and the PTS in the 40s: the inclusion of rule substitution questions on LG and the comparative passages on RC for instance, but these differences are by no means “new.” In fact, some of them have been around nearly a decade.

So, the general consensus seems to be that the newest exams are more “subtle” than exams 10-15 years ago. Which brings me to my central point, I am in no way claiming that the exams have remained completely unchanged, but I do claim that the changes have been subtle enough that if we have been doing pretests in order, we shouldn’t have noticed a big change from PT to PT and we should have in our approach inbuilt fixes to whatever has arisen.

So what should we do to minimize the struggle the newer material poses? After you’ve gotten through the CC and you are comfortable with the material: do the pretests with thorough blind review in order. Either from PT 37-present day with thorough review of each PT, or if you are like me and you need a few more PTs to drill from to get comfortable with the material then from 49-present day with thorough review. This helps us get a great foundation, hone our test day skills (pacing etc) and also mitigate any newer elements of subtly or surprise that might come our way.

So, ideally, the process would go something like this:

-You leave the CC having what you believe is a decent understanding of the material

-First PT 37: score 151

-Revisit the CC while thoroughly doing BR, because you thought you knew how to do necessary assumption questions but on the PT you missed 3.

-You watch the videos, you interact with the community, you walk away from that exam knowing how to explain every question, maybe not as fully as you one day will be able to, but nonetheless, you can explain it in a way where your strategies are being used.

-You take PT 38 rinse and repeat, maybe get in on a study group to answer questions and ask questions. You do this through all the PTs. This takes time, but can lend itself to the student getting used to the subtle difference between exams.

What I argue emerges here is a process in which by the time we go through the 60s, past the 70s and into the 80s in order, the “subtly” of the newer exams should be something we are acclimated to. If we have done this process correctly.

In summation, I have met a ton of elite high scorers in my journey. From them telling me their stories I have come to view the process these used in two rough categories: those that got a super high score by doing a process similar to this, if not more in-depth and those who come into the LSAT with amazing LSAT skills already in place who could start with PT 70 and do this process, but greatly abridged (either due to some combination of previous training in logic or other skills.) Basically, every high scorer I have met has done some iteration of this process, the only question is how much did they do.

On test day there are going to be people who get elite scores, how do they do it if the exams have this new subtly to them? They simply have become acclimated to the features of the exam that might be new or slightly different and assimilated this newer subtly into their already built approach of general skills honed through taking PTs and thorough BR. A wise person once told me that we have enough PTs available to us that the LSAT has in a very real way already “showed us their hand.” So the process can be done: go out there and do every post CC PT if you have to in order with super thorough review building skills you can carry forward to the next PT, you’ve got this.

TL;DR: if the newer tests have a unique subtly to them, we can mitigate this difficulty by doing pretests in order. That way we build our core skills along the way and also try to become acclimated to the subtly the newer material poses.

David

Besides us all taking the November 2018 together, the one other thing we have in common is our disdain for that bloody mining game. But, for some reason, it felt like deja-vu (which doesn't mean I found it easy or anything; quite the contrary). Anyone remember PT60 -- Game 3? The only logic game I can compare the mining one to is this one about dirt vs. mulch loads. Just thought I'd share in case anyone wanted to inflict further torture on themselves. Also, if anyone knows of similar games from the PTs, please let it be known. I have nothing to do post-exam and feel impelled to do practice questions... for fun... (what's happened to me?).

JY said it wasn't a relevant game, but the video was made years ago. Curious to see if anything has changed.

Hi Everyone,

I recently made a post about the severe anxiety I encountered during this previous administration and wanted to thank everyone for their wonderful advice. I plan on addressing this problem with my doctor and hopefully he will be able to point me in the right direction.

Anyways for the upcoming January LSAT, what should my schedule look like until then? I went in to November scoring where I wanted to be although I suppose it wouldn't hurt to earn a few more points in RC. With that one exception I figure I have the skills and knowledge necessary to hit my target. So my questions are:

When should I hit the books and start studying again?

What should my study regime roughly look like?

Any other pieces of wisdom?

If someone is able to help with even one of these questions it would be greatly appreciated!!!!

Linked is my previous post for reference

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/18534/how-to-overcome-lsat-panic-anxiety

I have two traffic violations that are both pretty old (one was 8 years ago and I was a juvenile, so the record is sealed if not expunged, the other one was 4 years ago). I remember the date of one, the general time period of the other, and I know the gist of what happened in both but I don't remember what I was specifically charged with, etc. Neither is a major deal and the fines for both were like less than $200, it's not like I forgot all the details of a hit-and-run or something.

The driving record thing I can request from my state only goes back 3 years. Is there another way to find this info? Should I be worried about having all the specifics since it was so long ago? If I had it I would have no problem sharing everything but I don't really want to have to take off work to go to a county clerk's office for the records or something.

I apologize if there's a guide for this stuff somewhere, I've been searching for an answer for a while and I'm not finding anything besides recommendations to request that driving record thing, which again won't actually be helpful.

I just finished the LR section of the CC. Wondering if it will be helpful to BR one section of LR a week while I continue on learning the curriculum for LG. Any thoughts?

Somebody is probably also in this boat. I took the November test and feel pretty ok that I got a goal score. But who knows? I want to register for the January test to secure a good testing site (live in NYC...:some are dreadful), but I don’t want to burn 150$ if I drop out because I got a plenty good enough score for my goals. (Also, LSAC isn’t offering a 100% refund for November test takers like they have in the past)). So here’s the question: anyone have experience with a good testing center closing on them? I called LSAC today and they said the testing center I want (Queens College) has 300 seats left. I’m guessing that enrollment is going to skyrocket the day scores come out. Anybody else monitoring January testing centers?

UBC says refrences are optional for the general category. How optional is this? UBC is a pretty strong Canadian school (LSAT median 165 GPA 3.7), but it does clearly say you dont need to send refrences, but would it hurt my chances? Unlike most US and Canadian schools, UBC is not part if any credential assembly service, everything must be sent to them manually which may explain why they have this policy. I didnt think I was applying here, but changed my mind and would prefer not to bother my references if possible

Should I start off by completing all logic games from PT 1-35 in order? Or should I start by going through all sequencing games with the goal of seeking mastery before moving on to grouping or advanced linear? Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I freaked out during the September test, specifically during RC where i got -13 and scored around 10 points below my PT average. I was worried I would never be able to do this test. I stayed clam this time and answered every single question to the best of my ability, and now i feel like this huge weight has been lifted off my back. I may have missed a few here and there, but i am confident there were no disasters. It's been a grueling 6 months of studying for this test, I'm so happy i got through and am actually looking forward to seeing my score.

I want to encourage anyone who did badly yesterday to not give up. You are fully able to get this test. Yesterday, at the end of the writing sample, someone next to me put down her pencil and I could see the tears starting to form around her eyes, it obviously didn't go well and i remember exactly what that felt like. The writing sample feels like half an hour of torture, and all you want to do is open up your test book and try again, or leave, anything but write about soybeans or telescopes. I wanted to encourage her, because i was there before, and my experience goes to show that there is light at the end of the tunnel, and i firmly believe that's true for anyone who puts the work in.

I had so many bad tests and discouraging moments studying for LG and then RC, feeling like i couldn't even write down the rules of a game or understand the main point of an easy passage, but i just kept studying and doing blind reviews over and over again, and things finally started to click. I did about 95% of the available questions, leaving only a few preptests between 1-7 untouched, that's what it took for me to have a good day. Thanks you to everyone in this community for sharing there difficult moments, they helped me find the motivation when i felt there wasn't much left. For everyone that knows yesterday wasn't there last LSAT, keep putting the work in, you got this.

-removed

please delete this discussion, thank you

I was supposed to take the November administration on Saturday at University of San Francisco, but due to half the state being on fire, the testing center cancelled the test. Wondering if anyone knows what kind of test will be administered as the make up test, how to best prep for it? I've heard past undisclosed Feb tests are usually given as make up tests, but am wondering if it will be a 70's test from 2015 or an 80's one from last year?

So I have been reading the discussion on the exam and now I'm getting nervous about my score. The LGs were unfortunate due to the the mining question as I usually shoot to get -0 for LG. Due to one of the substitution questions and the mining question I probably missed a few. Also I remember struggling a little on the last LG question too. I did terrible on the experimental LG, so I almost cried when I found out that's not being scored. To me the RC didn't seem too bad, but then again my brain is fried and I can't remember much. I also feel like since June 2017 they have changed the language of the LR sections to use softer answers, where sometimes two answers can work but we have to pick the best one that for ex: "weakens the most." So I don't know how to feel about LR, and this seems like this will be the direction of future exams. Many people are saying it was difficult and now I'm scared that I shouldn't feel confident in my efforts, and maybe I should be studying to retake. So please leave your feedback on the overall difficulty of the exam. Was it way more difficult than the other exam this year?

Has anyone heard of a test site being cancelled the night before the test? I was scheduled to take the test in Fair Lawn and received and email the night before stating it was cancelled. How does LSAC correct this issue? I want to be able to take the test twice (November and January) before having to submit applications for the 2019 Fall enrollment. Thanks in advance for any help or input.

Hey 7Sagers,

Here's the official November 2018 LSAT Discussion Thread.

**Please keep all discussions of the November 2018 LSAT here!**(/red)

Rules:

✅ You can identify experimental sections.

You can say things such as the following:

❌ You can't discuss specific questions.☠️

You CANNOT say things such as the following:

Have fun discussing!