How should I incorporate The Trainer into my studies?

jaredj229

I bought my copy of The LSAT Trainer this weekend and am looking for the most effective way to use it along with 7Sage. For those of you who have used both, did you complete one before moving on to the other, work through the individual sections in both concurrently, or use some other strategy? I'm currently about halfway through the first RC section on here and I don't want to lose the momentum I've built over the last few weeks, but I'm also aiming for the December test and having to complete another curriculum after I finish this one will seriously cut into the time I have to get through all the practice tests. Thanks in advance for your help!!

goalis180

I personally just used 7sage, and only used other material outside of 7sage if it was hard for me to grasp an idea only using 7sage.

nicole.hopkins

@jaredj229 said:
I'm currently about halfway through the first RC section on here and I don't want to lose the momentum I've built over the last few weeks

Ok, so finish the core curriculum and then start on one of the Trainer study schedules, listed on Mike's site. Once you're done with that (the curriculum portion), start PT'ing from 36 on. Just a warning ... this is going to be a LOT of work. If you're up for a minimum of 30–40 hours/week, December is feasible. Maybe you could do it with fewer hours. Maybe. I'd plan for more and be pleasantly surprised if you end up ahead of schedule/with time to spare.

cupcake_layous

I think @nicole.hopkins is over exaggerating. It will obviously be a lot of work, but I would say December is 100% feasible, even with less than 30 hours per week. If I were you I would use the two curriculums concurrently. It could help you to see things from two different perspectives and decide which way is easier for you to think about the questions, and then form thinking habits to always think in that way.

Studying for the LSAT is a lot of work no matter what, but I see the same few people always posting about how insanely time consuming and exhausting it is, and I think that's a huge discouragement to people. Of course preparing for this test is a lot of work, and I think everyone knows that. But saying that it takes minimum X hours a week, minimum X PTs, minimum X weeks, etc really makes people think that if they don't have that kind of time or resources they will not be able to do it. Everyone has different capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses. Maybe some people can raise their score 10 points in 3 months, and it will take someone else 6 months or a year. Giving these harsh ultimatums make people lose confidence and think they cannot accomplish what they are working so hard for, and we all know that confidence is such an asset on the LSAT.

Please, continue to give advice and share your experiences, but don't make it seem like just because you had a certain experience with a certain study method, etc it will be the same for everyone. Just because it took you a year to improve 10 points doesn't mean it will take everyone else that long. Just because you studied for 40 hours a week doesn't mean others will have to to see the same improvement. Just because you've done 40 practice tests doesn't mean others will need to do the same amount to see the same improvements.

All in all, I think that those giving advice need to make sure they aren't being negative and absolute about what is possible. Anything is possible.

nicole.hopkins

@"cupcake_layous" said:
Just because it took you a year to improve 10 points doesn't mean it will take everyone else that long.

Actually, it took me a year to improve about 20-25 points from my diagnostic of 152.

I see this is your first visit to the forums—hopefully you'll become a bit better acquainted with the kind of encouragement many of us strive to give around here. It's the genuine, no BS kind of encouragement that doesn't offer anyone false hope or make promises that will likely be broken by reality. The kind of encouragement that recognizes how hard this struggle is for some (or dare I say, most?). The kind of encouragement that anticipates self-doubt and burn out. The kind of encouragement that speaks from having walked through some very discouraging times. And it's the kind of encouragement that has come out on the other side of those dark times—and that hasn't forgotten what it's like to be in them. Failure to acknowledge the difficulty—potential, actual, current, past, or otherwise—encourages no one.

Downplaying the amount of effort often involved in maximizing one's potential for this test would prove a tremendous source of discouragement for folks who do need longer/more hours. I know TLS was very discouraging for me—even after doing what their 180 guides all said to do for 4 months, I was nowhere near a 180. Then I walked away from TLS and immersed myself in this community, where we behave and think a little differently.

@jaredj229 The road before you may be very long and hard. If it's not, then I am so happy for you. I know people for whom this has been a pretty gentle ride. If it is hard, know that there are those among you who have tread this road before and who will support you if it's hard for you. I know this past year has been one of the most difficult of my entire life. And feel free to reach out if you need encouragement. I've invested a lot of time in these forums trying to offer just that.

Pacifico

I'm on my 15 minute break during PT 61 right now but I just want to point out two things:

First, attempting to do them concurrently the first time out is a horrible idea. The Trainer and 7Sage are not formatted the same way and so it would be all over the place and you will waste too much time trying to reconcile everything. Pick one, do it all the way, then do the other. Then if you need to you can review both in tandem as you refine your skills during PTs.

Second, while in theory anything is possible, in our shared reality anything is not possible and using it to give people unrealistic expectations is terrible advice. Sure everyone could show up in October and get a 180 just like a class of monkeys could, but that doesn't mean it will happen or is even remotely likely.

Nicole is not being negative and yes she represents an extreme, but that is an important extreme to illustrate because far more people are on that end of the spectrum. It only took me a couple months doing the curriculum and three PTs after to hit my first 170, but I don't go around here acting like that will happen or even could happen for everyone. And there are people I know who had diagnostics at that level and are getting 175+ after only a few PTs. These people are outliers and telling their story is of little to no value because it gives people false hope.

We are here to give helpful advice in a friendly and supportive manner and I have never seen anyone in a leadership role on here acting in a negative manner. We are setting people up for success by showing them what it can take for people to progress in their prep rather than telling them everything will be fine in only four months. Maybe it will be and that is awesome, but setting yourself up for a fall is counterproductive to the entire process. Being realistic is not the same as being negative, and it is important to understand the difference. I am much more laid back in my prep than Nicole and other super preppers on here, but I can be much more harsh with certain people when they ask for advice because I'm not here to puff people up as special 180 snowflakes. I think you should pause for a little more reflection before the next time decide to you call out someone who has helped countless individuals for no personal benefit.

jyang72

@Pacifico said:
Second, while in theory anything is possible, in our shared reality anything is not possible and using it to give people unrealistic expectations is terrible advice. Sure everyone could show up in October and get a 180 just like a class of monkeys could, but that doesn't mean it will happen or is even remotely likely.

I just heard from my friend that one of her friends only spent 6 days doing 2 PTs and got 173. I also knew a student took PT 1 to 70 3 times and got 180. Which one is more encouraging? I would say the second one. LSAT is a lot of hard work and people make different progress in different stages. But stressing how smart people spend less than X months getting 170s will only make some people feel like an idiot. I don't think @nicole.hopkins is over exaggerating because LSAT is very very difficult to common people.

2RARE2CARE

I think Cupcake's point is that you don't have to study for 6 months to a year to do well. People can do just as well under shorter time constraints. It's more of a personal preference, imo. Who's to say studying 15 hours a week for a year is more beneficial than 40+ hours a week for four months. People learn differently is what he's trying to get at. You can go from a 150-170 in 3-4 months if you believe in yourself and put in a shit ton of time. I have multiple friends in t14 schools who did it, although it doesn't seem to be the norm here. Sure, it might help more people optimize their score but don't feel discouraged if you only have 3-4 months because it's still highly unattainable.

nicole.hopkins

Y'all are sure makin' a lot of assumptions about hours put in per week, belief in oneself, etc. Let's nip that faulty reasoning in the bud.

Between February and June, I was putting in about 35-40 hours per week while working full time. That was a big increase from August-January, when I typically put in about 25 hours a week. When I started PT/BR only in June (3-a-weeks), I put in more like 25-30 hours/week; recently I've ramped up a little bit but also taking more multi-day breaks. I've done about 60 PT's at this point, I think. I started seeing consistency in the low-mid 170's after about 40 PT's or so. Started with the Trainer, went through it twice using 2 different 16 week schedules, then started working through 7sage. My last fresh PT was a 174 and my last retake was a 178. Always strict timing, no monkey business. Diagnostic was a 152 (about a year ago). I literally got 7/23 on my first LG section; the last fresh one I took was -1 and retake was -0.

I hope my story encourages the folks who have a dream and who are still far from their goals after putting in a lot of blood/sweat/tears for 4 months or so. There is a path forward for folks who do not have an easy/lucky time with this test.

DumbHollywoodActor

@"cupcake_layous" said:
Anything is possible.

@2RARE2CARE said:
You can go from a 150-170 in 3-4 months if you believe in yourself and put in a shit ton of time.

This is the American Dream right here. And it’s a beautiful thing when it comes to fruition. The problem is the American Dream has some dire unintended consequences, for the majority of people.

@2RARE2CARE said:
I have multiple friends in t14 schools who did it, although it doesn't seem to be the norm here.

@jyang72 said:
I just heard from my friend that one of her friends only spent 6 days doing 2 PTs and got 173.

There are going to be people who, based on their life experiences, will find taking LSAT a somewhat easy ride. Maybe they learned formal logic years ago or have an intuitive sense of logic; Maybe they spent years on the debate team and live and breathe taking down arguments; Maybe their major in college required them to read grammatically dense material ad nauseum. And that’s great for them. They have the knowledge base necessary that maybe, after doing 10 PTs, they’re ready to knock out a 175 on the real thing.

Most, who don’t have the above skills at the outset, are going to find building that intuition over a 4-month period very difficult. In fact, it might not happen in a 6-month period. Heck, for some people it took over a year. And when those who don’t have that skill finish their 3-4 months and don’t see on inch of improvement, they are going to be devastated because it’s going to call into question that bedrock of belief that we call the American Dream: “If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything.”

Many mentors on this site are focusing on the latter type of LSAT student because the other type of student doesn’t need a lot of advice. The question is: what kind of a student are you (you in general, not anyone in particular) ? If you are the former student, what are you doing here arguing ? It’s a waste of time. But if you’re the latter student, you’re heading down the path towards some serious disappointment. And it’s avoidable, provided you change your mindset, a mindset from “anything is possible” to one that allows you to learn this test in whatever time necessary it takes to learn this test. Will it dash your plans of going to law school right after college? It does if you are the latter type of student and want to get into a T14 school. Will it upset parents, who might be bankrolling you and who think a test should’t require that long to study for? Maybe, but if that’s so is that a good enough reason not to do it? Only you will know. Most importantly, will it mean you’re not as smart as you thought you were? Of course not.

The real issue here is ego. The problem has been discussed before (http://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/2584/why-knowledge-is-not-enough). Many who begin studying for this test have had success in other academic fields, and it would seem to make sense that that success should stand for something. Unfortunately, if that success wasn’t in the previously stated fields, very intelligent students have had a very difficult time taking all of these skills and making them intuitive in a 4-month period. If you don’t believe me, scan back over the 2 years of this forum. Numerous students come and go through these forums utterly perplexed by the this test.

I think an unspoken mission of the mentors is to help people manage their expectations because, in the long run, that’s what inevitably leads people to dissatisfaction about their LSAT experience. Sometimes, it gets in the way of people’s short term plans. If that’s so, please don’t see it as discouragement because if you are one of those people who already has the skills, the advice wasn’t intended for you, and you should keep at it ‘cause you’re gonna knock that test into next week. But if you’re lacking in the skills above mentioned, then take heed of the advice, no matter how bruising it may feel to the ego, because it’s going to help you in the long run.

Most of all, be kind to each other. Lawyers and law students already have a bad reputation of being cutthroat, and the goodwill that is engendered in this forum is respite from that mentality.

Pacifico

+1 to everything @DumbHollywoodActor just wrote. I would quote him but I'd end up just copying everything he wrote since it is all on point. We definitely work to help manage people's expectations because most people think it is a simple and straightforward process to receive information (i.e.-go through the curriculum) and then get a 170+. But then when they take their first PT after the curriculum they only get a 155 after having had a 150 diagnostic and they get demoralized and don't understand how this could happen since up to that point every other test they took in high school and college was just inputing knowledge and regurgitating that knowledge in some way, shape, or form. The LSAT is not like that, and as was mentioned above, we aren't really here to give advice to the people who have 165+ diagnostics and average in the 99th percentile.

I am the complete opposite of @nicole.hopkins in terms of study approach. I think she is flat out crazy sometimes for the intensity and volume of work she put into this, but I totally respect it, because I know it means a lot to her and she is old enough and wise enough to know what will work best for her. I don't think studying for a year is a sufficient or necessary condition for getting a 170+, because some people can do it in 2 weeks, and some people still can't do it after 2 years. Around 50,000 people take the LSAT every year, and less than 500 get a 175+ and less than 2,500 get a 170+. The vast majority get below a 160. Just because you have anecdotal evidence that you know someone in that <5% of LSAT takers and they happened to not study very much does not mean you should tell people they can do it too.

This false hope is damaging to the process for people to whom the LSAT does not come easily. In general, people should only go to law school if they want to become lawyers, so if it is that important a goal, people should be willing to work for it no matter how long it takes. In the end, if you study for 4, 6, 8, 12, or 18 months it doesn't matter so long as you get what you are looking for. Not everyone needs a 180, and in fact I would argue that nobody needs a 180 since even a 180 is not a sufficient or necessary condition for acceptance to the top law schools. Sure it sounds nice and all, but less than 50 people get a 180 each year, which is one tenth of one percent of test takers. Furthermore, there is really no way to tell how long somebody will need to study to achieve a certain score until they start studying. It might take a person with a 165 diagnostic 12 months to hit a 170, but another person with a 150 diagnostic could reach that in 8 months.

We're just here to temper expectations so that people understand that no amount of time will guarantee a result, and no PT scores will guarantee a result because you still need to go in and do the work on test day. If telling someone that they need to study for more than 3 months is sufficient to scare them away, then to me that is one less person attempting to go to law school that either didn't really want to be a lawyer, or didn't want to do the work necessary to get there, and so that's probably someone who wouldn't be a very good lawyer or even a good law student if they don't want to put in some hard work. And I'm totally fine with playing a role in preventing such people from becoming lawyers because to be quite frank, it's not something everyone is cut out for and if the LSAT scares you away, it's all for the best in the long run.

inactive

Let's tone down the snark a bit, but keep up the encouragement.