How to jump over your BR potential

texvd1988

In the curriculum, we get insight about jumping over your BR potential. After doing some BR I am happy to see that meeting my BR potential actually puts me into the range I wish to be. So, I need to perfect my skills and the art of BR. But, what if I want to exceed my BR potential? Have any of you done that? If so, what changed? What happened to propel you past your BR potential?

I ask because my experience with the LSAT comes with waves. I feel like I pick things up and push my score by a decent amount (top of the wave) and then the wave subsides and the scores flatten out until I find that other "aha" moment. So far, and it has been a couple of days of 7sage, I have already had a couple by just taking part of the curriculum. I can't wait to take it to a PT, because I have a feeling this change is serious. Still, I hope to hit my BR potential. Greed being what it is, I also want to exceed it. Any advice from those that have?

Jonathan Wang

The question doesn't make sense.

Blind review is theoretically your maximum score on a given test, so doing better than your blind review just indicates that you got very, very lucky on things that you probably didn't quite understand. But, as you get better at the LSAT, your blind review score will increase - it's not static. Your timed score will always lag behind, simply because you will always do worse under the gun than you will with unlimited time to think about everything.

You will (theoretically) never equalize your blind review score and your timed score until you get to 180, and even then it's only because there's nothing higher than a 180 to blind review at. A timed 180 indicates a level of understanding that far surpasses a blind review 180. So, your goal should not be to exceed your blind review score - it should be to push it up as high as possible first, so that you can start catching your timed score up to it.

texvd1988

Fair enough. I see what you mean. I took the video as a static meaning rather than the obvious. That makes perfect sense.

Kateryna

@"Jonathan Wang" thank you for the insight, very helpful