Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.1K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 28 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 285 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Possible regression for high scorers
tylerdschreur10
Alum Member
So I'm approaching an interesting quandary in my studies. I tested in June and got a 170, which I'm happy, but not content with. Reason being I hit 162 with my blind diagnostic in March and my study mainly consisted of PT, l look over my incorrect answers and compare to the correct choices. Admittedly I was a little lazy and mostly rode my knack for the material.
I'm planning to retake in September and have begun studying the right way. I'm going through CC now, then planning to begin Pts with proper, exhaustive BR.
However, going through the curriculum on grammar, subvocalization, etc, I'm worried that I may drown my natural ability in a sea of technique and strategy. I can visualize an eventuality where I approach a RC passage an analyze it's structure, perspective and grammar flawlessly, break down the prompt and ACs effortlessly, but fail to achieve the only thing that matters, correct answers.
Admittedly this is all hypothetical, and as yet unmanifested, but I thought it would make for an interesting discussion. Curious to hear from others who have experienced this, or testimonials proving my worries premature.
Spin-off: The idea of a course designed for naturally gifted LSATers. Maybe geared toward boosting scores from 165 to 175, leaving out some of the more basic breakdown. Not sure if that would be counterproductive, perhaps you truly need to build a base knowledge before attacking the curve-breaker questions, but an interesting idea nonetheless.
Comments
I see where you're coming from but have two thoughts.
First, it's not unreasonable to see a slight drop in scores as you change your strategy. Familiarizing and perfecting that strategy may have a higher ceiling than your previous strategy, however.
Second, RC is unique. With LR and LG, I am 100% confident that the technical skills taught by 7Sage are extremely beneficial for even the highest of natural scorers. Perfect those technical skills and you will have a wide range of tools needed to deal with all types of questions. For RC, the fundamentals behind the teaching are critical, but the strategy and skills needed to get there are personal. You need to understand that reading for structure, viewpoints and tone are the most important things to do. Not everyone gets there the same way. Many people find JY's memory method satisfactory, some do not. You've just got to develop a personal approach that gets you to the end goal.
@AllezAllez21 I do see your point. I think the crux of my question may be about how quickly these techniques become subconscious. Right now I have to take extra time to think about what type of question i'm working on, how to break it down, and all the components. I assume that drilling combined with PT practice will reduce my dependence on consciously analyzing all the elements?
FWIW, I had about a dozen scores above 170 before blind reviewing at all, and when I started blind reviewing (with a method thorougher than what is taught on 7sage), my scores slowly and consistently fell at first and then slowly and consistently rebounded. I like to think my ceiling has been raised, since I am developing my score now on something more concrete than intuition.
Addendum.
I'm mainly concerned with RC, and to a lesser degree LR. Logic games are on lockdown, always -1 or -0. LR I do well on but there are a few question types where I think drilling would benefit me. Usually -2 per section. RC I am more inconsistent. -2 or up to -10, depending on the test, no clear pattern to my errors. I have also seen minimal improvement even since switching to more rugged BR.
You and I basically make the same scores and only struggle with RC. Wish I could help myself, much less you : )
@"conrad.p" Ha, well If I discover the magic formula to RC success I'll be sure to share it! But i wouldn't hold your breath!
RC is tough and I think is the most diverse section, strategically. In LR and LG, there's about one or two right ways to do it. Everything else is just kinda wrong. In RC though, I think a really wide range of strategies work with very different results for different people.
So what is your RC strategy? If you can't discuss your strategy in any more detail than just "read the passage and answer the questions," you probably just need to develop a deliberate strategy and then learn to execute it as effectively as possible.
So what is your strategy? What questions are you missing and why? What do you do to study?
Is it just me, or does taking previously BRed PTs again under timed conditions seem to make you a better annotator? When I recently did this, since I had already BRed the RC passages, I annotated them in a tailored way, and that seemed to carry over toward the annotations I made in the next PT I took . . . via "muscle memory"? I might just be making this up : )