Something I just don't understand wrt non T14 on full rides Forum

[shifty_eyed]

You guys are being a bit ridiculous. I spent hours and hours on LG (much more than on any other section) and never CONSISTENTLY went -0. I did pretty well on the LSAT too. Consistently -3 or less ok, most people should get there. But even then, I'm not sure. You don't need to go -0 on any section to get a 170.

"hours and hours"? Not trying to be a dick but we've already granted that hundreds of hours might not be enough to max out one's score. The point isn't that he needs to get -0 on LG, it's that he can. Lots(most?) of people find RC impossible to get -0 on regularly, but LG is a different bag and, as such, should be perfected before people start saying that they've hit their absolute maximum score on the LSAT.

-3/section will be in the 160s more often than 170, btw. If, once they hit ~-3/section, someone wants to decide they're done trying to improve, that's fine for them. But to assume that, just because diminishing returns makes them work harder for each additional point, they simply can't improve any further, is to ignore the experience of lots of people in this forum whose labor continued to pay dividends. We have to decide for ourselves when we're willing to settle, but if we tell ourselves that, instead of just not having the motivation needed for more work, we've hit the limit of what we're capable, we're kidding ourselves.

I think much bigger returns can be had by reading the Powerscore LR Bible than redoing the same games over and over. I'm not convinced that redoing the games will translate into perfect scores on new LGs on test day. Some people will never perfect LG, and hundreds of hours can be a huge waste of time. LR is 50% of the test, and for many, much easier to improve on than LG (after a certain point, when figuring out how to diagram and how the different types of games work).

[AD1818]

It kind of slipped under the radar, but why are you applying to law school now while still in school? Have you considered taking a year in the real world, for reasons other than full-time LSAT studying? Why do you want to be a lawyer in the first place?

One reason I ask this is because work experience is valuable, both for you and your application. The second is that you haven't outlined specific goals anywhere, and that has bearings on where you should go to school, regardless of your LSAT score.

I'm applying while still in school because I'm already 25, and putting off my hopeful career another entire year is not something I'm particularly interested in.
I'm not exactly going k-jd if I do this. I had a several year hiatus between when I started UG and when I will finish.

No, I have not considered taking a year in the real world for reasons other than full-time LSAT studying, since I've already taken several. I want to be a lawyer because I think I'd enjoy it and I think I'd be good at it. Moreover, I don't just see law school as a means to an end, even if it mostly is. I think I will really enjoy law school, and want to learn more about the law. I feel like my days of school are not over, and nothing interests me more than the law.

Also, the profession is kind of in the blood lines. I have 12 practicing or former lawyers in my extended family (though somehow neither of my parents are one of them), and a 13th who was a judge. Granted they all are older and became lawyers in better economies, but they all think that I would make a terrific attorney one day and believe I'd really enjoy doing it. I have also interned while in UG for a summer as a paralegal for a family member's firm.

And before you ask...despite all the lawyers in my family, the chances I will be able to use any of them to get a job is quite slim. Only a few practice a type of law that I'm interested in, and most are much older in non-big law environments with limited connections. I might be able to score a couple of interviews one day that I otherwise wouldn't have been able to because of family connections, but that's about it I'd assume.

[wolfgang]

While I agree in part with mcgruff AND shifty eyed, I'll throw my 2cents in here and mention what part of the OP's posts I disagree with most:


It's true that there are decreasing returns after a certain point. You study and study, and while a few hours of studying in the beginning might bump you up a few Points, after hundreds of hours of studying, you might have to spend a week of solid studying to bump your score up one point. To some people, it's not worth it, but the fact is that there is almost always a return on studying. It's basically asymptotic, so there's a prudent stopping point, but few people 'max' out their score.

It's also true that there might be situations in which it's better to study LR than LG. It's less threatening to some people, and it's probably a place where some people could improve.

But, the problem I have is that the OP seems to think that LG is impossible for him to improve on, and thinks it's because he's not smart enough. I, like a lot of people here, maintain that a reasonably intelligent person (i.e. someone who can graduate from college with a 3.8 and string together coherent sentences on a message board) can consistently go -0 on logic games. Sure, there will always be some game that messes with your mind. Sure, you might misread a rule and go -8 occasionally. But we are claiming that the games are learnable. The simple claim is that, past a certain level of intelligence, going -0 most of the time on LG is less a function of intelligence and more a function of practice and time spent studying.

Sure, some people can get there faster. But if you can go 3.8 in college and spell words correctly, you can consistently go -0 on the LG within a reasonable amount of time. A lot of the beginning of this thread was critical of the OPs study methods. WE have no idea if this is true or not, but based only on what was posted, it seems like he spent a LOT of time reading about the games and not actually even looking at one. Then, it looked like he did the same games over and over again, despite having memorized the answers, which would imply he was just looking at the game and not solving it, but just marking the right answer. There are terrible, terrible ways to study for 99% of people, and clearly they did not work for the OP.

WE believe that, if the OP does a little research on study methods (or even uses common sense, like maybe looking at even one game while spending all this time reading about them) and then buckles down, he can significantly improve his LG score, because HE IS SMART ENOUGH. he is in the position to get a 170+ and get into a f-ing awesome law school... even by TLS standards


EDIT: OP, 25 is not at all old. I'm pushing 30, and a LOT of law students are 25 or older. Saying things like "I don't want to wait a year, despite the overwhelming evidence that if I just buckle down for a year OR LESS [i.e. seriously, study for the feb or june lsat], I have a shot at any law school I want, and will be super competitive for a full ride at some killer schools which is essentially someone PAYING me $150,000 just to study for eight months" is just showing immaturity.
You're talking about rushing to pay some school 150 grand, and refusing to delay your career by one year to put yourself in a great position for a huge scholly. That's really what it comes down to. Not kidding.
Plus, you spend that time doing a part time internship and, if you have time after your lsat, get a job, you're really only helping your career. Law schools love WE. get that 170+ and take your 3.8 and your work experience and ED to northwestern, and enjoy your FULL RIDE at a top 14 law school where you will be the same age as the rest of your class.

[AD1818]

While I agree in part with mcgruff AND shifty eyed, I'll throw my 2cents in here and mention what part of the OP's posts I disagree with most:


It's true that there are decreasing returns after a certain point. You study and study, and while a few hours of studying in the beginning might bump you up a few Points, after hundreds of hours of studying, you might have to spend a week of solid studying to bump your score up one point. To some people, it's not worth it, but the fact is that there is almost always a return on studying. It's basically asymptotic, so there's a prudent stopping point, but few people 'max' out their score.

It's also true that there might be situations in which it's better to study LR than LG. It's less threatening to some people, and it's probably a place where some people could improve.

But, the problem I have is that the OP seems to think that LG is impossible for him to improve on, and thinks it's because he's not smart enough. I, like a lot of people here, maintain that a reasonably intelligent person (i.e. someone who can graduate from college with a 3.8 and string together coherent sentences on a message board) can consistently go -0 on logic games. Sure, there will always be some game that messes with your mind. Sure, you might misread a rule and go -8 occasionally. But we are claiming that the games are learnable. The simple claim is that, past a certain level of intelligence, going -0 most of the time on LG is less a function of intelligence and more a function of practice and time spent studying.

Sure, some people can get there faster. But if you can go 3.8 in college and spell words correctly, you can consistently go -0 on the LG within a reasonable amount of time. A lot of the beginning of this thread was critical of the OPs study methods. WE have no idea if this is true or not, but based only on what was posted, it seems like he spent a LOT of time reading about the games and not actually even looking at one. Then, it looked like he did the same games over and over again, despite having memorized the answers, which would imply he was just looking at the game and not solving it, but just marking the right answer. There are terrible, terrible ways to study for 99% of people, and clearly they did not work for the OP.

WE believe that, if the OP does a little research on study methods (or even uses common sense, like maybe looking at even one game while spending all this time reading about them) and then buckles down, he can significantly improve his LG score, because HE IS SMART ENOUGH. he is in the position to get a 170+ and get into a f-ing awesome law school... even by TLS standards


EDIT: OP, 25 is not at all old. I'm pushing 30, and a LOT of law students are 25 or older. Saying things like "I don't want to wait a year, despite the overwhelming evidence that if I just buckle down for a year OR LESS [i.e. seriously, study for the feb or june lsat], I have a shot at any law school I want, and will be super competitive for a full ride at some killer schools which is essentially someone PAYING me $150,000 just to study for eight months" is just showing immaturity.
You're talking about rushing to pay some school 150 grand, and refusing to delay your career by one year to put yourself in a great position for a huge scholly. That's really what it comes down to. Not kidding.
Plus, you spend that time doing a part time internship and, if you have time after your lsat, get a job, you're really only helping your career. Law schools love WE. get that 170+ and take your 3.8 and your work experience and ED to northwestern, and enjoy your FULL RIDE at a top 14 law school where you will be the same age as the rest of your class.

You have no more reason to believe the bolded statements than I do to believe the exact opposite. We disagree. I get it. But realize that you are making assumptions based on experience, and have no idea if what you are saying is legitimately true.

You also haven't properly read the thread if you still are critical of my study methods. I have debunked this theory of improper study methods several times. I have studied thousands of hours, doing lots lots lots more than just "doing the same games over and over again." I have taken full length prep courses, read several manhattan PS books, drilled by type and section, watched youtube videos of how to do every single game ever (this alone took me hundreds of hours), and spent many many more hours simply thinking about the games and how to approach them.

My point about memorization was simply that when you start to memorize the games and methodologies, you're no longer testing your ability to think on the fly. Even while practicing, I had this problem. I would get to the point where I could do a tough game in 7 or 8 minutes because I memorized all the inferences and diagrams. But then I'd move on to the next game, and it would once again take me a long time. The day of the test I saw games I had never seen before. And for whatever reason, the hundreds of similar games that I had seen didn't help me do them fast enough. I had to guess at several, just as I expected I would.

The idea that I have not "buckled down" is just absurd. It's you trying to make yourself feel more correct. Maybe I can study 8 more months and do better. Maybe not. But the idea that it's guaranteed is ludicrous, given how much time and effort I've already put in.

It's also not so simple as "well take a year off and study and also get work experience." Getting work experience is hard. I have no idea what type of job I can get without a grad degree. Moreover, while some may be able to work and study simultaneously, I'm guessing most can't. The hours I'd feel I'd have to put in to even have a chance at raising my score any (and I'd assume my increases will come in RC and LR, not LG), will be equivalent to a full-time job, rendering me unable to work during this time. And not everyone has the luxury to just live off mommy and daddy while taking an extra year just to study.

And then what if I find a way to study 8 more months, and don't do better? Or turn my 163 into a 166 or 167, such that I might barely get into a t14 but no scholarships? Now what? Take another year off until I get it 3 pts higher?

Your diatribe is fine and all, but you're not really considering many things important to this discussion. Or maybe you're missing the forest for the trees or something. I don't know.

[JazzOne]

OP: Keep drilling LG. Retake. Apply next cycle.

I've been teaching the LSAT for six years. I still find new aspects to games that I've done dozens of times.

[Clearly]

For the love of god spring 250$ for velocity lsat games course.

[Nelson]

It's also not so simple as "well take a year off and study and also get work experience." Getting work experience is hard. I have no idea what type of job I can get without a grad degree. Moreover, while some may be able to work and study simultaneously, I'm guessing most can't. The hours I'd feel I'd have to put in to even have a chance at raising my score any (and I'd assume my increases will come in RC and LR, not LG), will be equivalent to a full-time job, rendering me unable to work during this time. And not everyone has the luxury to just live off mommy and daddy while taking an extra year just to study.

You should get a real job before going to law school if you think you can't work and study for the LSAT at the same time.

[AD1818]

I've had several!

I think studying the amount of time I would need to in order to make gains would be very very difficult if I had a full-time job, yes.

[jordan15]

Yes, I like to think that after all the time I have put in, I am very familiar with the patterns for time saving that are thrown at you in the games sections. But knowing they exist and being able to recognize them on the fly and under pressure are very different animals.

I wasn't relying on my skills of logic anymore, but my memory, which is excellent.

The patterns I'm talking about obviously rely 100% on your memory.

I think studying the amount of time I would need to in order to make gains would be very very difficult if I had a full-time job, yes.

K now I'm really starting to think you're trolling. Because this is just ridiculous.

[littleaaron]

OK dude. You're starting to bug me now.

What wolfie posted is dead on. He is being precise and was very clear that he's just going on evidence. Let's take a look at what you posted about your study habits:

Take it from someone who has done every single game that the LSAT has ever offered at least once, and most several times. "

To a reasonable person, this implies that there are games that you have only done once, and that at the most, you've done a few of them 'several times'. Several is up for semantic debate, but it would be odd (and stupid, if you're trying to make the point that you studied well and thoroughly) for someone to do some games 10+ times while doing others only once. The reasonable interpretation here is that, is pointed out by several people, you have not done enough studying.

It's a minimum that I have done every single game. Of course I spent hundreds of hours studying how to do them before I even looked at one to begin with, and then over and over again.

This is just silly. You are no painting a portrait of someone who knows how to study, and you're certainly not painting a portrait of someone in a reputable prep course. The idea that doing every game is the minimum also reinforces the reasonableness of the idea that there are games you've only done once.

read several manhattan PS books

What even is this? A manhattan powerscore book? You seem really familiar with these study methods. totally.

You also haven't properly read the thread if you still are critical of my study methods.

Look, man, nobody here thinks you studied properly. And reading the thread, woflie has done nothing but encourage you to strive for greatness, accepted it when you said you were going to apply against all of out advice, and even offered a PM conversation if you want to chat with someone. You need to really work on not being a dick.

I'll add that, while I can't prove it via quotes, someone who starts by saying "I did every game at least once, and some several times" on the first page of the thread and by page four has put in "hundreds if not thousands of hours on logic games alone, taken all of the top prep courses, and spent hours and hours just thinking about how to solve the games" is almost always full of it.

If you studied correctly, you need to accept the fact that your language and word choice is what turned a lot of people against you. You really, really made it seem as if you had done a terrible job studying. We have every right to think you did not study well, and you need to get over that. The more you try to prove how much you studied by increasing the number of books you supposedly have or all the prep courses you've taken or whatever every post, the more it looks like you're full of crap.

tl/dr: you suck dude. you're a dick to people who are just trying to help you.

[AD1818]

you are clearly dumber than me

read the entire thread

or stop posting

[AD1818]

Yes, I like to think that after all the time I have put in, I am very familiar with the patterns for time saving that are thrown at you in the games sections. But knowing they exist and being able to recognize them on the fly and under pressure are very different animals.

I wasn't relying on my skills of logic anymore, but my memory, which is excellent.

The patterns I'm talking about obviously rely 100% on your memory.

I think studying the amount of time I would need to in order to make gains would be very very difficult if I had a full-time job, yes.

K now I'm really starting to think you're trolling. Because this is just ridiculous.

why is it ridiculous?

I would want to study 30+ hours a week. Working 40+ hours a week while doing this is not impossible, but quite difficult, assuming you can't study at work. I know personally that in the past, when I got home from a long day at work, studying was not first on my list of things to do. Even if I make it so, you are necessarily more exhausted, and as a result studying less effectively. All your PTs have to be done on weekends, and you'd have basically no social life.

[willmendel]

I know personally that in the past, when I got home from a long day at work, studying was not first on my list of things to do. Even if I make it so, you are necessarily more exhausted, and as a result studying less effectively. All your PTs have to be done on weekends, and you'd have basically no social life.

Hahahahahahahaha Okay. Definitely A Troll.

What A Moron.

[AD1818]

I know personally that in the past, when I got home from a long day at work, studying was not first on my list of things to do. Even if I make it so, you are necessarily more exhausted, and as a result studying less effectively. All your PTs have to be done on weekends, and you'd have basically no social life.

Hahahahahahahaha Okay. Definitely A Troll.

What A Moron.

Tell me what's not true

[midwest17]

Yes, I like to think that after all the time I have put in, I am very familiar with the patterns for time saving that are thrown at you in the games sections. But knowing they exist and being able to recognize them on the fly and under pressure are very different animals.

I wasn't relying on my skills of logic anymore, but my memory, which is excellent.

The patterns I'm talking about obviously rely 100% on your memory.

I think studying the amount of time I would need to in order to make gains would be very very difficult if I had a full-time job, yes.

K now I'm really starting to think you're trolling. Because this is just ridiculous.

why is it ridiculous?

I would want to study 30+ hours a week. Working 40+ hours a week while doing this is not impossible, but quite difficult, assuming you can't study at work. I know personally that in the past, when I got home from a long day at work, studying was not first on my list of things to do. Even if I make it so, you are necessarily more exhausted, and as a result studying less effectively. All your PTs have to be done on weekends, and you'd have basically no social life.

Are you sure you want to be a lawyer? In particular, are you sure you want to pursue your apparent interest in biglaw?

[AD1818]

Yes, I like to think that after all the time I have put in, I am very familiar with the patterns for time saving that are thrown at you in the games sections. But knowing they exist and being able to recognize them on the fly and under pressure are very different animals.

I wasn't relying on my skills of logic anymore, but my memory, which is excellent.

The patterns I'm talking about obviously rely 100% on your memory.

I think studying the amount of time I would need to in order to make gains would be very very difficult if I had a full-time job, yes.

K now I'm really starting to think you're trolling. Because this is just ridiculous.

why is it ridiculous?

I would want to study 30+ hours a week. Working 40+ hours a week while doing this is not impossible, but quite difficult, assuming you can't study at work. I know personally that in the past, when I got home from a long day at work, studying was not first on my list of things to do. Even if I make it so, you are necessarily more exhausted, and as a result studying less effectively. All your PTs have to be done on weekends, and you'd have basically no social life.

Are you sure you want to be a lawyer? In particular, are you sure you want to pursue your apparent interest in biglaw?

Yea. I have a feeling $150k+ is quite a bit more motivating than "possible gains on a test," especially when you're not particularly confident you can make those gains in the first place.

Plus, some people actually enjoy working as a lawyer, even late at night. I hope to be one of those people.
I don't particularly enjoy LSAT studying.

[Otunga]

Yea. I have a feeling $150k+ is quite a bit more motivating than "possible gains on a test," especially when you're not particularly confident you can make those gains in the first place.

Plus, some people actually enjoy working as a lawyer, even late at night. I hope to be one of those people.
I don't particularly enjoy LSAT studying.

Have you considered that possible gains on a test could yield you 150,000 plus dollars in scholarship money with your GPA?

[Lincoln]

This is the worst thread.

[smallbrownbear]

Plus, some people actually enjoy working as a lawyer, even late at night. I hope to be one of those people.

wat.

[wolfgang]

look, friend. I'll try one more time to give you decent advice, despite the fact that, as already pointed out, you can be a little standoffish.

Now you're getting hated on for a completely different reason. Your earlier post made it seem as if the only reason you didn't want to study more is because you would be 'too tired' after work or wouldn't want to. And then, a further excuse was that it would mess with your social life.
The reality of the situation is that being a lawyer isn't really that glamorous. Your social life will take a hit, especially when it comes to studying for the lsat. You're going to have to do things you don't want to do, when you don't want to do them. Really, the only advice you're going to get on this message board (which I personally see the merit in) is that if you can't bring yourself to study for the most important test of your life now, you're going to crash and burn in law school, and crash and burn harder as a lawyer.

Being a aw student sucks, and being a lawyer (often) sucks just as bad. Right now, your lsat score will NOT get you into a school that gives you a viable shot at biglaw. You are going to be going to a school where, if you want biglaw, and you seem to, you're going to have to be at the top of your class. And at all levels of law school, there will be gunners. Everyone wants biglaw just as much (and likely more) than you do. If you think working and then studying for the lsat is unreasonable, you're going to HATE law school, and you're going to hate it more at a lower tanked school where you're constantly panicked about staying at the top and have to work twice as hard to get where you want to be. Do us a favor. Look at the websites Law School Numbers (to see where you have a shot), and then look at Law School Transparency (to see how well those schools do in biglaw placement). Consider the fact that, if you're dead set on believing that there lsat is a proxy for intelligence, you're likely going to have one of the lower scores in the class (assuming you go to the best school you get into, assuming your gpa compensates, yadda yadda. you get the point), and therefore be one of the dumber people in the class. You're going to have to work your ass off to have any chance at a job, let alone biglaw. If you can't hack spending the requisite time NOW studying for a test that everyone here is telling you you're capable of acing, how are you going to survive in law school when the time commitment is easily double that, if not more? and if you're lucky enough to land biglaw, what kind of free social life are you expecting, working 10 hours a day, 6-7 days a week?

You should reevaluate pretty much everything. These days, law school is for those who are POSITIVE they want to be a lawyer, and will do whatever it takes. Not someone who hopes for biglaw, and hopes to enjoy it, and is unwilling to study for the lsat because it will take time away from their social life and isn't motivating enough. "I don't particularly enjoy studying for the lsat" is a terrible, terrible reason to not do it, especially in your position. Browse those websites, look into biglaw a LOT more, and really think on it. You're not going to get biglaw or be successful in law school with an apathetic attitude.

[AD1818]

look, friend. I'll try one more time to give you decent advice, despite the fact that, as already pointed out, you can be a little standoffish.

Now you're getting hated on for a completely different reason. Your earlier post made it seem as if the only reason you didn't want to study more is because you would be 'too tired' after work or wouldn't want to. And then, a further excuse was that it would mess with your social life.
The reality of the situation is that being a lawyer isn't really that glamorous. Your social life will take a hit, especially when it comes to studying for the lsat. You're going to have to do things you don't want to do, when you don't want to do them. Really, the only advice you're going to get on this message board (which I personally see the merit in) is that if you can't bring yourself to study for the most important test of your life now, you're going to crash and burn in law school, and crash and burn harder as a lawyer.

Being a aw student sucks, and being a lawyer (often) sucks just as bad. Right now, your lsat score will NOT get you into a school that gives you a viable shot at biglaw. You are going to be going to a school where, if you want biglaw, and you seem to, you're going to have to be at the top of your class. And at all levels of law school, there will be gunners. Everyone wants biglaw just as much (and likely more) than you do. If you think working and then studying for the lsat is unreasonable, you're going to HATE law school, and you're going to hate it more at a lower tanked school where you're constantly panicked about staying at the top and have to work twice as hard to get where you want to be. Do us a favor. Look at the websites Law School Numbers (to see where you have a shot), and then look at Law School Transparency (to see how well those schools do in biglaw placement). Consider the fact that, if you're dead set on believing that there lsat is a proxy for intelligence, you're likely going to have one of the lower scores in the class (assuming you go to the best school you get into, assuming your gpa compensates, yadda yadda. you get the point), and therefore be one of the dumber people in the class. You're going to have to work your ass off to have any chance at a job, let alone biglaw. If you can't hack spending the requisite time NOW studying for a test that everyone here is telling you you're capable of acing, how are you going to survive in law school when the time commitment is easily double that, if not more? and if you're lucky enough to land biglaw, what kind of free social life are you expecting, working 10 hours a day, 6-7 days a week?

You should reevaluate pretty much everything. These days, law school is for those who are POSITIVE they want to be a lawyer, and will do whatever it takes. Not someone who hopes for biglaw, and hopes to enjoy it, and is unwilling to study for the lsat because it will take time away from their social life and isn't motivating enough. "I don't particularly enjoy studying for the lsat" is a terrible, terrible reason to not do it, especially in your position. Browse those websites, look into biglaw a LOT more, and really think on it. You're not going to get biglaw or be successful in law school with an apathetic attitude.

I believe I already addressed most of these concerns, so I need not repeat myself. You can find my responses to almost everything by simply scrolling up and reading again.

I'll just say a few things. First, while I have no doubt law school is much much much harder than UG, I didn't get a 4.0 GPA in every semester after my first one by not studying an unreal amt. of hours. It's not that I can't "hack" the hours now, it's just that it necessarily wears on your effectiveness. I'm discussing whether pushing law back a cycle so I can study for the LSAT again is a worthwhile decision. It's not about whether I'd be committed to studying when I got home from work every night. It's about how much those hours in the aggregate will help me.

I say I think/hope I'd enjoy being a lawyer because no one ever really knows until they do it. Even those who are "positive" are often wrong.

And finally, I believe the LSAT being a proxy for intelligence only goes so far. I don't think raw intelligence is very strongly correlated with success in school, even law school. The LSAT is a strange kind of beast, testing ability to think unnaturally quickly more than anything. That is not to say that all other tests aren't strictly timed, but given the logic dynamic and that you can't study facts, only patterns, it is something unlike anything else, even law school exams.

Consider this...when I take full length PTs untimed (giving myself as much time as I need to do the test), I usually score 178+
When I take it under normal conditions, that score goes down 18 pts+

I'm sure a bunch of non 170 scorers can do this, but certainly not all.

My issue with this test is, and has always been, time.

[littleaaron]

Ummm Op? I've been following this thread since the beginning, and I just re-read it again, and guess what? You address exactly zero of the concerns brought up.
I think you might be misunderstanding what everyone on this thread is telling you. How about this, why don't you tell me what concerns you think were brought up, and point to where you answered them previously. Here's a hint: One big concern is that your goals are all but unobtainable right now, and you seem to be unwilling to do the work necessary to make them a reality, instead prioritizing your social life.

[AD1818]

Ummm Op? I've been following this thread since the beginning, and I just re-read it again, and guess what? You address exactly zero of the concerns brought up.
I think you might be misunderstanding what everyone on this thread is telling you. How about this, why don't you tell me what concerns you think were brought up, and point to where you answered them previously. Here's a hint: One big concern is that your goals are all but unobtainable right now, and you seem to be unwilling to do the work necessary to make them a reality, instead prioritizing your social life.

No. I am not unwilling to do the work. I am unsure if "doing the work" (which I've already done) will result in any significant positive gains, or at least enough to make doing so worthwhile.

[powder]

This is the worst thread.

Walls of text, possibility of troll, refusal of well-intentioned advice, it really has it all.

You've reached a score you're comfortable with accepting, or at least one you think you can't improve on. That's the endgame. You know where you're at better than we do. If you've worked as hard as noodleyone and this is the score you're at, then call it good and move on.

[midwest17]

The LSAT is a strange kind of beast, testing ability to think unnaturally quickly more than anything.