Top Law Schools

Here is my tentative LSAT study plan:

February: read both bibles (also make copies of all the drills in them)

March-May: something like this-- 1 PrepTest every other day. In between the test days I will study my previous test and study why I got some problems wrong and why I got others right.

I will start with The Official LSAT SuperPrep (it contains three PrepTests, with explanations of all the answers).

After the SuperPrep book, I will use all three 10 Official LSAT books. Then, as test day nears, I will use more recent tests.

Also, I will rework the drills that I have copied from the bibles, as well as occasional dense reading (probably the Economist and required texts for class).

What do you think? Is it too much, will I burn myself out? Critique and suggestions are welcome....

bump.

Anything with LRB and LGB is a good strategy.

I'd say start off as early as you can, and take the PTs as early as you can as well.

Firstly, try to get as many right as you can without keeping track of time. Just go for accuracy.

Once you have accuracy down, and are familiar with most if not all questions, then you start to pace yourself, and work upwards from there.

Wish I had done that

Make sure you pace yourself. I think you shouldn't take full practice tests until you've almost mastered the skills you need to do well on practice sections on top of the bibles, but thats just my two cents.

Sounds like you are going to waste a lot of time. My strategy would be this:

Take several diagnostics, 3 or 4 of them, then identify your weaknesses. The Bibles are phenomenal but it will take you forever to thoroughly work through both of them. Through diagnostics I found that selection and hybrid games were hard, and so I learned those.

lakerfanimal wrote:Make sure you pace yourself. I think you shouldn't take full practice tests until you've almost mastered the skills you need to do well on practice sections on top of the bibles, but thats just my two cents.

I don't agree with this

While the bibles are big, I think that if i dedicate a few hours a day then I can get them done rather quickly.

DarkPhantom wrote:Anything with LRB and LGB is a good strategy.

I'd say start off as early as you can, and take the PTs as early as you can as well.

Firstly, try to get as many right as you can without keeping track of time. Just go for accuracy.

Once you have accuracy down, and are familiar with most if not all questions, then you start to pace yourself, and work upwards from there.

Wish I had done that

Seems like an interesting strategy. Do any others agree with this?

the economist is hardly dense reading

bloodonthetracks wrote:the economist is hardly dense reading

I know, but I think it is on par with the RC section. I am also depending on my 12 textbooks for a foreign policy class.

Blood on the Tracks is one hell of an album...

gbpackerbacker wrote:

bloodonthetracks wrote:the economist is hardly dense reading

I know, but I think it is on par with the RC section. I am also depending on my 12 textbooks for a foreign policy class.

Blood on the Tracks is one hell of an album...

The economist is the bathroom reader in my house, I read it for pleasure. Yet RC is my worst section.

Before you take any PT, photocopy the games section for that PT. This way, you can do it over in an easy way. In fact, make at two copies, so that you will have done all of the games sections three times by the time you take the one that counts.

I made the mistake of not doing this at first, then had to erase, then photocopy, because erasing doesn't quite get it all, etc.

Everyone seems to recommend reading the Economist for RC practice on this forum. I am 99% sure this originated from a post in the "how did you get a 160+" sticky. The post was by a high scorer, and contained good overall advice, but the dude recommended reading "dense material, like the Economist" to practice for RC. I have seen that very phrase repeated numerous times since.

Anyway, I have a subscription to the Economist, and it seems about a tenth as difficult to read as some of those new RC passages. Some of the new RCs are monsters. It used to be my bast section hands down, but has got a lot tougher recently.

My personal theory is that people who read a lot tend to do better on RC, and people who do a lot of math and shit like that do better at LG. I think that someone who likes to read a lot is probably more likely to enjoy the Economist than your average non-reader. Thus the higher RC score. Who knows, I could be wrong though.

The Economist is generally concise and well-written. RC passages are often anything but. While reading the Economist certainly won't hurt, I'd complement it with some peer-reviewed science journals, law review articles, and something from the humanities.

LSAT RC passages from the humanities, in particular, tend to be labyrinths of wish-washy bullshit. NOTHING in the Economist--not even the "Books and Arts" section--will help you prepare.

I highly recommend pithypikes LG method, I would definitely integrate that into your study plan

autarkh wrote:LSAT RC passages from the humanities, in particular, tend to be labyrinths of wish-washy bullshit.

Haha, that is so true. I love how the passages are so politically correct. Tell me if anyone else has noticed how formulaic they have become. Every RC section has a passage about some obscure minority writer/artist from the far corners of the of the globe. The author of the passage then gushes over the staggering brilliance of said artist/writer's work. Finally, the author defends their subject against the "The Critics", and how badly they have misinterpreted their subjects work.

nStiver wrote: Haha, that is so true. I love how the passages are so politically correct. Tell me if anyone else has noticed how formulaic they have become. Every RC section has a passage about some obscure minority writer/artist from the far corners of the of the globe. The author of the passage then gushes over the staggering brilliance of said artist/writer's work. Finally, the author defends their subject against the "The Critics", and how badly they have misinterpreted their subjects work.

LOL. You're right on. The quintessential example that sticks in my head is a passage from PT 31 (June 2000) -- a commentary on Donna Haraway's "Primate Visions". Just atrocious. It made me want to throw the test book across the room.

Remember the one about the south african film maker who studied in Communist Russia and whose films were criticized as not reflecting his socialist education, but in reality he was drawing upon a rich oral tradition of folk-lore which he used to highlight the evils of modern capitalism and effectuate positive social change, while mimicking the narrative style of eighteenth century literature which came out of the French Revolution, and which is reminiscent of several minority lesbian film makers of the late 1960s?

nStiver wrote:Remember the one about the south african film maker who studied in Communist Russia and whose films were criticized as not reflecting his socialist education, but in reality he was drawing upon a rich oral tradition of folk-lore which he used to highlight the evils of modern capitalism and effectuate positive social change, while mimicking the narrative style of eighteenth century literature which came out of the French Revolution, and which is reminiscent of several minority lesbian film makers of the late 1960s?

Hehe. Yep. The way I would focus on these was to get myself angry at the author in order to have some incentive to grasp the argument and pick it apart.

Ya I know! I mean, I consider myself a fairly liberal guy, but these passages are just too much.

I like your plan but I think you would burn out? I am planning to start hard core studying in late March or early April. Good luck though.

What really helped me was reading academic and professional journals at my school's library.