question about adderall to prep - no preachy answers please Forum

[phoenix323]

4 years from now:

question about cocaine to bill hours- no preachy answers please

+1

[charlesjd]

My personal experience is that I did find some interesting and somewhat striking results with legal food-substance nootropics. I will let you do the research and to consider what I may be referring to. With your post question I don't think the legal and ethical realities related to the question can be entirely separated from the question of effect, so in that regard my first answer stands. I am not sure if ultimately supplementation helped my actual score, but in practice testing the effect seemed to be marked. It does seem that test-day adrenaline is very significant and may make practice test observations somewhat inapplicable along this line.

+1 to adrenaline. I would suggest not taking any substances. Take a bunch of fish oil, eat some salmon, get your vitamins, and take some amino acid pills. Get some mostly protein, then carbs, then good fat. Have an apple during the break,

The adrenaline was intense, I needed nothing, but possibly take one at break... it does wear off and get tiring.

[ConsideringLawSchool]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 887683.ece

[goosey]

In review of your original post it looks like you may be just considering using it for studying and not on test day. In that case, you may want to review literature on set-based learning, which I believe has been a common study in the sub-field of 'learning' within psychology. Perhaps you could consolidate more information and subject familiarity with longer and more focused study sessions, yet it may be hard to access consolidated material on test day with different internal (i.e. no drug) conditions. Again, I think legal and ethical considerations are paramount to any hypothetical learning and performance benefits and/or drawbacks related to this topic though. Best of luck with the LSAT!

Somebody needs to de-throne themselves from their high horse. It's Adderrall, not heroin. Smoking cigs makes some people focus better, is it unethical for them to smoke while studying?

If you want to take the pills, then do it if you think it helps. I took it a lot in college while writing 15-page Spanish essays and it helped a lot. I was able to access all the information and memories in my brain at the end of the semester and did quite well on the papers.

smoking cigarettes is not illegal. walking into an admissions office and telling them u smoked prior to taking the test isnt something people would worry about getting them dinged for. I am pretty sure neither you nor the op would admit openly to adcoms and during c&f eval that they took aderall illegally.

if its illegal, its illegal. its a controlled substance and you can not take it without a prescription. sorry, but that is not justifiable just because its not heroine if youre going to compare a controlled substance to smoking a cigarette, I wonder if you would be as open to adcomms about your aderall use as you would be about smoking a cigarette?

[Shrimps]

Being a Jew was once illegal in one country. Riding in front of the bus was once illegal in THIS country for people of a certain skin color.

I don't give a flying waffle if adderall is *illegal*. As a lawyer, you should be attacking unjust laws with the same vehemence as you would attack an unjust accusation.

So, screw the "illegal" part. You're talking about adderall as if it's a steroid for the brain, but I see no proof for that. Apart from improved concentration (something I don't need and wouldn't begrudge someone who had to rely on chemicals to be able to concentrate like I do), what CAN adderall do?

If rigid thinking and overconcentration on details (something a non-ADHD adderall user possibly experiences) is what it leads to, then it HURTS your chances to do well on this test.

[goosey]

Blowjobs were/still are illegal in several states. Are blowjobs unethical? Is not wearing a seatbelt unethical? The mere fact that something is illegal does not necessarily deem it amoral. Some laws are enacted in order to protect people from harming themselves. I'm not arguing that using medicine without a prescription to gain an advantage on a test isn't unethical. I'm simply stating that arguing ethics purely on the grounds of legal status is a flawed strategy.

i think the people that are arguing that it is unethical because its illegal are arguing with the understood assumption that it is based on a law that isnt ridiculously outdated (like driving without ones shoes on in virginia). I think theres a such thing as practiced laws---laws like the one mentioned above are not practiced--they are just things written on the books and never changed. Using controlled substances is against the law and is unethical for that reason. And for somebody that plans to be a LAWYER it seems a little hypocritical to break a law for a perceived advantage in getting into law school and being able to PRACTICE the law.

[Zapatero]

Blowjobs were/still are illegal in several states. Are blowjobs unethical? Is not wearing a seatbelt unethical? The mere fact that something is illegal does not necessarily deem it amoral. Some laws are enacted in order to protect people from harming themselves. I'm not arguing that using medicine without a prescription to gain an advantage on a test isn't unethical. I'm simply stating that arguing ethics purely on the grounds of legal status is a flawed strategy.

i think the people that are arguing that it is unethical because its illegal are arguing with the understood assumption that it is based on a law that isnt ridiculously outdated (like driving without ones shoes on in virginia). I think theres a such thing as practiced laws---laws like the one mentioned above are not practiced--they are just things written on the books and never changed. Using controlled substances is against the law and is unethical for that reason. And for somebody that plans to be a LAWYER it seems a little hypocritical to break a law for a perceived advantage in getting into law school and being able to PRACTICE the law.

Driving with a seatbelt is a practiced, current law, but surely you aren't arguing that not wearing one is a breach of morality. That law, like prescription drug laws, are enacted for the purposes of public safety. Simply using drugs is not immoral unless their use infringes on the rights and safety of others. Using marijuana in the United States, where it is illegal, is no less ethical than it is in the Netherlands, where its use is allowed. After all, it's the same exact act. My point, again, was that declaring something unethical simply because it's against the law is a faulty tactic, and my argument ends there. Whether or not the illicit use of prescription medication to gain an advantage on a test is unethical is a discussion in which I'm not participating.

[Kiersten1985]

In review of your original post it looks like you may be just considering using it for studying and not on test day. In that case, you may want to review literature on set-based learning, which I believe has been a common study in the sub-field of 'learning' within psychology. Perhaps you could consolidate more information and subject familiarity with longer and more focused study sessions, yet it may be hard to access consolidated material on test day with different internal (i.e. no drug) conditions. Again, I think legal and ethical considerations are paramount to any hypothetical learning and performance benefits and/or drawbacks related to this topic though. Best of luck with the LSAT!

Somebody needs to de-throne themselves from their high horse. It's Adderrall, not heroin. Smoking cigs makes some people focus better, is it unethical for them to smoke while studying?

If you want to take the pills, then do it if you think it helps. I took it a lot in college while writing 15-page Spanish essays and it helped a lot. I was able to access all the information and memories in my brain at the end of the semester and did quite well on the papers.

Ok...when you need a prescription for cigarettes, then you can try this argument again.

[rocksolid325]

so anyone with actual experiences with PT or the Bibles want to share? this got off topic way too fast...

[februaryftw]

You are looking at the problem wrong.

Leaving aside the fact that it is illegal, you need to ask yourself if adderall is in your best _long term_ study interests. As others have stated, if you are going to do it on the test you will have to do it regularly before the exam. But then you are into the realm of taking adderall on a daily basis. You are then going to have to deal with all the side effects--ASK YOUR DOCTOR--and this can derail an otherwise great study regimen. So, how you do you know if adderall will be a net plus for your psychic and physical health, and thus help you on the exam? If you are the kind of person adderall was designed for, it probably will help you. If you aren't, the drawbacks are probably going to outweigh the benefits.

My friends and colleagues who take adderall (without a prescription) to try to get an edge all seem to me to be doing way more harm to their educational goals than benefit. Some of them have huge panic attacks, others have terrible mood disorders (I can't say whether these are side effects of the drugs they take, I"m not a doctor, but I do think these things are at least facilitated by their lifestyle choices). I can't rule out the possibility that some of my other friends who are doing well just don't admit to doing it, but in my own experiences you should trust your doctor on this front.

In sum, the key to studying for the LSAT is a long term and sustainable practice regimen. The kinds of people who might benefit from adderall for 3 months of sustained study are the kinds of people doctors will prescribe adderall for. So I'd suggest asking your doctor.

[Zapatero]

So, how you do you know if adderall will be a net plus for your psychic and physical health, and thus help you on the exam?

If you're already psychic, then you definitely don't need it.

[macaulian]

I have been prescribed stimulant medication for ADHD since I was seven, so hopefully I can answer some questions. I studied for the test for a month before, and due to circumstances I was on varying levels during the 18 or so PTs I took (for instance if I took it after work, I wouldn't have any in my system vs. a saturday morning when I had just taken it). What I can tell you is that the medication has very very different effects for people who do an do not have the physiological, inheritable condition that is ADHD. That being said, stimulants are far and away the most effective treatment for any mental health condition, even more effect than medication prescribed for depression. In addition, contrary to popular belief, it is underdiagnosed, especially in females and higher intelligence individuals. If stimulant meds are having a positive effect on test taking other than keeping you awake to study, then you should probably get tested for ADHD and get a prescription.

As far as the effect on scores, it is tremendous for me. I have been prescribed between 20 mgs and 60 mgs adderal XR twice daily since high school (please note these are extremely high dosages because of my size and the fact I have taken it for 15 years, only a doctor can prescribe a safe dosage). For this test, I started studying on only 25, and when I got close to the test administration I took the full amount I planned for the test, 40 mgs. My scores had been averaging 174, and when I took 40 for the last two PTs I got 180 on both, and I think I was very close to that on test day. Also, the times I took it at the end of the day or tried to take a second PT after taking one (highly focused mental activity uses up stimulants faster), my scores where 171, 172, and 170.

Some important things to consider are that it is true that taking it during practices and not taking it on test day would be absolutely the worst thing you could do. Also, it is not making a person more logical, it just allows them to answer all questions to the best of their capacity. The alternative to allowing people to take stimulants would be to give them extra time on the test, which would not work will with the LSAT.

I think some people who complain about people taking stimulants don't realize that a large number of people who take it and are not trying to stay awake and are not using it for recreation but do not have a prescription are simply undiagnosed.

I do feel that if someone has integrity, they will go through the process and get the prescription.

[Pricer]

I have a prescription for 20mg, but I don't take it every day. I usually only take it for papers, studying for tests, and actually taking tests. This could be considered abusing it, but I don't care, because I can legally take it whenever I want to take it. I lost (or more than likely someone stole) my bottle at the end of finals last semester, and being too lazy to get a refill, I never actually tried any PTs on it. I don't think it would help me. The level of thinking required on these questions is best done soberly, for me, in my opinion. I seem to rush through tests when taking adderall, but these were usually multiple choice and had one definite answer. I know the LSAT is all multiple choice with one definite answer, but it is definitely different than undergrad test questions. It requires actual in depth thought to answer most of the LSAT questions. Adderall could possibly benefit me on LR, but I see it hurting my LG.

I tried taking PTs on coffee, and that was terrible. I have a low tolerance to caffeine, so after two cups, I am shaking. I would get so impatient and discouraged and anxious while taking the PTs, I would stop half way through the first section and quit. It was miserable.

[JSIM462]

What a perfect forum to discuss. For everyone saying that this is so terrible for someone who wants to practice law, let us not forget how some lawyers make their money. It is very nice that a murderer can tell his lawyer "Ok, yea I did it" but the lawyer will still go to trail to defend him. Is that ethical? And before you say "That isn't an ILLEGAL action", you are forgetting the definition of ethical.

Also, on the issue of "level playing field". It still is level. Numerous people have mentioned how easy it is to obtain this substance. If you go to a doctor and claim you have ADHD just to study, to me that is the same as obtaining it from your neighbor. But anyway, anybody can get it. It is available to everyone, so I still think it is a level playing field.

As for the advice. Honestly do whatever the hell you want. Nobody will ever know. There are no tests or anything. If you can sleep at night knowing what you are doing is illegal, then who cares what we think. If this is something you want bad enough (law school), then you'll do anything to get there. I would want a lawyer with those qualities honestly. That said, I don't think your score will dramatically improve. Adderall helps you focus, yes, but it is not meant to focus on studying alone. That means if your mind trails off to anything you will focus on that instead. Also, I doubt you will be popping pills in the room, so you'll probably do it in your car. Let's say that is 8AM. The test won't start until around 9:30. I got out of the test Sat at 2pm. Point is, you will need alot of mgs just so you don't crash DURING the test. And if you take a small amount, you'll probably get 2 good sections out of it (since one of the first 3 is always experimental) and then crash after break. If you take too much, you will get too jumpy, too sweaty, too thirsty, and will be counter productive.

And by the way, for all the model citizens on this forum who believe in ethics so much and go to their T14 schools (congrats on that btw), I would like to ask you if the ultra-competitiveness leads to some unethical decisions at the expense of your peers. I have heard some stories and don't see how this differs.

[phoenix323]

I have been prescribed stimulant medication for ADHD since I was seven, so hopefully I can answer some questions. I studied for the test for a month before, and due to circumstances I was on varying levels during the 18 or so PTs I took (for instance if I took it after work, I wouldn't have any in my system vs. a saturday morning when I had just taken it). What I can tell you is that the medication has very very different effects for people who do an do not have the physiological, inheritable condition that is ADHD. That being said, stimulants are far and away the most effective treatment for any mental health condition, even more effect than medication prescribed for depression. In addition, contrary to popular belief, it is underdiagnosed, especially in females and higher intelligence individuals. If stimulant meds are having a positive effect on test taking other than keeping you awake to study, then you should probably get tested for ADHD and get a prescription.

Just to be clear, the bold portion is absolutely not true, especially when it comes to the spectrum of mood disorders. Stimulants can be disastrous to someone with a mood disorder, particularly one like Bipolar disorder or anxiety issues. Individuals with these mental health conditions should definitely not take a stimulant like Adderall without being under the care of a doctor.

[macaulian]

I have been prescribed stimulant medication for ADHD since I was seven, so hopefully I can answer some questions. I studied for the test for a month before, and due to circumstances I was on varying levels during the 18 or so PTs I took (for instance if I took it after work, I wouldn't have any in my system vs. a saturday morning when I had just taken it). What I can tell you is that the medication has very very different effects for people who do an do not have the physiological, inheritable condition that is ADHD. That being said, stimulants are far and away the most effective treatment for any mental health condition, even more effect than medication prescribed for depression. In addition, contrary to popular belief, it is underdiagnosed, especially in females and higher intelligence individuals. If stimulant meds are having a positive effect on test taking other than keeping you awake to study, then you should probably get tested for ADHD and get a prescription.

Just to be clear, the bold portion is absolutely not true, especially when it comes to the spectrum of mood disorders. Stimulants can be disastrous to someone with a mood disorder, particularly one like Bipolar disorder or anxiety issues. Individuals with these mental health conditions should definitely not take a stimulant like Adderall without being under the care of a doctor.

I am not saying people who have bipolar should take stimulants, I am saying that stimulants have the highest percentage effectiveness for any treatment/diagnosis combination. This is true. The second most effective are antidepressants for depression. In addition, anxiety for some people is in fact often and effectively treated by stimulants.

[thinkbig]

In review of your original post it looks like you may be just considering using it for studying and not on test day. In that case, you may want to review literature on set-based learning, which I believe has been a common study in the sub-field of 'learning' within psychology. Perhaps you could consolidate more information and subject familiarity with longer and more focused study sessions, yet it may be hard to access consolidated material on test day with different internal (i.e. no drug) conditions. Again, I think legal and ethical considerations are paramount to any hypothetical learning and performance benefits and/or drawbacks related to this topic though. Best of luck with the LSAT!

Somebody needs to de-throne themselves from their high horse. It's Adderrall, not heroin. Smoking cigs makes some people focus better, is it unethical for them to smoke while studying?

If you want to take the pills, then do it if you think it helps. I took it a lot in college while writing 15-page Spanish essays and it helped a lot. I was able to access all the information and memories in my brain at the end of the semester and did quite well on the papers.

Ok...when you need a prescription for cigarettes, then you can try this argument again.

this is a great idea. Cigarettes should be prescription only. Too bad the tobacco companies have such influence that this will probably never happen.

[thinkbig]

I have been prescribed stimulant medication for ADHD since I was seven, so hopefully I can answer some questions. I studied for the test for a month before, and due to circumstances I was on varying levels during the 18 or so PTs I took (for instance if I took it after work, I wouldn't have any in my system vs. a saturday morning when I had just taken it). What I can tell you is that the medication has very very different effects for people who do an do not have the physiological, inheritable condition that is ADHD. That being said, stimulants are far and away the most effective treatment for any mental health condition, even more effect than medication prescribed for depression. In addition, contrary to popular belief, it is underdiagnosed, especially in females and higher intelligence individuals. If stimulant meds are having a positive effect on test taking other than keeping you awake to study, then you should probably get tested for ADHD and get a prescription.

Just to be clear, the bold portion is absolutely not true, especially when it comes to the spectrum of mood disorders. Stimulants can be disastrous to someone with a mood disorder, particularly one like Bipolar disorder or anxiety issues. Individuals with these mental health conditions should definitely not take a stimulant like Adderall without being under the care of a doctor.

I am not saying people who have bipolar should take stimulants, I am saying that stimulants have the highest percentage effectiveness for any treatment/diagnosis combination. This is true. The second most effective are antidepressants for depression. In addition, anxiety for some people is in fact often and effectively treated by stimulants.

diagnoses of depression have tripled in the last ten years. The reason the perceived effectiveness of antidepressants is so great is that the criteria for positive diagnosis have been designed to what the drugs have been shown to affect.

[Shrimps]

Within a few decades, most Americans will be on powerful sedatives and the over-achieving 'elite' will be tweaked out on amphetamines. What a glorious future.

[T14_Scholly]

I've heard that if you rip the eraser off a pencil, put it in a bowl, and smoke it, your logical reasoning abilities become permanently enhanced.

[yezzir]

Exactly. This thread is basically a division between those who have and those who have not. Dickensian, if you ask me. Or Marx, whichever you prefer.

[StirFry101]

Does anyone else see the parallels between Adderall amongst students and steroids amongst athletes? There are multiple attributes that make a student perform better than others; i.e. focus, concentration, comprehension, etc. For athletes these attributes would be coordination, speed, strength, etc. Both Adderall and steroids change the natural composition of the individual user in an attempt to even the playing field. However, in students the lack of focus, concentration, etc, is considered a disorder. While in athletes they're just considered to be less naturally gifted. In sports, steroids and performance enhancers are becoming illegal in almost every league and federation. IMO, when we call McGwire, Bonds, Conseco, etc. cheaters for using a substance to enhance there performance, how should this not be the same amongst students who act in the same manner?

Also, since this is an LSAT forum:

The reason the argument is flawed is because the argument..

[Shrimps]

Sports are a useless entertainment, whereas expanded cognition is a huge benefit to the human race. If a daily amphetamine can be shown to increase human intellectual potential, I would advocate EVERY scientist, thinker, and, well, lawyer be put on a daily amphetamine pill.

The problem is, while amphetamine has an undeniably positive effect on alertness, productivity, resistance to fatigue, mental speed and, to a certain extent, short-term memory, it cannot really increase one's IQ.. and may have a negative impact on one's creativity (not proven).

[StirFry101]

Sports are a useless entertainment, whereas expanded cognition is a huge benefit to the human race. If a daily amphetamine can be shown to increase human intellectual potential, I would advocate EVERY scientist, thinker, and, well, lawyer be put on a daily amphetamine pill.

The problem is, while amphetamine has an undeniably positive effect on alertness, productivity, resistance to fatigue, mental speed and, to a certain extent, short-term memory, it cannot really increase one's IQ.. and may have a negative impact on one's creativity (not proven).

You don't think that increased strength, stamina etc. could increase productivity? not to mention those who are athletic and healthy (not steroid users mind you) are more likely to live longer. Also taking into account the multitude of benefits that being athletically gifted and a successful competitor have on a person's mental well being. My argument has nothing to do with increasing IQ, but increasing PERFORMANCE. Hence the name performance enhancer.

For example, do steroids necessarily make someone a better athlete. No. The same amphetamines won't make a person smarter. However, they will increase the attributes that can lead to the success of the user either athletically or academically.

I could also find a counter argument for your take on increased cognition benefiting the human race. The invention of the nuclear weapon is a great example of how the great thinking has led to the tool that could potentially destroy the human race as we know it.

I also find your advocacy of amphetamines a little disturbing not to mention illogical. You're suggesting that we alter the chemical composition of EVERY person who is a so called "thinker"? Perhaps we should put anyone in construction on steroids as well. Because there's never any negative effects of changing the natural way the human body works with a performance enhancer.

And why are sports useless entertainment? You're argument is entirely subjective to what YOU enjoy. Frankly, I find your entire post dripping with elitism and arrogance.

[Shrimps]

You don't think that increased strength, stamina etc. could increase productivity?

What does that have to do with the subset of show business called professional sports? I never claimed physical excercise is useless. But as far as health goes, baseball is, and so are pretty much all Olympic sports. Professional athletes abuse their bodies when young; if you wanted to stay healthy for most of your life I would emphatically recommend that you avoid becoming a professional athlete.

I'm sorry, but the rest of your post is a bit scattered. I don't know how to reply to it in toto. I should clarify my argument: I don't care that McGwire used steroids, and actually think he made the right decision. The public loves homeruns, so professional athletes would be well advised to do whatever increases the attraction of their business and thus their incomes.

And yes, I don't care enough about Olympic sports to be swayed emotionally either for or against steroids and other 'enhancers'. It's not elitism, really, just indifference.

In any case, it's amusing how we, as the politically correct society that we are, shudder in disgust at the mere mention of genetic differences in population (especially differences in cognitive aptitude), yet in the same breath decry chemical 'enhancements' in people who would hugely benefit from them.