tomwatts wrote:While we're at it, today is my day to do this.
Sometimes people say that Princeton Review methods are not designed to get you to the 170+ range. I call BS. I've never looked at anything but Princeton Review materials. I've never seen Kaplan Mastery, Powerscore anything, or a Testmasters or Blueprint class, or whatever. I used Cracking the LSAT originally and have been working with Princeton Review course materials ever since. I know nothing but Princeton Review methods, so I can't help but use Princeton Review methods.
AND I GOT AN F-ING 180.
And I'm not the only one. The person who develops our materials is named Andrew Brody (semi-famous for his "LSAT Logic in Everyday Life" podcast, which I quite enjoy), and he got a 180, too. My students routinely (well, a few of them) score in the 170's. So anyone who says that our methods aren't good enough or aren't designed for whatever score, THEY'RE FULL OF IT. Your mileage may vary, depending on your individual teacher, but the methods are sound.
Okay, glad I got that out of my system.
I wouldn't say anything specifically negative about PR, but I would say that the prep materials of most companies really can't go beyond 170-175. At a certain point, you know all the tricks/gimmicks, and they cannot really get you those last points. Other than the LGB, the only materials I used were the practice tests.
As for why I would retake a 177, I know how I screwed up and feel confident I could get 179-180. My GPA is the one weakness in my app, so why not offset it with a 180?