The LSAT is a traumatic experience Forum

[GermX]

I'm done with it and already accepted in some great schools. But I do know one thing for sure- this is a traumatic exam for most in that it sucks the life and confidence out of you.

My reccomendation is, do not suffer needlessly-- if you're having trouble, please take a prep course. Seriously. (I reccomend Blueprint).

[Drake014]

The LSAT is a terrible terrible test. And I scored very very well on it. I hope I live long enough to see it replaced.

[slider]

I agree with this completely.

[GermX]

Oh I didn't score badly, btw, I got a 169, good enough to get into some amazing schools, but hey, I was PTing at 175 if I recall, with an average of 173. Ah well.

[Ragged]

I haven't taken a course for LSAT, but took one for GMAT and I gotta say it was an utter waste of time and moeny. If you want to get to 170+ it all comes down to self study, even if you take a course.

LSAT totally sucks, and to think that I'm probably gonna have to retake the son of a bitch.

[vanwinkle]

If you think the LSAT is traumatic you should probably avoid law school and its exams.

However, I wholeheartedly second the "get a tutor" thing. The LSAT is very learnable, it takes a lot of work, but you can totally learn to master it (which is one of the good things about it).

[KibblesAndVick]

The LSAT is a terrible terrible test. And I scored very very well on it. I hope I live long enough to see it replaced.

+1

[PDaddy]

If you think the LSAT is traumatic you should probably avoid law school and its exams.

However, I wholeheartedly second the "get a tutor" thing. The LSAT is very learnable, it takes a lot of work, but you can totally learn to master it (which is one of the good things about it).

The LSAT does not resemble law school exams in any way, except in that it requires pragmatism when deciding which "points" to go for. That said, I think the LSAT is a decent start towards an exam that will one day accomplish the goal of predicting, with some degree of accuracy, who will make good lawyers. The test is incomplete.

[09042014]

Am I the only one who thought the LSAT was easy? It doesn't require you to memorize or perform any in depth analysis. Just fairly basic logic and straight forward reading comprehension.

The hard part is the pacing, and reading without making mistakes.

[basicgrey7]

Am I the only one who thought the LSAT was easy? It doesn't require you to memorize or perform any in depth analysis. Just fairly basic logic and straight forward reading comprehension.

The hard part is the pacing, and reading without making mistakes.

Take it for me please?

[PDaddy]

Am I the only one who thought the LSAT was easy? It doesn't require you to memorize or perform any in depth analysis. Just fairly basic logic and straight forward reading comprehension.

The hard part is the pacing, and reading without making mistakes.

I don't think it's that hard of a test either. It does favor people who read faster, which is not always what a client negotiating a long, dense, detailed contract wants. If I am a studio head at Fox, I want the guy who reads with no mistakes, I don't give a crack how long it takes. Just make sure you are accurate so i don't get screwed.

Thus, speed is overemphasized by the time factor. There are test-takers who, even if given 40 minutes per section, would still blow it, whereas many TLSers would score in the 170+ and more would hit 180. If the timing factor of 5 minutes differentiates the scores, is the LSAT really a good test? That's rhetorical. Reading speed and reading comprehension are two different things, although one can be good at both.

[KibblesAndVick]

Am I the only one who thought the LSAT was easy? It doesn't require you to memorize or perform any in depth analysis. Just fairly basic logic and straight forward reading comprehension.

The hard part is the pacing, and reading without making mistakes.

I don't think it's that hard of a test either. It does favor people who read faster, which is not always what a client negotiating a long, dense, detailed contract wants. If I am a studio head at Fox, I want the guy who reads with no mistakes, I don't give a crack how long it takes. Just make sure you are accurate so i don't get screwed.

Thus, speed is overemphasized by the time factor. There are test-takers who, even if given 40 minutes per section, would still blow it, whereas many TLSers would score in the 170+ and more would hit 180. If the timing factor of 5 minutes differentiates the scores, is the LSAT really a good test? That's rhetorical. Reading speed and reading comprehension are two different things, although one can be good at both.

I couldn't agree more. I did well on it and thought it was pretty straightforward. This is going to benefit me because the system is what it is. However, I think your point about the time constraint is spot on. You have to be able to do the LSAT quickly if you want a high score, and it seems like IRL you want the opposite mind frame. I've always wondered why they intentionally made it a time crunch. Did they have some research that showed the test had more predictive validity with a tough time constraint, or did they just want to make it harder?

[avacado111]

If you think the LSAT is traumatic you should probably avoid law school and its exams.

However, I wholeheartedly second the "get a tutor" thing. The LSAT is very learnable, it takes a lot of work, but you can totally learn to master it (which is one of the good things about it).

I could not disagree with this more. For me, I don't really get stressed out during exams or important things. But for some reason, I was stressed about the lsat. It's the most significant number that can make or break your future in the sense of what schools you can get an admittance to.

[Shrimps]

Reading speed and reading comprehension are two different things, although one can be good at both.

I read at a very, very average 250 wmp, and I've finished the last 8-10 RC sections straight with a few minutes to spare. Look at it this way: there are about 2000 words in the typical RC passages, which works out to only about 8 minutes of reading for the average reader. If you internalize text well, you can answer over half the questions in any RC text just by skimming through the answer choices: no thinking required. And that's what the RC section tests, really: not so much your ability to read quickly as to remember what you've read. The rest of the questions on the RC are barely different from the simpler LR questions (main point, inferences, assumptions). I cannot stress enough that RC is a test of reading comprehension, and is in no way a test of speed reading abilities: I have none.

As for speed limits on LG and LR sections, the "speed" of thinking is strongly and positively connected to IQ: there's some evidence that IQ tests normally meant to be completed in 45 minutes can be forced to be taken in under 50% of that time with nearly the same predictive validity, i.e. the speed with which you answer simpler questions at the beginning of an IQ test is highly predictive of your ability to answer the more difficult questions closer to the end.

There are test-takers who, even if given 40 minutes per section, would still blow it, whereas many TLSers would score in the 170+ and more would hit 180.

This statement is perfectly meaningless. The LSAT is graded on a curve. There can be no increase in people who score 170+ without an overall increase in the number of test takers. The curve will simply get a lot harsher with more generous time limits.

[KibblesAndVick]

This statement is perfectly meaningless. The LSAT is graded on a curve. There can be no increase in people who score 170+ without an overall increase in the number of test takers. The curve will simply get a lot harsher with more generous time limits.

The curve can't get that much harsher because at the high end a single question equals a single point. Besides getting rid of the "cushion" where -1 or -2 is still a 180, there just isn't that much more they can do. This is one hypothesis for why they would make a tough time constraint. It spreads people out and creates more of a bell curve. If everyone had more time then I think you would see more of a "lump" of data points at the high end of the spectrum. If you had a 10% increase in the number of people who got perfect scores (or one wrong, or two wrong, or whatever else) they can't spread those people out with a tighter curve. They curve is measured in increments of single questions. If we all get the same number of questions right they can't differentiate us using a curve.

The question that I would really like to see answered is whether or not a specific LSAT score maintains its predictive validity if you're given more than 35 minutes per section. For example, if they let half the kids take it with 45 minutes per section and half the kids with 35 minutes would the 170+'s from the control group and treatment group do equally well in law school?

[MF248]

Am I the only one who thought the LSAT was easy? It doesn't require you to memorize or perform any in depth analysis. Just fairly basic logic and straight forward reading comprehension.

The hard part is the pacing, and reading without making mistakes.

I thought it was easy. Pacing on reading comp was the only thing that would really mess w/ me on PT's.

So far it seems like being good w/ the LSAT isn't doing me many favors though.

[09042014]

Am I the only one who thought the LSAT was easy? It doesn't require you to memorize or perform any in depth analysis. Just fairly basic logic and straight forward reading comprehension.

The hard part is the pacing, and reading without making mistakes.

I thought it was easy. Pacing on reading comp was the only thing that would really mess w/ me on PT's.

So far it seems like being good w/ the LSAT isn't doing me many favors though.

How's your cycle going.

[MF248]

Am I the only one who thought the LSAT was easy? It doesn't require you to memorize or perform any in depth analysis. Just fairly basic logic and straight forward reading comprehension.

The hard part is the pacing, and reading without making mistakes.

I thought it was easy. Pacing on reading comp was the only thing that would really mess w/ me on PT's.

So far it seems like being good w/ the LSAT isn't doing me many favors though.

How's your cycle going.

UIUC - In, $$$
Vandy - In, $$
Georgetown - Interview offered
Cornel -?
Duke - WL
UVA - WL
NU - Hold
Michigan - WL (This one hurts the most)
Penn - ?
Berk - Rejected (Never thought I had a chance, did it for friend of family that went there & kept insisting I apply)
Chicago - ?
NYU - ?
Columbia - Hold
Harvard - Rejected (Shocking, I know)

[rando]

If you think the LSAT is traumatic you should probably avoid law school and its exams.

I could not disagree with this more. For me, I don't really get stressed out during exams or important things. But for some reason, I was stressed about the lsat. It's the most significant number that can make or break your future in the sense of what schools you can get an admittance to.

Have you taken a law school exam? How could you not get stressed out about an exam that is your entire grade over the entire course of a semester? The original quote is dead on. Each law school exam is like a mini LSAT, setting the course of your future career. 1L grades are all that matters and you need to stack a whole lot of A's back to back to get to the top of the class.
The material and the issue spotting is certainly different and LS exams are not focused on logic like the LSAT is. But many 1L exams are extremely time pressured, which I think was the only stressful thing about the LSAT.

[09042014]

Am I the only one who thought the LSAT was easy? It doesn't require you to memorize or perform any in depth analysis. Just fairly basic logic and straight forward reading comprehension.

The hard part is the pacing, and reading without making mistakes.

I thought it was easy. Pacing on reading comp was the only thing that would really mess w/ me on PT's.

So far it seems like being good w/ the LSAT isn't doing me many favors though.

How's your cycle going.

UIUC - In, $$$
Vandy - In, $$
Georgetown - Interview offered
Cornel -?
Duke - WL
UVA - WL
NU - Hold
Michigan - WL (This one hurts the most)
Penn - ?
Berk - Rejected (Never thought I had a chance, did it for friend of family that went there & kept insisting I apply)
Chicago - ?
NYU - ?
Columbia - Hold
Harvard - Rejected (Shocking, I know)

I'm sure you'll get at least one of Penn, Mich, Cornell, Nu and Gtown. I'd also bet you get NYU.

[DukeHopeful]

EDIT: Shit, total math fail on my part, thankfully that's not tested on the LSAT hahaha. For some reason I was thinking 2000 words on EACH passage, which would be ridiculous. Nevermind.

I don't think it's that hard of a test either. It does favor people who read faster, which is not always what a client negotiating a long, dense, detailed contract wants. If I am a studio head at Fox, I want the guy who reads with no mistakes, I don't give a crack how long it takes. Just make sure you are accurate so i don't get screwed.

Thus, speed is overemphasized by the time factor. There are test-takers who, even if given 40 minutes per section, would still blow it, whereas many TLSers would score in the 170+ and more would hit 180. If the timing factor of 5 minutes differentiates the scores, is the LSAT really a good test? That's rhetorical. Reading speed and reading comprehension are two different things, although one can be good at both.

If you were paying an associate $100s/hr to read the contract, you wouldn't care if it took one X hours to read and another Y hours to read, assuming the quality of work is the same? Someone who scores high on the LSAT and gets through all the RC passages easily obviously isn't sacrificing their work quality for speed.

[dp73816]

I hated this test...I think I took it too seriously. I was PTing in the high 160's and low 170's, and I scored in the 150's twice (there was a little more going on that added to my poor scores, but I digress). It seems that people who do not take it so seriously do much better. Three friends of mine (with worse GPA's than mine) studied with me maybe 3 out of 7 days a week, and they all scored higher than me. That could be a gross generalization (there are tons of Type A personalities on here that took it as seriously as I)...but it is merely a trend I have noticed.

[Shrimps]

If there are four RC passages in the section, and it takes the average person 8 minutes to read each one, that's 32 of the 35 minutes. 3 minutes to answer roughly 27 questions? Somehow I don't think you were thinking that when you wrote only about 8 minutes. One should probably hope to be finished reading the passage between five and six minutes max to leave several minutes for answering the questions.

passageS. Plural. Four passages combined will take you 8 minutes total to read (4 passages x 500 words each = 2000 words @ 250 wpm = 8 min), leaving you with 27 minutes to answer the 27 questions. Seriously, work on your reading comprehension. Careless misreadings such as this kill the most points on RC.

Anyway, I still want to hear from those who complain about the LSAT: what would YOU test if not logical reasoning? Charm/personality/attitude? Er, precisely how?

The ability to make persuasive arguments (i.e. introduce a graded essay section like GMAT and other such tests)? That would be reasonable, but graded essays are notoriously subjective: just look at the absolute fiasco that is the SAT writing section. Still, that's something I at least find a reasonable proposal.

What else?

[KibblesAndVick]

Ummm, if you were paying an associate $100s/hr to read the contract, you wouldn't care if it took one X hours to read and another Y hours to read, assuming the quality of work is the same? Someone who scores high on the LSAT and gets through all the RC passages easily obviously isn't sacrificing their work quality for speed.

This is correct, but you might be missing the point. There are people who sacrifice quality for speed because they are rushed. The question that you have to ask yourself is whether or not these people will do any worse in law school or in the practice of law. Your point about wanting a fast lawyer when she's billing you hundreds per hour is well taken. But, consider someone who gets only a few questions wrong on RC/LR but can only get through 3 of the 4 logic games. If they were given 15 extra minutes to do the logic games, and scored above 175, would they turn out to be a worse law student or lawyer? That is, does the extra time diminish the predictive validity.

I did well on the test, so I don't want to sound like I'm bitching or making excuses. But, I'm really curious if the time crunch helps distinguish future performance or if it just makes the test more difficult.

[DukeHopeful]

If there are four RC passages in the section, and it takes the average person 8 minutes to read each one, that's 32 of the 35 minutes. 3 minutes to answer roughly 27 questions? Somehow I don't think you were thinking that when you wrote only about 8 minutes. One should probably hope to be finished reading the passage between five and six minutes max to leave several minutes for answering the questions.

passageS. Plural. Four passages combined will take you 8 minutes total to read (4 passages x 500 words each = 2000 words @ 250 wpm = 8 min), leaving you with 27 minutes to answer the 27 questions. Seriously, work on your reading comprehension. Careless misreadings such as this kill the most points on RC.

Haha yepp, it hit me after I wrote that. Luckily, I focus much better at test time, I only miss 1-3 RC questions.

EDIT for the response above me also:

If someone is sacrificing quality for speed, they probably won't do that well on the LSAT anyway, since there are no bonus points for finishing every section. I'm not assuming there's any correlation, I just thought the billable hours point was relevant given that it seemed the post I was responding to was making a connection between LSAT performance and lawyer abilities. Personally, I doubt the correlation is that great.

Plus, I still think that even if person A can do 75% of the work satisfactorily in X time, if Person B can do it all in X time, then Person B would still be better from an efficiency standpoint.

edited for clarity