Top Law Schools

3|ink wrote:

minnbills wrote:

Sandro777 wrote:

eit wrote:Eeek. 92 raw, 174 on #59. -2LG, -4LR, -2LR, -1RC.

I'm having a major LR breakdowwwwwn. I think lack of sleep + having a test right before made it worse. Plus a noisy environment.

Ugh. Not happy with this!

I missed 23 24 25 26 on LR 1 of 59. 2 of the 4 I had the right answer circled but second guessed, last one I just ran out of time and 25 just had to guess out of time even though it was ridic. easy

Im going to stop doing 1-10,25-20, then 11-19. Recent LR seems to be very easy up until 20, and more traps at the end. I didn't use this strategy on LR 2 and went -1.

You know I read once that on any test, your first inclination is usually right.


I missed two questions on 59 doing the same thing. I think from now on, unless I see something that obviously indicates that my chosen answer is wrong, I will just let things be.

The LSAC has this trick where they put the correct answer as A or E, and the sucker choice (looks right, but wrong) on the other of A or E. It's not always your first inclination because sometimes it's E.

Interesting. And most of the questions I end up revising (or considering doing so) seem to be A-E ones as well, or maybe I'm just thinking of those ones because you mentioned it.

Sandro777 wrote:

3|ink wrote:

eit wrote:Eeek. 92 raw, 174 on #59. -2LG, -4LR, -2LR, -1RC.

I'm having a major LR breakdowwwwwn. I think lack of sleep + having a test right before made it worse. Plus a noisy environment.

Ugh. Not happy with this!

LR has intimidating me lately as well. Just remember that it's probably not half as hard as it seems. The LSAC isn't that clever.

Atleast not as hard as early early LR. Recent LR is cake and besides for maybe the 1 or 2 hard ones they throw at you, most LR is just about avoiding traps. So many stock wrong answers/easily eliminated answer choices.

I concur.

minnbills wrote:Interesting. And most of the questions I end up revising (or considering doing so) seem to be A-E ones as well, or maybe I'm just thinking of those ones because you mentioned it.

If A ever looks too good, don't fall into the trap of selecting A without reading B-E. They do that because they know you'll be looking for ways to save time.

3|ink wrote:

minnbills wrote:Interesting. And most of the questions I end up revising (or considering doing so) seem to be A-E ones as well, or maybe I'm just thinking of those ones because you mentioned it.

If A ever looks too good, don't fall into the trap of selecting A without reading B-E. They do that because they know you'll be looking for ways to save time.

Well I always read all the questions, with the exception of LGs if it's really obvious. An example being: "which position can C not be in" and one of the options listed violates a not law.

But for the most part on LG, and all of LR/RC I read everything. Time isn't as much an issue for me on LR especially. I usually finish with at least 5 minutes to spare.

northwood wrote:

eit wrote:Eeek. 92 raw, 174 on #59. -2LG, -4LR, -2LR, -1RC.

I'm having a major LR breakdowwwwwn. I think lack of sleep + having a test right before made it worse. Plus a noisy environment.

Ugh. Not happy with this!

dont put so much pressure on yourself. you're doing just fine. It sounds like you were mentally exhausted by the time you got to gool ol 59, but like a trooper you went and did it anyways... You should be happy with that performance, as you clearly can do extremely well on little sleep, and going into the thing not 100% mentally rested. Good Job

Yeah, it was just the STUPIDITY of my wrong answers that bugged me. On a couple LRs, I think I got it into my head that one of the ACs was the right answer and while I went through the rest, I didn't really pay attention to them. AND HEY, totally saw that A/E reversal thing 3link and others were talking about... I definitely fell for it.

The nice thing about this test was I went -1 on RC with the Noguchi passage. And the question I got wrong, I could easily have gotten right if I'd just read properly and not reversed in my head negative and positive, urghskf;laksdjf.

And this has made me re-consider my strategy over the next couple days. It's going to include sleeping lots, reading Harry Potter, and what I've termed "subsistence schoolwork." In other words, I'm not doing my readings, I'm not bothering to memorize my Latin vocab, and I'm shunting all that stuff to the other side of Tuesday (because I have a test on Tuesday so right after the LSAT I get to study like mad for that one). Actually I might do some Latin if it's not too taxing, because I LIKE Latin. I figure playing catch up isn't going to be any harder than balancing LSAT and schoolwork, so I'm just not going to stress about this stuff right now.

I've also pretty much decided to skip school on Friday. I only have two classes, but I'd have to leave by 7.00 AM and eh, I just don't feel like it. I'm going to sleep until about 7, eat nice and healthily, take my dog on a long walk, play cards with my grandparents, and watch a movie/read a book after dinner and go to sleep early.

PT 58 today. 167.

Logical Reasoning screwed me over. I had a -7 for LR1 and -1 for LR2. I made 4 incredibly stupid mistakes STUPID STUPID mistakes on LR1. So I'm bummed out about that.

RC: Not a good day for me in the RC. -4. I completely zoned out on the last 2 passages and that turned into -4. Bleh. I know I could do better just keep on truckin. I got so many RC sections to drill on I know I could possibly improve this in a few days.

LG: -2. One of the questions I obviously got incorrect on the sheer account of confusion, however I missed a question on the count of a misbubble. Not happy about that.

So overall, I'm satisfied that I'm capable of hitting the 170s as long as I keep my mind attune. Regardless, I approached this entire process starting at 145 with only a dream to atleast hit the 160s. I'm happy with the growth and progress I've made

arewhyaen wrote:PT 58 today. 167.

Logical Reasoning screwed me over. I had a -7 for LR1 and -1 for LR2. I made 4 incredibly stupid mistakes STUPID STUPID mistakes on LR1. So I'm bummed out about that.

RC: Not a good day for me in the RC. -4. I completely zoned out on the last 2 passages and that turned into -4. Bleh. I know I could do better just keep on truckin. I got so many RC sections to drill on I know I could possibly improve this in a few days.

LG: -2. One of the questions I obviously got incorrect on the sheer account of confusion, however I missed a question on the count of a misbubble. Not happy about that.

So overall, I'm satisfied that I'm capable of hitting the 170s as long as I keep my mind attune. Regardless, I approached this entire process starting at 145 with only a dream to atleast hit the 160s. I'm happy with the growth and progress I've made

Nice!

Just hope everything clicks on test day. I've realized that a lot about LR is just up to luck. I've put in the effort and the stupid mistakes will either happen or it won't. Just gotta hope for the best!

whymeohgodno wrote:

arewhyaen wrote:PT 58 today. 167.

Logical Reasoning screwed me over. I had a -7 for LR1 and -1 for LR2. I made 4 incredibly stupid mistakes STUPID STUPID mistakes on LR1. So I'm bummed out about that.

RC: Not a good day for me in the RC. -4. I completely zoned out on the last 2 passages and that turned into -4. Bleh. I know I could do better just keep on truckin. I got so many RC sections to drill on I know I could possibly improve this in a few days.

LG: -2. One of the questions I obviously got incorrect on the sheer account of confusion, however I missed a question on the count of a misbubble. Not happy about that.

So overall, I'm satisfied that I'm capable of hitting the 170s as long as I keep my mind attune. Regardless, I approached this entire process starting at 145 with only a dream to atleast hit the 160s. I'm happy with the growth and progress I've made

Nice!

Just hope everything clicks on test day. I've realized that a lot about LR is just up to luck. I've put in the effort and the stupid mistakes will either happen or it won't. Just gotta hope for the best!

Agreed. Alot of the LSAT is luck. Getting the right set of games, the order of sections, the lucky guess between two answers. Ive done alot to prep, now its up to the god almighty(aka LSAC) to rain down pieces of gold.

arewhyaen wrote:

whymeohgodno wrote:

arewhyaen wrote:PT 58 today. 167.

Logical Reasoning screwed me over. I had a -7 for LR1 and -1 for LR2. I made 4 incredibly stupid mistakes STUPID STUPID mistakes on LR1. So I'm bummed out about that.

RC: Not a good day for me in the RC. -4. I completely zoned out on the last 2 passages and that turned into -4. Bleh. I know I could do better just keep on truckin. I got so many RC sections to drill on I know I could possibly improve this in a few days.

LG: -2. One of the questions I obviously got incorrect on the sheer account of confusion, however I missed a question on the count of a misbubble. Not happy about that.

So overall, I'm satisfied that I'm capable of hitting the 170s as long as I keep my mind attune. Regardless, I approached this entire process starting at 145 with only a dream to atleast hit the 160s. I'm happy with the growth and progress I've made

Nice!

Just hope everything clicks on test day. I've realized that a lot about LR is just up to luck. I've put in the effort and the stupid mistakes will either happen or it won't. Just gotta hope for the best!

Agreed. Alot of the LSAT is luck. Getting the right set of games, the order of sections, the lucky guess between two answers. Ive done alot to prep, now its up to the god almighty(aka LSAC) to rain down pieces of gold.

It baffles me how important that few lucky guesses will be in determining the next 3 years of my life.

I mean...if I guess on 2 questions and get both right....168 to a 170? Reject to AutoAdmit?

So much pressure.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

LOL, I've been trying for the last few weeks not to think of it like that and just got hit with a big wave of anxiety again. Perfect for bed time.

whymeohgodno wrote:I mean...if I guess on 2 questions and get both right....168 to a 170? Reject to AutoAdmit?

I know! It makes RC that much more infuriating.

I was reading the LSAC blurb about score accuracy and they said that the LSAT score is a +/-3 reflection of your actual score. Somebody who deserves a 170 could get as low as a 167 and they would consider that OK.

I guess it is not so bad when you have a 3.8+ GPA, but when you are a splitter it can mean the difference between going to law school and not going.

Its scary to think the difference between me getting 170 and a 167 is maybe 3 questions, but those 3 points are so exponentially huge for my admissions as a splitter... gotta do work.

Meh. I'm hoping for a -14 curve where I miraculously -0 the LG section and let the curve take care of the rest.

Yeah, I'm just hoping I keep logic games to -3 at the most. I'm so consistent with LR that I'm not too worried about it, maybe I can squeeze an extra point or two our of those sections if I'm on top of things. Who knows with RC haha.

I'm not graduation until next fall so I hae the luxury of being able to retake if I bomb on test day. For my purposes (the U of M and William Mitchell) a 168 should suffice. Hopefully things work out.

The curve has been extremely forgiving with Dec09 and June10. I wonder if it's because of the HUGE influx of test takers. We can only hope that it carries into saturday which i THINK it will. It's rare (i think) to see the curve go from like -14 to -10 in one cycle.

WonkyPanda wrote:The curve has been extremely forgiving with Dec09 and June10. I wonder if it's because of the HUGE influx of test takers. We can only hope that it carries into saturday which i THINK it will. It's rare (i think) to see the curve go from like -14 to -10 in one cycle.

Anything below -10 I consider a hard curve.

-9 would screw me. I need a minimum of 168 probably more like a 169.

-10 would barely put me at 168.

-11 I would feel a little safe.

-12 pshh. If I didn't bomb it 168 is mine!

WonkyPanda wrote:The curve has been extremely forgiving with Dec09 and June10. I wonder if it's because of the HUGE influx of test takers. We can only hope that it carries into saturday which i THINK it will. It's rare (i think) to see the curve go from like -14 to -10 in one cycle.

Yeah with the economy you have to imagine more people are going to be taking the test. But on the other hand, more people are probably motivated by the economy and thus cracking the books.

whymeohgodno wrote:

WonkyPanda wrote:The curve has been extremely forgiving with Dec09 and June10. I wonder if it's because of the HUGE influx of test takers. We can only hope that it carries into saturday which i THINK it will. It's rare (i think) to see the curve go from like -14 to -10 in one cycle.

Anything below -10 I consider a hard curve.

-9 would screw me. I need a minimum of 168 probably more like a 169.

-10 would barely put me at 168.

-11 I would feel a little safe.

-12 pshh. If I didn't bomb it 168 is mine!

Honestly, how many of us are really banking on a -0 in LG? *Raise hand*

DearCan wrote:

whymeohgodno wrote:

WonkyPanda wrote:The curve has been extremely forgiving with Dec09 and June10. I wonder if it's because of the HUGE influx of test takers. We can only hope that it carries into saturday which i THINK it will. It's rare (i think) to see the curve go from like -14 to -10 in one cycle.

Anything below -10 I consider a hard curve.

-9 would screw me. I need a minimum of 168 probably more like a 169.

-10 would barely put me at 168.

-11 I would feel a little safe.

-12 pshh. If I didn't bomb it 168 is mine!

Honestly, how many of us are really banking on a -0 in LG? *Raise hand*

I would like a -0 but I highly doubt it.

I run out of time usually and there are those questions which substitute rules that just take too long so I usually have to skip it.

But anything more than a -2 would make me cry.

minnbills wrote:

WonkyPanda wrote:The curve has been extremely forgiving with Dec09 and June10. I wonder if it's because of the HUGE influx of test takers. We can only hope that it carries into saturday which i THINK it will. It's rare (i think) to see the curve go from like -14 to -10 in one cycle.

Yeah with the economy you have to imagine more people are going to be taking the test. But on the other hand, more people are probably motivated by the economy and thus cracking the books.

You'd think that but Dec and June didn't hope up to that. Also, i hear that LSAC tends to have a big problem with all these testing companies giving an edge to people that can afford it. Maybe making the test harder is a way to mitigate this? Not sure how that would work because it would seem you'd drive those that can't buy the flashy test companies even further.

Seems plausible. I'm no expert on the LSAT but I feel like having a tough test would effect people who have prepped a lot more than non prep....

WonkyPanda wrote:

minnbills wrote:

WonkyPanda wrote:The curve has been extremely forgiving with Dec09 and June10. I wonder if it's because of the HUGE influx of test takers. We can only hope that it carries into saturday which i THINK it will. It's rare (i think) to see the curve go from like -14 to -10 in one cycle.

Yeah with the economy you have to imagine more people are going to be taking the test. But on the other hand, more people are probably motivated by the economy and thus cracking the books.

You'd think that but Dec and June didn't hope up to that. Also, i hear that LSAC tends to have a big problem with all these testing companies giving an edge to people that can afford it. Maybe making the test harder is a way to mitigate this? Not sure how that would work because it would seem you'd drive those that can't buy the flashy test companies even further.

Meh. I don't really agree on test prep classes being much of an edge.

test prep classes help give you background strategies to use. Its up to the individual student to make the decision to practice, do the assigned work on their own, and go above and beyond the prep curriculum. I think the average prep company tells you that just taking the course should ( key word should) increase your score 3-5 points. Obviously the more efficient prep you do on your own, the better you will do on the test

Kaplan say they have a money back 10 point guarantee, although I think it is more of a "if you don't improve by 10 points, you can take the class again for free" type deal.

dhrizek wrote:Kaplan say they have a money back 10 point guarantee, although I think it is more of a "if you don't improve by 10 points, you can take the class again for free" type deal.

They have a "higher score guarantee". But it's essentially a "if your score doesn't go up OR your score goes up but not enough OR you took the class but don't feel ready to take the test then you can take the class over again guarantee". They just require that you attend all classes and do all homework. Not that it matters because the class is crap.