Overheard at the LSAT

User avatar
lillelord
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:27 am

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby lillelord » Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:00 pm

Guy I was barely acquainted with in high school was there, I got there almost an hour early from stress, he was already there, comes up to me and says "we went to high school together!" As if I did not already know this and willfully chose not to interact. I politely curtailed discussion into very brief pleasantries but something he said really stuck in my craw

"Graduated this year but I'm just looking for something to do, now. Wish they released more than that 2007 test though."

Heavily implied in that is the idea he had nothing better to do than this, and that he had done ZERO due diligence. It was both infuriating and pitiful and I believe it helped me score better on my Lsat out of understanding that although my interaction was with too small a sample to generalize; there are some people who just don't get it.

User avatar
Platopus
Posts: 1434
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:20 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby Platopus » Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:33 pm

lillelord wrote: there are some people who just don't get it.


My life got significantly worse when I realized this applies to nearly every aspect of life.

User avatar
MediocreAtBest
Posts: 628
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:51 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby MediocreAtBest » Tue Jun 13, 2017 11:31 pm

Platopus wrote:
lillelord wrote: there are some people who just don't get it.


My life got significantly worse when I realized this applies to nearly every aspect of life.


Well in this case it's actually to your benefit if there are large numbers of people who don't get it!

DragonWell
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 10:58 am

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby DragonWell » Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:11 am

At my location there were only one bathroom for over 150 women. For reasons I don't understand, there's no one waiting outside the man's bathroom.
So here goes the conversation:
G1: My God, I wish we can use man's bathroom.
G2: That's a good idea.
G1: Are you really going there?
G2: Yeah... Why not, toilets are behind locked doors. You can't see your neighbors in there.
G1: But I think they pee into something outside the toilets closets, you know...
G2 (shouting into man's bathroom): Is there anybody outside of the toilet closets...Please keep your doors locked..I'm coming to toilets. Make sure your pants are on out there.
I'm coming in 5, 4, 3.....

User avatar
RCSOB657
Posts: 3223
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:50 am

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby RCSOB657 » Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:21 am

lillelord wrote:Guy I was barely acquainted with in high school was there, I got there almost an hour early from stress, he was already there, comes up to me and says "we went to high school together!" As if I did not already know this and willfully chose not to interact. I politely curtailed discussion into very brief pleasantries but something he said really stuck in my craw

"Graduated this year but I'm just looking for something to do, now. Wish they released more than that 2007 test though."

Heavily implied in that is the idea he had nothing better to do than this, and that he had done ZERO due diligence. It was both infuriating and pitiful and I believe it helped me score better on my Lsat out of understanding that although my interaction was with too small a sample to generalize; there are some people who just don't get it.



When you get your score, why don't you rip off that band-aid, contact that person, ask what they got.

User avatar
DriveLikeNashvillian
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby DriveLikeNashvillian » Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:33 am

Last year when I took the LSAT, a few girls who seemed like they knew each other were talking about practice tests and trying to reassure one of the girls who had scored a 150 on her last practice test that it was a fine score. I thought "girly, you are about to have a rude awakening."

carsondalywashere
Posts: 470
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2017 7:33 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby carsondalywashere » Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:30 am

Ole Miss frat guy I sat next to told me he took his first prep test the day before. Seemed like a good dude, hope it worked out for him.

User avatar
AvatarMeelo
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 1:58 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby AvatarMeelo » Wed Jun 14, 2017 12:11 pm

Slippin' Jimmy wrote:And of course there's always that one guy awkwardly flirting with someone wayyy out of his league (she was smoking hot, him not so much).


Yup, my best friend was the smoking hot person at her test (I know, I'm subjective) who had a guy hitting on her before the exam. He started quoting the Bible to her and depending on God to do well. He asked for her number so he could find her after the exam. She walked away.

User avatar
Greenteachurro
"Big Bang Theory is great, actually."
Posts: 1387
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 11:20 am

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby Greenteachurro » Wed Jun 14, 2017 12:18 pm

clueless801 wrote:
Slippin' Jimmy wrote:And of course there's always that one guy awkwardly flirting with someone wayyy out of his league (she was smoking hot, him not so much).


Yup, my best friend was the smoking hot person at her test (I know, I'm subjective) who had a guy hitting on her before the exam. He started quoting the Bible to her and depending on God to do well. He asked for her number so he could find her after the exam. She walked away.


that seems a little more like proselytizing than trying to get a date tbh

User avatar
Walliums
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:39 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby Walliums » Wed Jun 14, 2017 5:17 pm

clueless801 wrote:
Slippin' Jimmy wrote:And of course there's always that one guy awkwardly flirting with someone wayyy out of his league (she was smoking hot, him not so much).


Yup, my best friend was the smoking hot person at her test (I know, I'm subjective) who had a guy hitting on her before the exam. He started quoting the Bible to her and depending on God to do well. He asked for her number so he could find her after the exam. She walked away.


Rekt. I would have applauded.

User avatar
Experiment626
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby Experiment626 » Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:07 pm

Walliums wrote:
clueless801 wrote:
Slippin' Jimmy wrote:And of course there's always that one guy awkwardly flirting with someone wayyy out of his league (she was smoking hot, him not so much).


Yup, my best friend was the smoking hot person at her test (I know, I'm subjective) who had a guy hitting on her before the exam. He started quoting the Bible to her and depending on God to do well. He asked for her number so he could find her after the exam. She walked away.


Rekt. I would have applauded.


I need these boards to be able to support more Emoji... CLAP between every word for "she walked away" and a lot of fire..

User avatar
Barack O'Drama
Posts: 2676
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby Barack O'Drama » Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:20 pm

addie1412 wrote:
brinicolec wrote:
dontsaywhatyoumean wrote:We're assuming the people that are saying they didn't do PT's, or only did a very small number, didn't do many timed sections, correct?

I don't think more than a couple of PT's is necessarily required if a lot of timed sections were done.


Full PTs help with stamina.

Doing a lot of timed sections doesn't prep you for doing five timed sections with a small break in the middle.


I didn't do a single full PT throughout my prep. I did regularly do like 8 timed RC sections in a row, though (with one break in the middle). Or 4 LR sections and 4 LG sections. But I never sat down like "I'm gonna take PT 72 today" and then score it to try to gauge where I was. I think it helped my confidence not knowing exactly where I stood beyond my performance on individual timed sections. I feel like I probably overperformed as a result of not being psychologically burdened or limited by low PTs. I went into it like: if I've gotten -0 on each of the sections before, I'm capable of a 180 vs: I've never PTed above 16x or 17x, therefore I won't be able to score any higher.

Sorry to derail the thread; I'm just passionate about the no-PT route. :lol:


I'm not commenting on whether or not this is a good idea or what not, but I had a friend who literally did the same thing and ended up scoring a 169? He eventually pursued a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and but he was naturally really good at the test I think.

User avatar
LesPaul1995
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 8:29 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby LesPaul1995 » Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:30 pm

I got some harsh stares. I have a tattoo that covers my entire chest that was visible and I could overhear people talking about it before the test began. I guess a tattoo and a lawyer represent a seemingly contradictory image ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

User avatar
Experiment626
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby Experiment626 » Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:42 pm

LesPaul1995 wrote:I got some harsh stares. I have a tattoo that covers my entire chest that was visible and I could overhear people talking about it before the test began. I guess a tattoo and a lawyer represent a seemingly contradictory image ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Meh, that can be covered by your suit. Not like it should matter but I would say the attorney profession as a whole is still conservative on visible tattoos that are not covered up by your suit.

User avatar
Future Ex-Engineer
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby Future Ex-Engineer » Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:15 pm

Barack O'Drama wrote:
addie1412 wrote:
brinicolec wrote:
dontsaywhatyoumean wrote:We're assuming the people that are saying they didn't do PT's, or only did a very small number, didn't do many timed sections, correct?

I don't think more than a couple of PT's is necessarily required if a lot of timed sections were done.


Full PTs help with stamina.

Doing a lot of timed sections doesn't prep you for doing five timed sections with a small break in the middle.


I didn't do a single full PT throughout my prep. I did regularly do like 8 timed RC sections in a row, though (with one break in the middle). Or 4 LR sections and 4 LG sections. But I never sat down like "I'm gonna take PT 72 today" and then score it to try to gauge where I was. I think it helped my confidence not knowing exactly where I stood beyond my performance on individual timed sections. I feel like I probably overperformed as a result of not being psychologically burdened or limited by low PTs. I went into it like: if I've gotten -0 on each of the sections before, I'm capable of a 180 vs: I've never PTed above 16x or 17x, therefore I won't be able to score any higher.

Sorry to derail the thread; I'm just passionate about the no-PT route. :lol:


I'm not commenting on whether or not this is a good idea or what not, but I had a friend who literally did the same thing and ended up scoring a 169? He eventually pursued a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and but he was naturally really good at the test I think.


Anecdotal, but I'm an electrical engineer and scored 164 on Sept 16 without ever having seen anything LSAT related. I'm of the opinion our academic background prepares us pretty well for most of the critical thinking skills required by the LSAT

ggmu1992
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:01 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby ggmu1992 » Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:15 pm

Future Ex-Engineer wrote:
Barack O'Drama wrote:
addie1412 wrote:
brinicolec wrote:
dontsaywhatyoumean wrote:We're assuming the people that are saying they didn't do PT's, or only did a very small number, didn't do many timed sections, correct?

I don't think more than a couple of PT's is necessarily required if a lot of timed sections were done.


Full PTs help with stamina.

Doing a lot of timed sections doesn't prep you for doing five timed sections with a small break in the middle.


I didn't do a single full PT throughout my prep. I did regularly do like 8 timed RC sections in a row, though (with one break in the middle). Or 4 LR sections and 4 LG sections. But I never sat down like "I'm gonna take PT 72 today" and then score it to try to gauge where I was. I think it helped my confidence not knowing exactly where I stood beyond my performance on individual timed sections. I feel like I probably overperformed as a result of not being psychologically burdened or limited by low PTs. I went into it like: if I've gotten -0 on each of the sections before, I'm capable of a 180 vs: I've never PTed above 16x or 17x, therefore I won't be able to score any higher.

Sorry to derail the thread; I'm just passionate about the no-PT route. :lol:


I'm not commenting on whether or not this is a good idea or what not, but I had a friend who literally did the same thing and ended up scoring a 169? He eventually pursued a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and but he was naturally really good at the test I think.


Anecdotal, but I'm an electrical engineer and scored 164 on Sept 16 without ever having seen anything LSAT related. I'm of the opinion our academic background prepares us pretty well for most of the critical thinking skills required by the LSAT


I don't know how anyone can do very well at Logic Games without seeing it before.

I understand that knowing formal logic is very helpful--but when you're really familiar the sort of questions LSAC asks, it's often easy to predict the answers to the questions before reading the choices, and I think it'd be hard to come in under time without that prep.

It's also my weak section, though.

User avatar
Barack O'Drama
Posts: 2676
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby Barack O'Drama » Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:05 pm

Future Ex-Engineer wrote:
Barack O'Drama wrote:
addie1412 wrote:
brinicolec wrote:
dontsaywhatyoumean wrote:We're assuming the people that are saying they didn't do PT's, or only did a very small number, didn't do many timed sections, correct?

I don't think more than a couple of PT's is necessarily required if a lot of timed sections were done.


Full PTs help with stamina.

Doing a lot of timed sections doesn't prep you for doing five timed sections with a small break in the middle.


I didn't do a single full PT throughout my prep. I did regularly do like 8 timed RC sections in a row, though (with one break in the middle). Or 4 LR sections and 4 LG sections. But I never sat down like "I'm gonna take PT 72 today" and then score it to try to gauge where I was. I think it helped my confidence not knowing exactly where I stood beyond my performance on individual timed sections. I feel like I probably overperformed as a result of not being psychologically burdened or limited by low PTs. I went into it like: if I've gotten -0 on each of the sections before, I'm capable of a 180 vs: I've never PTed above 16x or 17x, therefore I won't be able to score any higher.

Sorry to derail the thread; I'm just passionate about the no-PT route. :lol:


I'm not commenting on whether or not this is a good idea or what not, but I had a friend who literally did the same thing and ended up scoring a 169? He eventually pursued a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and but he was naturally really good at the test I think.


Anecdotal, but I'm an electrical engineer and scored 164 on Sept 16 without ever having seen anything LSAT related. I'm of the opinion our academic background prepares us pretty well for most of the critical thinking skills required by the LSAT


Yeah, I completely agree with the preparation aspect. That's really amazing! I wish I had a brain like that.

User avatar
Barack O'Drama
Posts: 2676
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby Barack O'Drama » Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:09 pm

ggmu1992 wrote:
Future Ex-Engineer wrote:
Barack O'Drama wrote:
addie1412 wrote:
brinicolec wrote:
dontsaywhatyoumean wrote:We're assuming the people that are saying they didn't do PT's, or only did a very small number, didn't do many timed sections, correct?

I don't think more than a couple of PT's is necessarily required if a lot of timed sections were done.


Full PTs help with stamina.

Doing a lot of timed sections doesn't prep you for doing five timed sections with a small break in the middle.


I didn't do a single full PT throughout my prep. I did regularly do like 8 timed RC sections in a row, though (with one break in the middle). Or 4 LR sections and 4 LG sections. But I never sat down like "I'm gonna take PT 72 today" and then score it to try to gauge where I was. I think it helped my confidence not knowing exactly where I stood beyond my performance on individual timed sections. I feel like I probably overperformed as a result of not being psychologically burdened or limited by low PTs. I went into it like: if I've gotten -0 on each of the sections before, I'm capable of a 180 vs: I've never PTed above 16x or 17x, therefore I won't be able to score any higher.

Sorry to derail the thread; I'm just passionate about the no-PT route. :lol:


I'm not commenting on whether or not this is a good idea or what not, but I had a friend who literally did the same thing and ended up scoring a 169? He eventually pursued a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and but he was naturally really good at the test I think.


Anecdotal, but I'm an electrical engineer and scored 164 on Sept 16 without ever having seen anything LSAT related. I'm of the opinion our academic background prepares us pretty well for most of the critical thinking skills required by the LSAT


I don't know how anyone can do very well at Logic Games without seeing it before.

I understand that knowing formal logic is very helpful--but when you're really familiar the sort of questions LSAC asks, it's often easy to predict the answers to the questions before reading the choices, and I think it'd be hard to come in under time without that prep.

It's also my weak section, though.


I used to wonder the same thing until my buddy Pete, the electrical engineer I mentioned before. He wasn't all that fluent in formal logic, but I remember him diagramming games pretty intuitively. One thing I remember is his diagrams being way less "formulaic" than say a Powerscore or 7Sage would teach. It was actually because of him that I thought games would be easy and I'd need a few scribbles to answer questions. But alas I suck at LG!

User avatar
Future Ex-Engineer
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby Future Ex-Engineer » Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:21 pm

Barack O'Drama wrote:
ggmu1992 wrote:
I don't know how anyone can do very well at Logic Games without seeing it before.

I understand that knowing formal logic is very helpful--but when you're really familiar the sort of questions LSAC asks, it's often easy to predict the answers to the questions before reading the choices, and I think it'd be hard to come in under time without that prep.

It's also my weak section, though.


I used to wonder the same thing until my buddy Pete, the electrical engineer I mentioned before. He wasn't all that fluent in formal logic, but I remember him diagramming games pretty intuitively. One thing I remember is his diagrams being way less "formulaic" than say a Powerscore or 7Sage would teach. It was actually because of him that I thought games would be easy and I'd need a few scribbles to answer questions. But alas I suck at LG!


Hah yeah, that's precisely it. I scored -4 on the first games section I ever saw under test conditions (again Sept 16, with the virus game). Honestly LG is pretty much exactly what we learn in engineering school, albeit the games are much simpler in content. In its essence, LG is just a word problem (the same kind you do in elementary school mathematics).

For us, we learn proofs/formulas/etc and apply those systematically to seemingly complex problems to break them down into simple, easy to digest parts.

LG is almost identical. 3-6 rules and a scenario, then use the rules to make the scenario simpler/more constrained. From there solutions just fall out.

I also find the diagramming methods/rigor that most people use for LG to be super foreign. I literally start a game, write the rules and draw the number of spaces for a sequencing or grouping game to give me a visual baseline and start attacking questions. No boards, no elaborate designs. I get really confused reading people talk about LG strategies for certain games. But, it definitely works for some people, and I'm glad they found a method that works for people not accustomed to the games

User avatar
Barack O'Drama
Posts: 2676
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby Barack O'Drama » Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:34 pm

Future Ex-Engineer wrote:
Barack O'Drama wrote:
ggmu1992 wrote:
I don't know how anyone can do very well at Logic Games without seeing it before.

I understand that knowing formal logic is very helpful--but when you're really familiar the sort of questions LSAC asks, it's often easy to predict the answers to the questions before reading the choices, and I think it'd be hard to come in under time without that prep.

It's also my weak section, though.


I used to wonder the same thing until my buddy Pete, the electrical engineer I mentioned before. He wasn't all that fluent in formal logic, but I remember him diagramming games pretty intuitively. One thing I remember is his diagrams being way less "formulaic" than say a Powerscore or 7Sage would teach. It was actually because of him that I thought games would be easy and I'd need a few scribbles to answer questions. But alas I suck at LG!


Hah yeah, that's precisely it. I scored -4 on the first games section I ever saw under test conditions (again Sept 16, with the virus game). Honestly LG is pretty much exactly what we learn in engineering school, albeit the games are much simpler in content. In its essence, LG is just a word problem (the same kind you do in elementary school mathematics).

For us, we learn proofs/formulas/etc and apply those systematically to seemingly complex problems to break them down into simple, easy to digest parts.

LG is almost identical. 3-6 rules and a scenario, then use the rules to make the scenario simpler/more constrained. From there solutions just fall out.

I also find the diagramming methods/rigor that most people use for LG to be super foreign. I literally start a game, write the rules and draw the number of spaces for a sequencing or grouping game to give me a visual baseline and start attacking questions. No boards, no elaborate designs. I get really confused reading people talk about LG strategies for certain games. But, it definitely works for some people, and I'm glad they found a method that works for people not accustomed to the games


It is insane how much that sounds like my buddy! Thanks for putting into context!

Johnsgoat
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:34 am

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby Johnsgoat » Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:50 am

Long time lurker first time poster....

At a testing center in NYC.


I got there an hour and half early and was looking for a place to do my warm up. There was a Starbucks that was jammed pack and greasy spoon diner. So I go into the diner and have breakfast while I do my warmup. A man comes in and explains to the staff that he is taking a test across the way and would like it if they could store his bag. This was in the middle of downtown NYC. LOL, as you could imagine they said no. There must have been 10-15 people with bags, phones, and other prohibited items, fortunate for them the proctors, and staff at the school, allowed them to leave it in the lobby. Although, warned that they would not be watching the items.

I almost thought I was going to get turned away on the check-in line. The picture on my ID is significantly old and I have gained quite a bit of weight. She did a double take and handed it back to me, phew. The girl in front of me came in with a fresh pack of pencils. The proctor told her she was only allowed four and needed to dispose of the rest. Meanwhile, when I get into the room the guy across the way has over 20 pencils out on the desk. I was amazed by that, I would have liked to have more than four, but I don't know what I'd do with 20.

After the break the proctor made an announcement for whomever was cracking their knuckles to please stop and that it was bothering another tester. Funny, I didn't notice this guy cracking his knuckles until after that announcement, when said guy did it probably three or four more times. This was a full on knuckle crack too, like both hands.

User avatar
humple
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:25 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby humple » Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:56 am

Johnsgoat wrote:This was a full on knuckle crack too, like both hands.


Both hands huh?

Johnsgoat
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:34 am

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby Johnsgoat » Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:07 am

humple wrote:
Johnsgoat wrote:This was a full on knuckle crack too, like both hands.


Both hands huh?



Yeah, it was pretty loud, the proctor never addressed it again after the break. I had not even noticed it until the proctor made the announcement.

User avatar
humple
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:25 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby humple » Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:15 am

Johnsgoat wrote:
humple wrote:
Johnsgoat wrote:This was a full on knuckle crack too, like both hands.


Both hands huh?



Yeah, it was pretty loud, the proctor never addressed it again after the break. I had not even noticed it until the proctor made the announcement.


That's so crazy dude.

User avatar
Slippin' Jimmy
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:56 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby Slippin' Jimmy » Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:47 am

Johnsgoat wrote:
The girl in front of me came in with a fresh pack of pencils. The proctor told her she was only allowed four and needed to dispose of the rest. Meanwhile, when I get into the room the guy across the way has over 20 pencils out on the desk. I was amazed by that, I would have liked to have more than four, but I don't know what I'd do with 20.


I brought in a full 12 pack of pencils, would have been PISSED if I could only have 4. That sounds like some bullshit the proctor made up.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: olympia and 5 guests