Top Law Schools

I scored 169 on my cold, proctored diagnostic, and I scored 175 on my first timed PT three years later, without additional preparation in between. I ended up with a 173 on test day.

I pretty much agree with RancidSumo that decent exposure to various subjects in high school and college should provide decent preparation. I think the two biggest things that helped my performance were being lazy and skimming when reading, and getting into stupid debates in online forums. Most of the errors in reasoning I saw on the LSAT could be easily found on any message board. I had a mediocre LG score, though, so you must need to do something else for that - probably math courses of some sort.

Clyde Frog wrote:

RancidSumo wrote:I've said it here before and I am absolutely convinced I'm right that a decently well educated adult should not have to spend months studying for this test. It is a test of skills you should have developed over your life, especially during your undergrad years. Reading the classics and other literature, studying math and philosophy, solving issues in the workplace, etc. All these things should build up the necessary skills for doing well on the LSAT. The only thing difficult about it is working within the time limit. I took one prep test the day before my actual test to get a feel for the time and that was it. I think I performed pretty well and I don't see how additional study would have helped.

I know that isn't a popular opinion and there are probably plenty of people who did better than I did who will disagree. That's fine, you've got to do what works for you. I just don't get it.

So you don't understand prepping for a couple months as opposed to spending your life reading classics/literature, studying math and philosophy ect., and scoring in the same range? Scoring high on the LSAT is not that big of an accomplishment. You can learn the skills that are required for the LSAT without not having a social life.

Life is not a binary choice between retarded and autistic. If you think those are your only options, you need to take a good look at how you're actually spending your time. I have an active social life, I read quite a lot, I golf and fly fish whenever the weather permits, and I spend a fair amount of time traveling. There are plenty of hours in the day to cultivate the intellectual, social, spiritual, a physical aspects of your life. You don't have to choose.

Post removed.

RancidSumo wrote:I've said it here before and I am absolutely convinced I'm right that a decently well educated adult should not have to spend months studying for this test. It is a test of skills you should have developed over your life, especially during your undergrad years. Reading the classics and other literature, studying math and philosophy, solving issues in the workplace, etc. All these things should build up the necessary skills for doing well on the LSAT. The only thing difficult about it is working within the time limit. I took one prep test the day before my actual test to get a feel for the time and that was it. I think I performed pretty well and I don't see how additional study would have helped.

I know that isn't a popular opinion and there are probably plenty of people who did better than I did who will disagree. That's fine, you've got to do what works for you. I just don't get it.

Please include your actual score, breakdown, and prep information such as how much over time limit you were.

jmjm wrote:

RancidSumo wrote:I've said it here before and I am absolutely convinced I'm right that a decently well educated adult should not have to spend months studying for this test. It is a test of skills you should have developed over your life, especially during your undergrad years. Reading the classics and other literature, studying math and philosophy, solving issues in the workplace, etc. All these things should build up the necessary skills for doing well on the LSAT. The only thing difficult about it is working within the time limit. I took one prep test the day before my actual test to get a feel for the time and that was it. I think I performed pretty well and I don't see how additional study would have helped.

I know that isn't a popular opinion and there are probably plenty of people who did better than I did who will disagree. That's fine, you've got to do what works for you. I just don't get it.

Please include your actual score, breakdown, and prep information such as how much over time limit you were.

172
AR: -1
RC: -4
LR1: -3
LR2: -1
Made time on all sections. Had about five minutes to spare on most. Cut it close on RC due to spending too much time on one of the middle passages that had a couple questions I couldn't nail down.
No prep except for one PT the night before the test.

RancidSumo wrote:

Clyde Frog wrote:

RancidSumo wrote:I've said it here before and I am absolutely convinced I'm right that a decently well educated adult should not have to spend months studying for this test. It is a test of skills you should have developed over your life, especially during your undergrad years. Reading the classics and other literature, studying math and philosophy, solving issues in the workplace, etc. All these things should build up the necessary skills for doing well on the LSAT. The only thing difficult about it is working within the time limit. I took one prep test the day before my actual test to get a feel for the time and that was it. I think I performed pretty well and I don't see how additional study would have helped.

I know that isn't a popular opinion and there are probably plenty of people who did better than I did who will disagree. That's fine, you've got to do what works for you. I just don't get it.

So you don't understand prepping for a couple months as opposed to spending your life reading classics/literature, studying math and philosophy ect., and scoring in the same range? Scoring high on the LSAT is not that big of an accomplishment. You can learn the skills that are required for the LSAT without not having a social life.

Life is not a binary choice between retarded and autistic. If you think those are your only options, you need to take a good look at how you're actually spending your time. I have an active social life, I read quite a lot, I golf and fly fish whenever the weather permits, and I spend a fair amount of time traveling. There are plenty of hours in the day to cultivate the intellectual, social, spiritual, a physical aspects of your life. You don't have to choose.

Taking one practice test the night before the test when there are over 70 available to help you improve your score amounts to you being a lazy ass. With a month or two or prep you may have been able to get into the 178+ range and you would most likely have a much better selection of law schools available to you. With all this time you've spent on improving your intellectual prowess you'd assume you would have read up on the benefits of preparation. For example, does Rory McIlory just assume that he shouldn't have to prepare for a tournament because he's had a lifetime of golf instruction? Probably not.

Not prepping for the LSAT is idiotic, no matter how many classical texts you've read or how many "workplace problems" you've resolved.

Yeah, RancidSumo, you'd probably be in a much better position with a 177+ if you had put in more practice. You might not need to study as intensively as some people, but even putting in 20, 40, 50 hours is enough for a lot of people to make some serious gains.

abcde12345 wrote:Not a "natural" for LR and LG, but one of my friends, a math major, goes -0 on LG with no studying (he's taking the LSAT). LG = super easy for many math majors.

I guess I could be called a "natural" for RC, however. On my first 2 timed RCs I went -0, never having studied for RC before and never really looking at RC sections. This just comes from doing college reading. But this was on early PTs and RC has changed a bit, so I don't really know if it's possible to be an RC natural anymore (always one or two bullshit questions in a RC section).

I know I am necroing this post, but I wanted to highlight that this has been my experience as a math major. I don't think that I am good at games (rarely miss any questions, timed) because I am a math major, I think I am a math major because I tend to think with logical rigor (and enjoy working with numbers).

So yes, games seem very easy to me, but then again I struggle much more with more open-ended questions that we find in LR and especially RC.

Since the oddball hobbies poster doesn't have a post history it doesn't really matter if she revealed her identity is what the other poster was i guess getting at.

So you don't understand prepping for a couple months as opposed to spending your life reading classics/literature, studying math and philosophy ect., and scoring in the same range?

i assume this means that the notion of "without prep" doesn't exactly apply for people who have been getting prepped for lsat in other ways throughout their lives or other means such as debate competitions etc.

A close friend from undergrad scored 178 with no real prep at all. He was just scary smart. He led pretty much a leisurely life (family was loaded), much more than the rest of us (or at least significantly more than me). Graduated from a T14. Didn't do anything with the law degree, just enjoyed law school for personal reasons. His undergrad degree was in philosophy and creative writing. He read quite a bit and obviously wrote quite a bit. He also would write computer programs to perform various race simulations, so he had no problem with LG.

He has a son that's about 9 years old. Darn kid was learning computer programming 2 years ago. Seems to be smarter than his dad.

If I can get my kid to graduate from state college, I'll be happy.

...

Bump for the newer test takers

please tell us your approach to doing well on the test

I scored a 163 on a cold diagnostic. My first timed PT was 1 month later with about 50 hours of prep, I scored 175. I've hit 174-177 for every PT I've taken since then.

Growing up I read a shit-ton, like during weddings as a little kid I would sit under tables with a flashlight and read books. I've stopped reading as many novels since high school but I am constantly reading news, political articles, columns, etc. online. My major (government) requires me to read lots of dense articles as well. These two factors, combined with my genuine interest in many of the subjects on the LSAT (political science, astronomy, law) make LR and especially RC very natural for me. The only prep I've put into LR is skimming the Atlas book to get a general sense of argument structure and I'm consistently scoring -3 or better, -0 about half the time.

LG is a different story. My first attempt at a diagnostic I totally blanked, had no idea about any of the diagramming methods, and couldn't even finish the test. So I read the Powerscore LG Bible before attempting a true diagnostic. I still went -7. Today I'm concentrating on drilling every LG I can possibly find.

I had more than one month of study (because I had more than one month until my exam), but my diagnostic was 165 and my second PT (taken the next day) was a 171 or 172, I believe.

I cannot point to any major, class, or hobby that made this possible. I love to read and read a ton (2-3 hours a day as a child), but all light fiction, no heavy non-fiction or anything. I have terrible taste in television and music. I never took a formal logic class. I was good at math as a kid, but not in any sort of super way. I had an easy major in college.

.

iwoeps wrote:178 on my cold diagnostic. Was reading at an advanced level as a kid but wouldn't really say I pushed myself; I preferred to reread easy books over and over rather than read something actually at or above my level. Nowadays, I don't really read much in my spare time--just NYTimes. So it's hard for me to say. I guess I would attribute my high cold score mostly to my college coursework and general childhood education. (As a kid, I went to large public schools that were nonetheless pretty solid.)

you mean you never saw an lsat question before and took the diagnostic under strictly timed conditions? examples of easy books?

Replitz wrote:I scored a 163 on a cold diagnostic. My first timed PT was 1 month later with about 50 hours of prep, I scored 175. I've hit 174-177 for every PT I've taken since then.

Growing up I read a shit-ton, like during weddings as a little kid I would sit under tables with a flashlight and read books. I've stopped reading as many novels since high school but I am constantly reading news, political articles, columns, etc. online. My major (government) requires me to read lots of dense articles as well. These two factors, combined with my genuine interest in many of the subjects on the LSAT (political science, astronomy, law) make LR and especially RC very natural for me. The only prep I've put into LR is skimming the Atlas book to get a general sense of argument structure and I'm consistently scoring -3 or better, -0 about half the time.

LG is a different story. My first attempt at a diagnostic I totally blanked, had no idea about any of the diagramming methods, and couldn't even finish the test. So I read the Powerscore LG Bible before attempting a true diagnostic. I still went -7. Today I'm concentrating on drilling every LG I can possibly find.

how fast do you do the initial read of the passage in rc, and how much time you leave for questions?
recommendations on dense articles of the type you used?

emkay625 wrote:I had more than one month of study (because I had more than one month until my exam), but my diagnostic was 165 and my second PT (taken the next day) was a 171 or 172, I believe.

I cannot point to any major, class, or hobby that made this possible. I love to read and read a ton (2-3 hours a day as a child), but all light fiction, no heavy non-fiction or anything. I have terrible taste in television and music. I never took a formal logic class. I was good at math as a kid, but not in any sort of super way. I had an easy major in college.

final score? in rc, how much time you take to initially read the passage and then to do questions, respectively?

.

appind wrote:

Replitz wrote:I scored a 163 on a cold diagnostic. My first timed PT was 1 month later with about 50 hours of prep, I scored 175. I've hit 174-177 for every PT I've taken since then.

Growing up I read a shit-ton, like during weddings as a little kid I would sit under tables with a flashlight and read books. I've stopped reading as many novels since high school but I am constantly reading news, political articles, columns, etc. online. My major (government) requires me to read lots of dense articles as well. These two factors, combined with my genuine interest in many of the subjects on the LSAT (political science, astronomy, law) make LR and especially RC very natural for me. The only prep I've put into LR is skimming the Atlas book to get a general sense of argument structure and I'm consistently scoring -3 or better, -0 about half the time.

LG is a different story. My first attempt at a diagnostic I totally blanked, had no idea about any of the diagramming methods, and couldn't even finish the test. So I read the Powerscore LG Bible before attempting a true diagnostic. I still went -7. Today I'm concentrating on drilling every LG I can possibly find.

how fast do you do the initial read of the passage in rc, and how much time you leave for questions?
recommendations on dense articles of the type you used?

In general I read pretty quickly - I'm not totally sure, maybe 2-3 minutes? I don't just read it all the way through, I underline different parts, pause to think for a second, write little notes, etc. I find it's more effective to take a little extra time understanding the paragraphs rather than reading it fast, all the way through.

For dense articles.... I don't know. I wouldn't recommend you seek out dense articles to get better at RC, I'm was just talking about the poly sci research that my teachers assign.

appind wrote:

emkay625 wrote:I had more than one month of study (because I had more than one month until my exam), but my diagnostic was 165 and my second PT (taken the next day) was a 171 or 172, I believe.

I cannot point to any major, class, or hobby that made this possible. I love to read and read a ton (2-3 hours a day as a child), but all light fiction, no heavy non-fiction or anything. I have terrible taste in television and music. I never took a formal logic class. I was good at math as a kid, but not in any sort of super way. I had an easy major in college.

final score? in rc, how much time you take to initially read the passage and then to do questions, respectively?

Take 1: 169. Take 2: 173. Underperformed both times (bad test anxiety).

The RC question is difficult to answer bc it would depend on the passage. Comparative takes longer to read, for example. But about 3 minutes to read and 5 minutes for questions. RC was also my worst section, by a lot. For the 169 I shat the bed on a stupid, stupid passage about a sculptor and went -7 on that one passage. For the 173 I went -6 in RC.

Taking the LSAT last October was a cool diagnostic. Considered retaking in December and not eating gas station food for breakfast (had to C out a game due to gastro issues.)

-0 on RC. I don't read for fun, and I'm not well read. Anything I do read is non-fiction (easy reading), or articles from econ journals (research focused on disasters, financial markets, and the environment mostly). I didn't use any markings or notation. I'm a slow reader, but finished a few minutes early if I recall correctly.

.

HaveMercy wrote:Natural for LR please chime in: how do you approach these problems? I think everyone can agree that LG eventually get much easier and can definitely be learned, but I still can't seem to find this with LR.

Had one section of LR -0, the other was -3 I think. Flaws I think I lucked out in my upbringing, and have always had a good grasp on types of fallacies. Finished sections of LR before the 5 minute warning.


If you know your fallacies, flaw questions are easy. You know what the answer should be for 95% of questions before you even read the answer choices.


Weaken is equally simple, just assume everything you read in the stimulus is true and then say "all thats true, but what if __________ ?" Plug the answer choices into the blank space. If you feel like you saying that would drunk on someone you're good and thats the right answer. If you feel like they would reply "Okay? How is that relevant?" then it isn't tcr.


Stengthen is a little more awkward, but again assume eveything in the stimulus is true and then say "Oh, and ______ ." Again plugging answer choices, and if you feel like someone would say "Cool story, but how is that relevant" it isn't right, but if in your head you feel like a hype man backing up his bro in an argument said it, that's tcr.


Must be true, seems to normally invole a bit more actual logic rather than plug and chug to me. Just know the foundations of symbolic logic (which you do without realizing it from logic games). And undersand the relationship between some and most.


NA and SA....see must be true above? Understand assumptions? I can't explain these, they just feel right or don't.

Parallel reasoing I think it's helpful to ignore the words and focus on the structure. If you're doing parallel flaw you need to understand the flaw in the little paragraph thing, and find one that makes the same flaw in the same way. Not rocket science, but can be time consuming to read. Pretty sure I saved those for last.



I can't remember anymore question types off the top of my head.

This is the best I have to offer. It isn't necessarily how I think through it when I do it, but it's how I explained it to my brother now that he's getting ready to take it. I obviously know how my bro thinks, so that's how I explained it to him, but you might think differently.