October 2013 (re)take Thread Forum

[Dr.Zer0]

I've been posting this all over TLS and haven't gotten a response so I'm just going to spam it here:

For people going to their third attempt, is there any unbiased evidence publicly available that shows that a third attempt is or isn't harmful to law school admissions chances? I've heard a lot of anecdotal evidence of the value of a third attempt (TLS) and of how a third attempt can really hurt your chances because it shows desperation and any improvement short of 4+ points won't do anything (some law school admins).

I don't think it can hurt significantly unless your 3rd score is the same or less than any other administration. However, if you manage to raise your score 4 or more points, it can only help you significantly.

Part of this may be that the majority of people that take the test more than once don't see improvement or do worse. If you think you underperformed both times or didn't study enough retaking is in your best interest so long as you prepare adequately. Also, a good number of top tier schools take the highest LSAT score and that should be taken into consideration.

Here is a spreadsheet detailing the top 35 schools (as of last year's USNWR rankings):

https://docs.google.com/a/g.fmarion.edu ... zcnc#gid=0

Column M details each school's LSAT policy, be it average, highest, or holistic.

Harvard, Columbia, NYU and Cal do average...well fck me -__-

[TheMostDangerousLG]

Harvard, Columbia, NYU and Cal do average...well fck me -__-

Good news for third-time retakers though.. as long as your second take was higher than your first, going down on the next take wouldn't necessarily hurt the average. Columbia and NYU are two of my top three schools, so I guess I just need higher than a 173 and I'll still have improved my chances. Assuming that this average thing is correct- good stuff!

[Dr.Zer0]

Harvard, Columbia, NYU and Cal do average...well fck me -__-

Good news for third-time retakers though.. as long as your second take was higher than your first, going down on the next take wouldn't necessarily hurt the average. Columbia and NYU are two of my top three schools, so I guess I just need higher than a 173 and I'll still have improved my chances. Assuming that this average thing is correct- good stuff!

Hahah yeah, even if I was to pull a 170 in Oct my average would be a 165 *sigh*...Oh well UPenn here I come!

[KingFish]

Harvard, Columbia, NYU and Cal do average...well fck me -__-

Good news for third-time retakers though.. as long as your second take was higher than your first, going down on the next take wouldn't necessarily hurt the average. Columbia and NYU are two of my top three schools, so I guess I just need higher than a 173 and I'll still have improved my chances. Assuming that this average thing is correct- good stuff!

Hahah yeah, even if I was to pull a 170 in Oct my average would be a 165 *sigh*...Oh well UPenn here I come!

THEY DON'T AVERAGE.

Source: me (3.4/165/177 In at CLS and NYU)

[TheMostDangerousLG]

THEY DON'T AVERAGE.

Source: me (3.4/165/177 In at CLS and NYU)

Just the highest score? That's good news..

[Pure Protein]

I feel like I've read somewhere before that when schools say they average LSAT scores, they only do so for relatively similar scores. Like they might average a 168/170 to a 169, but they would take the higher score from a 160/170 applicant. Anyone know if there is any truth to this?

[objection_your_honor]

THEY DON'T AVERAGE.

Source: me (3.4/165/177 In at CLS and NYU)

Just the highest score? That's good news..

3.4 / 171 (avg) is doable at NYU.

[Ambitious1]

Got back into it today. Did the first 10 relative ordering games in the Cambridge 41-60 set. Essentially did them back to back, now I'm tired. Might do an RC passage or two later today. Hoping/praying that the LSAT Trainer arrives tomorrow in the mail.

[Ambitious1]

I'm also considering the merits of taking a diagnostic in a few days. Not sure what purpose it would serve. I'm still pretty confident I'm in the 168 to 172 range i was in leading up to June. Might just jump straight into the Cambridge LR bundles and then take a PT after a week or so.

[mvonh001]

so have we decided that this will be the thread for retakers? Should i withdraw my membership to club Octber LSAT Prep study group?

[chizzy]

hi! i'm also a retaker for october.
for the next 2weeks i plan to focus on logic games, and then 2weeks after that LR.
I was wondering if that was a good approach for me to master the different sections of the LSAT. LR is my biggest weakness.

[objection_your_honor]

I know a lot of you June takers are jumping right back into PTs. I'm debating either doing that, or running the full Noodley guide again and really refining my process (which, ultimately, was not up to snuff or I wouldn't be here).

I'm the type of person that needs an overarching plan. I can't just wing it and drill sometimes, PT sometimes. Your thoughts?

[johmica]

Got back into it today. Did the first 10 relative ordering games in the Cambridge 41-60 set. Essentially did them back to back, now I'm tired. Might do an RC passage or two later today. Hoping/praying that the LSAT Trainer arrives tomorrow in the mail.

I think I will do a diagnostic on Friday. I haven't started studying again yet, other than kind of flipping through the first couple of sections of the Manhattan LR guide. I'm curious to see if my PT score is more similar to what I was scoring on PTs prior to June, or if it's closer to my June score. Basically, assessing the effects of the test environment. I've asked this before on this forum, Ambitious1, but since you've already made the leap, I'll ask you specifically. Have you heard much positive about the LSAT Trainer book, or did you buy it just because of Mike's reputation in general? Curious to know how much his method deviates from the Manhattan series. Gotta pay the rent, you know . . . .

[jb1]

Checking in as a first time poster and re-taker!

Got a 170 in June and finally summoned the motivation to commit myself to a re-take in October.

Best of luck ya'll.

[ScottRiqui]

Registered for the October test this morning!

[magickware]

I know a lot of you June takers are jumping right back into PTs. I'm debating either doing that, or running the full Noodley guide again and really refining my process (which, ultimately, was not up to snuff or I wouldn't be here).

I'm the type of person that needs an overarching plan. I can't just wing it and drill sometimes, PT sometimes. Your thoughts?

I'm thinking of doing both. But as of right now I know that RC is just a big-fucking crapshot for me, so I'm not even sure if I want to be doing PTs.

So I'm just blitzing through Cambridge LG packet and trying to increase speed in the meantime. Not stressful at all and I can do 5-6 sections of them without tiring at all.

[the_pakalypse]

I know a lot of you June takers are jumping right back into PTs. I'm debating either doing that, or running the full Noodley guide again and really refining my process (which, ultimately, was not up to snuff or I wouldn't be here).

I'm the type of person that needs an overarching plan. I can't just wing it and drill sometimes, PT sometimes. Your thoughts?

I would encourage you to work on process. You really really have to spend time looking for patterns in the stimulus types, answer choices, and the answers you chose incorrectly.

Most 170 scorers know some basic patterns (e.g. causation, how to weaken/strengthen an analogy) but there are tons of other things out there that may be useful.

I can't even begin to explain how many weaken/strengthen questions rely on a comparison between two entities (e.g. one group gets a treatment and the other doesn't). Or how many difficult weaken/strengthen/assumption questions rely on one answer choice that is SUPER close but not completely relevant to the stimulus (i.e it's somehow accounted for, excluded, or not relevant). In fact this same pattern saved me on PT 69 for that lotto question.

You also have to optimize your process (i.e. become lazy and find the easiest way to your answer).

An example of optimizing your time (aka finding the easiest way to an answer) is becoming really fluent with formal logic. I trusted my instincts to a point where I could mentally follow the logic "train" -- this allowed me to go through the questions much faster. If I couldn't follow the "train" (aka connecting conditionals) completely in my head, I would eliminate answer choices very quickly by eliminating any answer choice that mentioned a necessary condition in a sufficient condition or vice versa.

For easier questions, I realized the Manhattan strategy for MBT/MBF questions in LG (look at all answer choices, defer judgement, see if one pops out -- if not, then test hypos) applied to LR as well. I realized in my retake prep the reason I struggled through LR was because I over-thought each question. Instead of thinking why each answer could potentially work, you have to think this is why its wrong OR defer judgement. Deferring judgement is an awesome, awesome tool. You have to refine your instincts so that you can figure out when an answer is sufficiently good. Become efficient.

The BIGGEST and by far the easiest thing most people overlook is a change in terms (i.e. you are strong, therefore you must be athletic). This is so, so prevalent in the LSAT and once you can see this change consistently, you'll find that questions go over quickly. (Whenever I found a change in terms for an assumption/strengthen/weaken question, I immediately looked in the answer choices for a corresponding answer choice). Oh god most SA questions are so so easy once you start doing this -- especially those ones that deal with abstract topics. I actually started looking forward to them.

Anyways I hope this helps. If it does, let me know. I have a bunch of these thoughts but I'm not sure it would be helpful/easily understood.

[Dr.Zer0]

I feel like I've read somewhere before that when schools say they average LSAT scores, they only do so for relatively similar scores. Like they might average a 168/170 to a 169, but they would take the higher score from a 160/170 applicant. Anyone know if there is any truth to this?

Got in contact with fellow TLS'r who was a 160 to 169 retaker MA URM and 3.9 LSAC was accepted into NYU CAL and HLS despite the retake...If I can get to that 170+ we will virtually be numbers twins...so there's hope!

[TheMostDangerousLG]

I know a lot of you June takers are jumping right back into PTs. I'm debating either doing that, or running the full Noodley guide again and really refining my process (which, ultimately, was not up to snuff or I wouldn't be here).

I'm the type of person that needs an overarching plan. I can't just wing it and drill sometimes, PT sometimes. Your thoughts?

I would encourage you to work on process. You really really have to spend time looking for patterns in the stimulus types, answer choices, and the answers you chose incorrectly.

Most 170 scorers know some basic patterns (e.g. causation, how to weaken/strengthen an analogy) but there are tons of other things out there that may be useful.

I can't even begin to explain how many weaken/strengthen questions rely on a comparison between two entities (e.g. one group gets a treatment and the other doesn't). Or how many difficult weaken/strengthen/assumption questions rely on one answer choice that is SUPER close but not completely relevant to the stimulus (i.e it's somehow accounted for, excluded, or not relevant). In fact this same pattern saved me on PT 69 for that lotto question.

You also have to optimize your process (i.e. become lazy and find the easiest way to your answer).

An example of optimizing your time (aka finding the easiest way to an answer) is becoming really fluent with formal logic. I trusted my instincts to a point where I could mentally follow the logic "train" -- this allowed me to go through the questions much faster. If I couldn't follow the "train" (aka connecting conditionals) completely in my head, I would eliminate answer choices very quickly by eliminating any answer choice that mentioned a necessary condition in a sufficient condition or vice versa.

For easier questions, I realized the Manhattan strategy for MBT/MBF questions in LG (look at all answer choices, defer judgement, see if one pops out -- if not, then test hypos) applied to LR as well. I realized in my retake prep the reason I struggled through LR was because I over-thought each question. Instead of thinking why each answer could potentially work, you have to think this is why its wrong OR defer judgement. Deferring judgement is an awesome, awesome tool. You have to refine your instincts so that you can figure out when an answer is sufficiently good. Become efficient.

The BIGGEST and by far the easiest thing most people overlook is a change in terms (i.e. you are strong, therefore you must be athletic). This is so, so prevalent in the LSAT and once you can see this change consistently, you'll find that questions go over quickly. (Whenever I found a change in terms for an assumption/strengthen/weaken question, I immediately looked in the answer choices for a corresponding answer choice). Oh god most SA questions are so so easy once you start doing this -- especially those ones that deal with abstract topics. I actually started looking forward to them.

Anyways I hope this helps. If it does, let me know. I have a bunch of these thoughts but I'm not sure it would be helpful/easily understood.

Between your score and your avatar, you're sort of my hero. And this is all great advice.

Have any advice for RC? If I haven't said it 80 times (today alone), that's where I lost all of my points but one. I hear it's supposed to be very similar to LR, particularly these days, and yet I still struggle with it, despite LR being my strong suit. I don't know what I'm doing wrong.. How do you personally approach RC questions?

[objection_your_honor]

I know a lot of you June takers are jumping right back into PTs. I'm debating either doing that, or running the full Noodley guide again and really refining my process (which, ultimately, was not up to snuff or I wouldn't be here).

I'm the type of person that needs an overarching plan. I can't just wing it and drill sometimes, PT sometimes. Your thoughts?

I would encourage you to work on process. You really really have to spend time looking for patterns in the stimulus types, answer choices, and the answers you chose incorrectly.

Most 170 scorers know some basic patterns (e.g. causation, how to weaken/strengthen an analogy) but there are tons of other things out there that may be useful.

I can't even begin to explain how many weaken/strengthen questions rely on a comparison between two entities (e.g. one group gets a treatment and the other doesn't). Or how many difficult weaken/strengthen/assumption questions rely on one answer choice that is SUPER close but not completely relevant to the stimulus (i.e it's somehow accounted for, excluded, or not relevant). In fact this same pattern saved me on PT 69 for that lotto question.

You also have to optimize your process (i.e. become lazy and find the easiest way to your answer).

An example of optimizing your time (aka finding the easiest way to an answer) is becoming really fluent with formal logic. I trusted my instincts to a point where I could mentally follow the logic "train" -- this allowed me to go through the questions much faster. If I couldn't follow the "train" (aka connecting conditionals) completely in my head, I would eliminate answer choices very quickly by eliminating any answer choice that mentioned a necessary condition in a sufficient condition or vice versa.

For easier questions, I realized the Manhattan strategy for MBT/MBF questions in LG (look at all answer choices, defer judgement, see if one pops out -- if not, then test hypos) applied to LR as well. I realized in my retake prep the reason I struggled through LR was because I over-thought each question. Instead of thinking why each answer could potentially work, you have to think this is why its wrong OR defer judgement. Deferring judgement is an awesome, awesome tool. You have to refine your instincts so that you can figure out when an answer is sufficiently good. Become efficient.

The BIGGEST and by far the easiest thing most people overlook is a change in terms (i.e. you are strong, therefore you must be athletic). This is so, so prevalent in the LSAT and once you can see this change consistently, you'll find that questions go over quickly. (Whenever I found a change in terms for an assumption/strengthen/weaken question, I immediately looked in the answer choices for a corresponding answer choice). Oh god most SA questions are so so easy once you start doing this -- especially those ones that deal with abstract topics. I actually started looking forward to them.

Anyways I hope this helps. If it does, let me know. I have a bunch of these thoughts but I'm not sure it would be helpful/easily understood.

Very helpful, thanks. From a practical standpoint would I do these things (initially) by returning to basics (ie Manhattan chapters and drilling), or by taking and reviewing PTs?

[magickware]

Have any advice for RC? If I haven't said it 80 times (today alone), that's where I lost all of my points but one. I hear it's supposed to be very similar to LR, particularly these days, and yet I still struggle with it, despite LR being my strong suit. I don't know what I'm doing wrong.. How do you personally approach RC questions?

+1

Would love to hear how you approached RC.

[jingosaur]

Does anyone have any suggestions about the best way to buy the Cambridge books? They're super expensive and I don't really need the games ones.

BTW, I think TLS is essentially correct when they say that everyone except for Yale and maybe Stanford takes just the highest. I could buy "we look at everything" for many of the higher ranked schools that say that they average, but doing just averages doesn't look like it's a thing.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

Does anyone have any suggestions about the best way to buy the Cambridge books? They're super expensive and I don't really need the games ones.

BTW, I think TLS is essentially correct when they say that everyone except for Yale and maybe Stanford takes just the highest. I could buy "we look at everything" for many of the higher ranked schools that say that they average, but doing just averages doesn't look like it's a thing.

Buy the PDF bundles, or the PDFs of just the question types you need to work on. http://www.cambridgelsat.com/problem-sets/

[mvonh001]

I know a lot of you June takers are jumping right back into PTs. I'm debating either doing that, or running the full Noodley guide again and really refining my process (which, ultimately, was not up to snuff or I wouldn't be here).

I'm the type of person that needs an overarching plan. I can't just wing it and drill sometimes, PT sometimes. Your thoughts?

I would encourage you to work on process. You really really have to spend time looking for patterns in the stimulus types, answer choices, and the answers you chose incorrectly.

Most 170 scorers know some basic patterns (e.g. causation, how to weaken/strengthen an analogy) but there are tons of other things out there that may be useful.

I can't even begin to explain how many weaken/strengthen questions rely on a comparison between two entities (e.g. one group gets a treatment and the other doesn't). Or how many difficult weaken/strengthen/assumption questions rely on one answer choice that is SUPER close but not completely relevant to the stimulus (i.e it's somehow accounted for, excluded, or not relevant). In fact this same pattern saved me on PT 69 for that lotto question.

You also have to optimize your process (i.e. become lazy and find the easiest way to your answer).

An example of optimizing your time (aka finding the easiest way to an answer) is becoming really fluent with formal logic. I trusted my instincts to a point where I could mentally follow the logic "train" -- this allowed me to go through the questions much faster. If I couldn't follow the "train" (aka connecting conditionals) completely in my head, I would eliminate answer choices very quickly by eliminating any answer choice that mentioned a necessary condition in a sufficient condition or vice versa.

For easier questions, I realized the Manhattan strategy for MBT/MBF questions in LG (look at all answer choices, defer judgement, see if one pops out -- if not, then test hypos) applied to LR as well. I realized in my retake prep the reason I struggled through LR was because I over-thought each question. Instead of thinking why each answer could potentially work, you have to think this is why its wrong OR defer judgement. Deferring judgement is an awesome, awesome tool. You have to refine your instincts so that you can figure out when an answer is sufficiently good. Become efficient.

The BIGGEST and by far the easiest thing most people overlook is a change in terms (i.e. you are strong, therefore you must be athletic). This is so, so prevalent in the LSAT and once you can see this change consistently, you'll find that questions go over quickly. (Whenever I found a change in terms for an assumption/strengthen/weaken question, I immediately looked in the answer choices for a corresponding answer choice). Oh god most SA questions are so so easy once you start doing this -- especially those ones that deal with abstract topics. I actually started looking forward to them.

Anyways I hope this helps. If it does, let me know. I have a bunch of these thoughts but I'm not sure it would be helpful/easily understood.

Very helpful, thanks. From a practical standpoint would I do these things (initially) by returning to basics (ie Manhattan chapters and drilling), or by taking and reviewing PTs?

Drill until you feel confident in your abilities, then PT... Or intersperse your drilling with PT'ing - that is what I am doing. I am drilling LR LG and RC everyday (30 LR questions, 5 LG games, and 1 RC section) on the weekdays and doing PT's on the weekends.

[the_pakalypse]

I know a lot of you June takers are jumping right back into PTs. I'm debating either doing that, or running the full Noodley guide again and really refining my process (which, ultimately, was not up to snuff or I wouldn't be here).

I'm the type of person that needs an overarching plan. I can't just wing it and drill sometimes, PT sometimes. Your thoughts?

I would encourage you to work on process. You really really have to spend time looking for patterns in the stimulus types, answer choices, and the answers you chose incorrectly.

Most 170 scorers know some basic patterns (e.g. causation, how to weaken/strengthen an analogy) but there are tons of other things out there that may be useful.

I can't even begin to explain how many weaken/strengthen questions rely on a comparison between two entities (e.g. one group gets a treatment and the other doesn't). Or how many difficult weaken/strengthen/assumption questions rely on one answer choice that is SUPER close but not completely relevant to the stimulus (i.e it's somehow accounted for, excluded, or not relevant). In fact this same pattern saved me on PT 69 for that lotto question.

You also have to optimize your process (i.e. become lazy and find the easiest way to your answer).

An example of optimizing your time (aka finding the easiest way to an answer) is becoming really fluent with formal logic. I trusted my instincts to a point where I could mentally follow the logic "train" -- this allowed me to go through the questions much faster. If I couldn't follow the "train" (aka connecting conditionals) completely in my head, I would eliminate answer choices very quickly by eliminating any answer choice that mentioned a necessary condition in a sufficient condition or vice versa.

For easier questions, I realized the Manhattan strategy for MBT/MBF questions in LG (look at all answer choices, defer judgement, see if one pops out -- if not, then test hypos) applied to LR as well. I realized in my retake prep the reason I struggled through LR was because I over-thought each question. Instead of thinking why each answer could potentially work, you have to think this is why its wrong OR defer judgement. Deferring judgement is an awesome, awesome tool. You have to refine your instincts so that you can figure out when an answer is sufficiently good. Become efficient.

The BIGGEST and by far the easiest thing most people overlook is a change in terms (i.e. you are strong, therefore you must be athletic). This is so, so prevalent in the LSAT and once you can see this change consistently, you'll find that questions go over quickly. (Whenever I found a change in terms for an assumption/strengthen/weaken question, I immediately looked in the answer choices for a corresponding answer choice). Oh god most SA questions are so so easy once you start doing this -- especially those ones that deal with abstract topics. I actually started looking forward to them.

Anyways I hope this helps. If it does, let me know. I have a bunch of these thoughts but I'm not sure it would be helpful/easily understood.

Very helpful, thanks. From a practical standpoint would I do these things (initially) by returning to basics (ie Manhattan chapters and drilling), or by taking and reviewing PTs?

Both. Maybe drill during the week and then do PTs. Again I'd stress understanding yourself and your own weaknesses (which often change). Focus on what you find hardest, or what takes you an unreasonable amount of time.

Personally I didn't drill LR much during my retake but I regretted it a bit later on because I ended up having issues near the end with some types of questions (mostly weaken/strengthen). In fact, a week before the test I started drilling strengthen/weaken questions.. I'm glad I did though because I saw that nearly my problems were comparing from the same types of stimuli or answer choices. Protip = "out of scope" as it is commonly understood hardly ever exists for these kinds of questions. You can have the randomest shit brought in -- as long as it is consistent with the passage and you can think of a way to make it connect the evidence to conclusion. The only real "out of scope" for these questions is when the evidence to conclusion relationship is not being impacted -- this most often is a result of a slight change in subject, or some sort of exception that the stimulus grants.