The Official September 2014 Study Group

User avatar
bondja
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 9:42 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby bondja » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:16 am

Louis1127 wrote:Diggiddy,

Many people (including myself) use June 2007 as their diagnostic b/c it's free and somewhat modern (2007). I really don't think it matters which test you take as your diagnostic.

I tend to go against the TLS grain in thinking that the older tests are not that much different form the newer ones. Especially with the trends in the logic games section, even an old test would be fine to use as a diagnostic. Old tests are also fine to train with, in my opinion. Although I do find newer RCs to be harder, but once again not to the extent that most people do.


I find the older tests have a different way of wording questions which makes it seem harder to some people. Unless I'm just crazy and it's completely the same...possibly...maybe??

floridaxrose
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:29 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby floridaxrose » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:41 am

I took a testmasters course, I put the hours in my highest PT was 167- averaging 165.
I got a 163 on the June 2014 LSAT and my GPA is 3.95.
I have been reading and most don't jump two or three points unless they failed to study not my case.
Not sure if I have theoretically reached the "cap" each individual has or if I can get to 170+ range.
I also plan on attending UF and have more than the numbers I need to go there.
The only was I could consider my dream Columbia, NYU, or Harvard is with significant financial assistance.
I am hispanic not sure if that qualified as a URM? But I have read about 163's getting into these schools, one person out of a batch so just not sure.

Any advice- I am deciding whether to retake or not?

User avatar
longhorn65
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 1:34 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby longhorn65 » Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:38 am

floridaxrose wrote:I took a testmasters course, I put the hours in my highest PT was 167- averaging 165.
I got a 163 on the June 2014 LSAT and my GPA is 3.95.
I have been reading and most don't jump two or three points unless they failed to study not my case.
Not sure if I have theoretically reached the "cap" each individual has or if I can get to 170+ range.
I also plan on attending UF and have more than the numbers I need to go there.
The only was I could consider my dream Columbia, NYU, or Harvard is with significant financial assistance.
I am hispanic not sure if that qualified as a URM? But I have read about 163's getting into these schools, one person out of a batch so just not sure.

Any advice- I am deciding whether to retake or not?

From what I've gathered and what my course teacher explained to me is although after 167 there isnt a huge difference in score because it is considered the end of the bell curve and thus less weight is placed to it, a difference of 163-167 would be quite a huge jump and thus would help you gain significantly more financial aid. If I were you I would apply to a couple of law schools higher up that maybe you werent so fond of attending. If you land one of those you have a major bargaining chip against FSU! and with a 167 i would try columbia for sure. Worst case scenario you lose the app. fee; best case you land an amazing school in an amazing location, with amazing opportunities. Best of luck!

User avatar
bound
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 4:49 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby bound » Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:17 am

floridaxrose wrote:I took a testmasters course, I put the hours in my highest PT was 167- averaging 165.
I got a 163 on the June 2014 LSAT and my GPA is 3.95.
I have been reading and most don't jump two or three points unless they failed to study not my case.
Not sure if I have theoretically reached the "cap" each individual has or if I can get to 170+ range.
I also plan on attending UF and have more than the numbers I need to go there.
The only was I could consider my dream Columbia, NYU, or Harvard is with significant financial assistance.
I am hispanic not sure if that qualified as a URM? But I have read about 163's getting into these schools, one person out of a batch so just not sure.

Any advice- I am deciding whether to retake or not?


You can start by not using TestMasters. And yes, you can increase even if you studied before. I am living proof.

User avatar
Attax
Posts: 3589
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:59 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Attax » Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:20 am

floridaxrose wrote:I took a testmasters course, I put the hours in my highest PT was 167- averaging 165.
I got a 163 on the June 2014 LSAT and my GPA is 3.95.
I have been reading and most don't jump two or three points unless they failed to study not my case.
Not sure if I have theoretically reached the "cap" each individual has or if I can get to 170+ range.
I also plan on attending UF and have more than the numbers I need to go there.
The only was I could consider my dream Columbia, NYU, or Harvard is with significant financial assistance.
I am hispanic not sure if that qualified as a URM? But I have read about 163's getting into these schools, one person out of a batch so just not sure.

Any advice- I am deciding whether to retake or not?


Retake. MYLSN says you're def in at UF but with only $10,000/year. UF isn't a school you should go to except near free.

User avatar
Attax
Posts: 3589
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:59 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Attax » Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:22 am

luke65 wrote:
From what I've gathered and what my course teacher explained to me is although after 167 there isnt a huge difference in score because it is considered the end of the bell curve and thus less weight is placed to it, a difference of 163-167 would be quite a huge jump and thus would help you gain significantly more financial aid. If I were you I would apply to a couple of law schools higher up that maybe you werent so fond of attending. If you land one of those you have a major bargaining chip against FSU! and with a 167 i would try columbia for sure. Worst case scenario you lose the app. fee; best case you land an amazing school in an amazing location, with amazing opportunities. Best of luck!


I take it you are a UT UG/grad? I'd like to have a word with that "teacher" of yours (and please, be a smart UT student and study on your own rather than hiring a super expensive teacher) about >167 not mattering. I had a 168 and 2 more points probably would've landed me Northwestern rather than my WL there. Every point matters, and I feel that in the upper end of the bell curve it really matters because, especially if you are KJD, you need something to give you a boost. The difference between a 166 and 168 this year means a rejection versus acceptance to UT Law, and a 168 to 170 is the difference between near sticker and a full ride. If you think those upper ends don't matter you are lying to yourself.

User avatar
bound
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 4:49 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby bound » Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:29 am

Attax wrote:
luke65 wrote:
From what I've gathered and what my course teacher explained to me is although after 167 there isnt a huge difference in score because it is considered the end of the bell curve and thus less weight is placed to it, a difference of 163-167 would be quite a huge jump and thus would help you gain significantly more financial aid. If I were you I would apply to a couple of law schools higher up that maybe you werent so fond of attending. If you land one of those you have a major bargaining chip against FSU! and with a 167 i would try columbia for sure. Worst case scenario you lose the app. fee; best case you land an amazing school in an amazing location, with amazing opportunities. Best of luck!


I take it you are a UT UG/grad? I'd like to have a word with that "teacher" of yours (and please, be a smart UT student and study on your own rather than hiring a super expensive teacher) about >167 not mattering. I had a 168 and 2 more points probably would've landed me Northwestern rather than my WL there. Every point matters, and I feel that in the upper end of the bell curve it really matters because, especially if you are KJD, you need something to give you a boost. The difference between a 166 and 168 this year means a rejection versus acceptance to UT Law, and a 168 to 170 is the difference between near sticker and a full ride. If you think those upper ends don't matter you are lying to yourself.



Yeah, gotta agree with Attax here after having applied last cycle. Have you even gone through the process before? Because it definitely sounds like you haven't lol.

User avatar
longhorn65
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 1:34 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby longhorn65 » Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:33 am

Attax wrote:
luke65 wrote:
From what I've gathered and what my course teacher explained to me is although after 167 there isnt a huge difference in score because it is considered the end of the bell curve and thus less weight is placed to it, a difference of 163-167 would be quite a huge jump and thus would help you gain significantly more financial aid. If I were you I would apply to a couple of law schools higher up that maybe you werent so fond of attending. If you land one of those you have a major bargaining chip against FSU! and with a 167 i would try columbia for sure. Worst case scenario you lose the app. fee; best case you land an amazing school in an amazing location, with amazing opportunities. Best of luck!


I take it you are a UT UG/grad? I'd like to have a word with that "teacher" of yours (and please, be a smart UT student and study on your own rather than hiring a super expensive teacher) about >167 not mattering. I had a 168 and 2 more points probably would've landed me Northwestern rather than my WL there. Every point matters, and I feel that in the upper end of the bell curve it really matters because, especially if you are KJD, you need something to give you a boost. The difference between a 166 and 168 this year means a rejection versus acceptance to UT Law, and a 168 to 170 is the difference between near sticker and a full ride. If you think those upper ends don't matter you are lying to yourself.

I never said they dont matter. All i was saying is that if you scored a 168 i wouldnt worry to much about a retake unless you were PT around 175. I am aware EVERY point matters as I hope to be a pretty big splitter. But with a GPA like his and a difference of 2 point on the upper end of the bell curve I dont believe that would be a game changer in admissions for me on the other hand it would be due to my awful gpa

User avatar
jk148706
Posts: 2499
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 11:14 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby jk148706 » Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:34 am

Attax wrote:
luke65 wrote:
From what I've gathered and what my course teacher explained to me is although after 167 there isnt a huge difference in score because it is considered the end of the bell curve and thus less weight is placed to it, a difference of 163-167 would be quite a huge jump and thus would help you gain significantly more financial aid. If I were you I would apply to a couple of law schools higher up that maybe you werent so fond of attending. If you land one of those you have a major bargaining chip against FSU! and with a 167 i would try columbia for sure. Worst case scenario you lose the app. fee; best case you land an amazing school in an amazing location, with amazing opportunities. Best of luck!


I take it you are a UT UG/grad? I'd like to have a word with that "teacher" of yours (and please, be a smart UT student and study on your own rather than hiring a super expensive teacher) about >167 not mattering. I had a 168 and 2 more points probably would've landed me Northwestern rather than my WL there. Every point matters, and I feel that in the upper end of the bell curve it really matters because, especially if you are KJD, you need something to give you a boost. The difference between a 166 and 168 this year means a rejection versus acceptance to UT Law, and a 168 to 170 is the difference between near sticker and a full ride. If you think those upper ends don't matter you are lying to yourself.


As an anecdote.. I had a 170, retook to 171 and the next day got off a t14 WL. Every point counts, ESPECIALLY at the 168+ range

User avatar
longhorn65
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 1:34 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby longhorn65 » Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:36 am

jk148706 wrote:
Attax wrote:
luke65 wrote:
From what I've gathered and what my course teacher explained to me is although after 167 there isnt a huge difference in score because it is considered the end of the bell curve and thus less weight is placed to it, a difference of 163-167 would be quite a huge jump and thus would help you gain significantly more financial aid. If I were you I would apply to a couple of law schools higher up that maybe you werent so fond of attending. If you land one of those you have a major bargaining chip against FSU! and with a 167 i would try columbia for sure. Worst case scenario you lose the app. fee; best case you land an amazing school in an amazing location, with amazing opportunities. Best of luck!


I take it you are a UT UG/grad? I'd like to have a word with that "teacher" of yours (and please, be a smart UT student and study on your own rather than hiring a super expensive teacher) about >167 not mattering. I had a 168 and 2 more points probably would've landed me Northwestern rather than my WL there. Every point matters, and I feel that in the upper end of the bell curve it really matters because, especially if you are KJD, you need something to give you a boost. The difference between a 166 and 168 this year means a rejection versus acceptance to UT Law, and a 168 to 170 is the difference between near sticker and a full ride. If you think those upper ends don't matter you are lying to yourself.


As an anecdote.. I had a 170, retook to 171 and the next day got off a t14 WL. Every point counts, ESPECIALLY at the 168+ range

Well im glad to know this ha I took a mathematical approach at it and that was reinforced by my course instructor but thanks for sharing your life lesson wisdom lol!

User avatar
Attax
Posts: 3589
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:59 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Attax » Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:45 am

luke65 wrote:Well im glad to know this ha I took a mathematical approach at it and that was reinforced by my course instructor but thanks for sharing your life lesson wisdom lol!


Seriously, if you actually want help there's a lot of flame around UT. I had tons of people ask me how I got into UT Law and when I told them LSAT they almost all asked if they thought they'd get in with like a 157-165 and I had to tell them know. If you want help, I'd be glad to help ocassionally with tips/advice on LSAT, applications, etc. I was in a similar situation, I was a chem major with a <3.0 GPA and I'm starting UT Law in the fall. IDK what or who your teacher is, but I'd rather offer some free help than see someone else screw things up by having a bad teacher.

The mathematical approach, while it makes sense also is misleading. When you're competing for about 200-300 spots at the top schools and everyone is in the high range, 1 point makes a huge difference. Whereas in the middle range 1 point means next to nothing because so many people have it. The rarity of that 1 extra point makes it worth so much more than those in the lower echelons.

With a GPA like his he is excluding himself from HYSCCN by not retaking. The amount of my friends who wasted a good GPA b/c they were too lazy to retake and are paying near $100,000 for schools like A&M, Houston, or Baylor is astoundingly terrifying to me who put no effort in during UG and will have <$100k debt for LS + UG.

User avatar
Attax
Posts: 3589
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:59 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Attax » Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:45 am

jk148706 wrote:
As an anecdote.. I had a 170, retook to 171 and the next day got off a t14 WL. Every point counts, ESPECIALLY at the 168+ range


Although, tbf, you fucking deserved it too!

User avatar
longhorn65
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 1:34 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby longhorn65 » Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:58 am

Attax wrote:
jk148706 wrote:
As an anecdote.. I had a 170, retook to 171 and the next day got off a t14 WL. Every point counts, ESPECIALLY at the 168+ range


Although, tbf, you fucking deserved it too!

ATTAX I pm'd ya I would a appreciate it if you would check out the PM

User avatar
bound
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 4:49 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby bound » Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:09 pm

luke65 wrote:
Attax wrote:
jk148706 wrote:
As an anecdote.. I had a 170, retook to 171 and the next day got off a t14 WL. Every point counts, ESPECIALLY at the 168+ range


Although, tbf, you fucking deserved it too!

ATTAX I pm'd ya I would a appreciate it if you would check out the PM



thats a little redundant. :wink:

User avatar
longhorn65
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 1:34 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby longhorn65 » Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:12 pm

bound wrote:
luke65 wrote:
Attax wrote:
jk148706 wrote:
As an anecdote.. I had a 170, retook to 171 and the next day got off a t14 WL. Every point counts, ESPECIALLY at the 168+ range


Although, tbf, you fucking deserved it too!

ATTAX I pm'd ya I would a appreciate it if you would check out the PM



thats a little redundant. :wink:

agree

User avatar
Attax
Posts: 3589
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:59 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Attax » Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:39 pm

Checking it and replying now.

User avatar
mornincounselor
Posts: 1220
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:37 am

Post removed.

Postby mornincounselor » Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:51 pm

Post removed.
Last edited by mornincounselor on Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gnomgnomuch
Posts: 539
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:34 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby gnomgnomuch » Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:56 pm

Took PT 39. First take - 158, with blind Review - 173.
First break down.

LG - 8, went 4/5, 1/6, 7/7, 2/5, second game KILLED me.
LR -9
RC - 5
LR-7

Second break down.

LG -2, 4/5, 5/6, 7/7, 5/5
LR -4
RC -3
LR -1.

Really need to work on timing for LG... its the biggest impediment i have to breaking out from my low 160's to upper 160's.

User avatar
Attax
Posts: 3589
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:59 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Attax » Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:57 pm

gnomgnomuch wrote:Took PT 39. First take - 158, with blind Review - 173.
First break down.

LG - 8, went 4/5, 1/6, 7/7, 2/5, second game KILLED me.
LR -9
RC - 5
LR-7

Second break down.

LG -2, 4/5, 5/6, 7/7, 5/5
LR -4
RC -3
LR -1.

Really need to work on timing for LG... its the biggest impediment i have to breaking out from my low 160's to upper 160's.


Work on LG accuracy then once you can consistently do -0/-1/-2 then worry about timing.

User avatar
gnomgnomuch
Posts: 539
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:34 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby gnomgnomuch » Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:00 pm

Attax wrote:
gnomgnomuch wrote:Took PT 39. First take - 158, with blind Review - 173.
First break down.

LG - 8, went 4/5, 1/6, 7/7, 2/5, second game KILLED me.
LR -9
RC - 5
LR-7

Second break down.

LG -2, 4/5, 5/6, 7/7, 5/5
LR -4
RC -3
LR -1.

Really need to work on timing for LG... its the biggest impediment i have to breaking out from my low 160's to upper 160's.


Work on LG accuracy then once you can consistently do -0/-1/-2 then worry about timing.


That too =D. Unfortunately, i feel like ill be one of those people who'll never quite make it to the -0 land in LG. I've improved a lot since i started studying, my first PT i went 2/23 on LG, and now I'm doing 16-20/23, but it fluctuates wildly, and I've never gotten a perfect 23/23 on any 4 game section test. 7sage has been a true hero though lol.

User avatar
vracovino
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:46 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby vracovino » Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:03 pm

gnomgnomuch wrote:
Attax wrote:
gnomgnomuch wrote:Took PT 39. First take - 158, with blind Review - 173.
First break down.

LG - 8, went 4/5, 1/6, 7/7, 2/5, second game KILLED me.
LR -9
RC - 5
LR-7

Second break down.

LG -2, 4/5, 5/6, 7/7, 5/5
LR -4
RC -3
LR -1.

Really need to work on timing for LG... its the biggest impediment i have to breaking out from my low 160's to upper 160's.


Work on LG accuracy then once you can consistently do -0/-1/-2 then worry about timing.


That too =D. Unfortunately, i feel like ill be one of those people who'll never quite make it to the -0 land in LG. I've improved a lot since i started studying, my first PT i went 2/23 on LG, and now I'm doing 16-20/23, but it fluctuates wildly, and I've never gotten a perfect 23/23 on any 4 game section test. 7sage has been a true hero though lol.


Just curious, how long have you been studying/drilling Logic Games? They're especially hard for me as well.

User avatar
gnomgnomuch
Posts: 539
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:34 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby gnomgnomuch » Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:07 pm

vracovino wrote:
gnomgnomuch wrote:
Attax wrote:
gnomgnomuch wrote:Took PT 39. First take - 158, with blind Review - 173.
First break down.

LG - 8, went 4/5, 1/6, 7/7, 2/5, second game KILLED me.
LR -9
RC - 5
LR-7

Second break down.

LG -2, 4/5, 5/6, 7/7, 5/5
LR -4
RC -3
LR -1.

Really need to work on timing for LG... its the biggest impediment i have to breaking out from my low 160's to upper 160's.


Work on LG accuracy then once you can consistently do -0/-1/-2 then worry about timing.


That too =D. Unfortunately, i feel like ill be one of those people who'll never quite make it to the -0 land in LG. I've improved a lot since i started studying, my first PT i went 2/23 on LG, and now I'm doing 16-20/23, but it fluctuates wildly, and I've never gotten a perfect 23/23 on any 4 game section test. 7sage has been a true hero though lol.


Just curious, how long have you been studying/drilling Logic Games? They're especially hard for me as well.


Well i started studying the end of January. The thing is, i work 2 jobs + I intern, plus taking classes, so my studying is very haphazard because i don't have much consistency in it. I've went over around 70-80% of the games in prep tests 1-39 though, plus went over them on 7sage until i was able to get them right.

User avatar
Attax
Posts: 3589
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:59 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Attax » Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:07 pm

vracovino wrote:
Just curious, how long have you been studying/drilling Logic Games? They're especially hard for me as well.


I studied about 3 months before my exam in October 2013 (I start LS in the fall). LG were super easy for me and I only took about 2 weeks to go to -1/-2ish. But I helped a lot of my friends with them. I recommend if you get one question on a game wrong, spend time rediagramming and reworking the entire game because the problem probably lies within your diagram somewhere.

User avatar
flash21
Posts: 1536
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby flash21 » Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:08 pm

gnmog thats a really good diagnostic

User avatar
Attax
Posts: 3589
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:59 am

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Attax » Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:08 pm

gnomgnomuch wrote:
Well i started studying the end of January. The thing is, i work 2 jobs + I intern, plus taking classes, so my studying is very haphazard because i don't have much consistency in it. I've went over around 70-80% of the games in prep tests 1-39 though, plus went over them on 7sage until i was able to get them right.


I really recommend making the time. I was also working 2 jobs plus taking classes and running a business wile studying. I was often up by 4:30 AM to study b/c I Just needed time. It sucks, but being a hermit and scoring well and going to a good school with good $ beats having to do it all again.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, Greenteachurro, Instrumental, Walliums and 15 guests