165 diagnostic. Advice on length of studying? Forum

[NoSpecialSymbolsPlz]

Scored a 165 diagnostic recently and I feel pretty confident about all of the sections. I'm trying to minimize my studying time (have lots going on on the side) and am aiming for 176+. I'll most likely be taking the September LSAT, and I will want to contain my studying time to light prep for 1 month (2 if necessary). Is this a good idea? If so, what resources/methodology do you recommend? I have a strong background in logic / many of the fundamentals of the LSAT, so I was thinking of just doing as many practice tests as possible over my study term (maybe 1/day, including take up), and not consulting any of the prep books/strategies, as I have just come up with my own methods for approaching questions. If you don't think this is a good idea, what is a better approach?

Some relevant background:
-I have extensive experience with the old MCAT's verbal section, which seems much harder than RC, so I feel pretty confident about RC - I usually get nearly all questions correct on time or with some time to spare for each section.
-I can usually finish LR with 2-6 questions off the section and run 5-10 min over time (for sections I finish untimed). I find most questions to be doable, but there are some that are very difficult and that I spend too much time on, which is where I think I'm slowing down.
-I get all questions correct for each LG in an LG section, but I usually run 3-5 min over time (and sometimes more) for each LG.

Seems like I need to work on increasing my speed, as the strategy is mostly there, and I'm hoping that this will come by just doing the practice tests.

What do you think?

[Barack O'Drama]

Maybe check out the LSAT Trainer. That will give you great strategy on every section, as well as the test as a whole. That used in conjunction with the 12-week schedule (that includes the use of prep tests) seems like it would be great for you.

IME, logic game speed comes with time. Doing more and more of them will make it all seem sort of automatic.

Using your own strategy if it works sounds fine. However, I think it would be prudent to make sure that there isn't a simpler way to find the right answer on questions. I sort of felt that I had some good ways to do certain question types, but found other strategies that were better for consistency and or speed.

HTH

[meeseeks]

Maybe check out the LSAT Trainer. That will give you great strategy on every section, as well as the test as a whole. That used in conjunction with the 12-week schedule (that includes the use of prep tests) seems like it would be great for you.

IME, logic game speed comes with time. Doing more and more of them will make it all seem sort of automatic.

Using your own strategy if it works sounds fine. However, I think it would be prudent to make sure that there isn't a simpler way to find the right answer on questions. I sort of felt that I had some good ways to do certain question types, but found other strategies that were better for consistency and or speed.

HTH

I would second that approach. My cold diagnostic was also a 165 and I used the LSAT Trainer although I did the 12 week plan in 6 weeks. Average for my last 5 PTs was a 176 so it is definitely do-able. You just need to be willing to put in the time

[4LTsPointingNorth]

I echo what has already been said.

In more detail:

Focus now on improving your weaker sections (e.g. LG and LR). You're fortunate that those are the two more "learnable" sections. In general, focus some time on learning various strategies and shortcuts in LR and LG problems, and then spend more time applying those strategies in timed practice tests. All of this is available on google, though it's packaged more neatly in online LSAT prep courses. You can realistically see continued improvement with as little as 5-6 hours of study in addition to 2-3 sessions of timed PT sections per week. Take a full timed PT every two weeks or so to make sure your studying is effective. If you aren't improving at the rate you want to be, consider taking a course. You have a good starting point, so it really is as simple as putting in the work. The only caveat is that "time" spent studying isn't a perfect proxy for "quality" of studying. You really ought to consider seeking additional study aids if bi-weekly PTs don't evidence continued improvment. HTH.

[34iplaw]

Scored a 165 diagnostic recently and I feel pretty confident about all of the sections. I'm trying to minimize my studying time (have lots going on on the side) and am aiming for 176+. I'll most likely be taking the September LSAT, and I will want to contain my studying time to light prep for 1 month (2 if necessary). Is this a good idea? If so, what resources/methodology do you recommend? I have a strong background in logic / many of the fundamentals of the LSAT, so I was thinking of just doing as many practice tests as possible over my study term (maybe 1/day, including take up), and not consulting any of the prep books/strategies, as I have just come up with my own methods for approaching questions. If you don't think this is a good idea, what is a better approach?

Some relevant background:
-I have extensive experience with the old MCAT's verbal section, which seems much harder than RC, so I feel pretty confident about RC - I usually get nearly all questions correct on time or with some time to spare for each section.
-I can usually finish LR with 2-6 questions off the section and run 5-10 min over time (for sections I finish untimed). I find most questions to be doable, but there are some that are very difficult and that I spend too much time on, which is where I think I'm slowing down.
-I get all questions correct for each LG in an LG section, but I usually run 3-5 min over time (and sometimes more) for each LG.

Seems like I need to work on increasing my speed, as the strategy is mostly there, and I'm hoping that this will come by just doing the practice tests.

What do you think?

TBH, you will likely need a good amount of prep to hit a 176+ consistently. It's not necessary, but it is quite likely. I think you should expose yourself to other approaches, as, I do not mean this to be antagonistic, your approaches have not been good enough to hit the score you want within given time constraints. I think this most pertains to the LR section. I'll get into it later, but you do not need a strong basis in logic to be scoring a -2 to -6 there. You can do that just by approaching the section as you would the RC [if you perform strongly in that]. So, that may not be your issue, but it is something that you should pay attention to and that I mention briefly below.

For Logic Games, I would suggest just going straight to Manhattan LSAT LG if you can hit 100% accuracy [or, just keep doing *a lot* of them]. I would still recommend checking the book out so you have exposure to some of the rarer game types. I wouldn't really bother with PowerScore if you are comfortable / can get 100% accuracy. I'd also skip that section of the LSAT Trainer if you are really crunched for time if you choose to check that book out.

For LR, I can't recommend much in the way of prep, as I'm just starting that part. However, I do want to stress this next point as someone who came in and is at relatively the same diagnostic as you and views himself as a strong reader. I don't think your score on LR is necessarily indicative of a strong knowledge of the logic that the LSAT tests [or a comfort/proficiency with it]. It could just be that you are a very strong reader with some cognizance of basic logic. I say this, as I, without any real exposure to logical reasoning or courses in logic at the point of taking my two diagnostics, scored very similarly on LR. Probably -3 to -4 per section on average and usually 3-5 mins left over. Are you getting the questions wrong that take you a long time or are you getting other questions wrong? I'm only asking this, as, in my previous LR experience, I usually got questions that took me awhile right. Most of the ones I got wrong were ones I flew by pretty quickly and confidently.

For RC, you're in a good place with that information.

Honestly, the LSAT would be *really* easy if it wasn't timed IMO. Basically, anyone capable of a 165+ timed can probably get a 180 untimed I think. The time is really the hardest thing to overcome for high scorers IMO and is likely what separates a 176-180 from a 168-172.

[Clemenceau]

A high diagnostic is obviously an auspicious sign, but I caution against studying too lightly. I had a similar diagnostic as you and progress was very slow for me. I certainly wasn't ready to crank out a 99th percentile score on test day after 1 month of studying/PTs, possibly not even after 2 months, but I forget now.

[meeseeks]

A high diagnostic is obviously an auspicious sign, but I caution against studying too lightly. I had a similar diagnostic as you and progress was very slow for me. I certainly wasn't ready to crank out a 99th percentile score on test day after 1 month of studying/PTs, possibly not even after 2 months, but I forget now.

This is a really good point. While I was able to get there in 6 weeks, I was studying close to 40 hours a week on top of having a full time job. There is no way I could have gotten to that level without the rigor I put in.