The Official June 2014 Study Group Forum

[WaltGrace83]

LR review burns me the fuck out. Its hard to even think straight after hours of critically analyzing arguments. I heard somewhere that your brain can only make so many decisions in one day. I wonder if that plays into it...

[gnomgnomuch]

completely bombed Level 4 MBT questions. (((...... only got 22/42.

Going to reprint this tomorrow, and re-do, I've got no idea why I did so bad, especially since I scored pretty well on levels 1-3.

overall I went 116/154.

Walt - are you using that 7 step method to analyze your LR questions? I'll have to try it.

[politibro44]

Does anyone else feel dramatic differences between newer LR and older LR?

Also, what is everyone's opinion on re-using material. I keep reading Mike Kim say that he believes someone can get a top score simply by using all newer materials and not exhaustively drilling, using old pts, etc. Instead just use newer stuff and review, review, review. After focusing a bunch on newer materials and then going back to older stuff it was like I hit a brick wall. For some reason the older LR was hard to even wrap my head around. How could there be such a difference? Has anyone else experienced this?

[McBrunson]

Does anyone else feel dramatic differences between newer LR and older LR?

Also, what is everyone's opinion on re-using material. I keep reading Mike Kim say that he believes someone can get a top score simply by using all newer materials and not exhaustively drilling, using old pts, etc. Instead just use newer stuff and review, review, review. After focusing a bunch on newer materials and then going back to older stuff it was like I hit a brick wall. For some reason the older LR was hard to even wrap my head around. How could there be such a difference? Has anyone else experienced this?

Are you saying that you find the older LR to be more difficult? Most people say the opposite--- that the newer LR is harder since the answer choices are more subtle and nuanced.

[politibro44]

Does anyone else feel dramatic differences between newer LR and older LR?

Also, what is everyone's opinion on re-using material. I keep reading Mike Kim say that he believes someone can get a top score simply by using all newer materials and not exhaustively drilling, using old pts, etc. Instead just use newer stuff and review, review, review. After focusing a bunch on newer materials and then going back to older stuff it was like I hit a brick wall. For some reason the older LR was hard to even wrap my head around. How could there be such a difference? Has anyone else experienced this?

Are you saying that you find the older LR to be more difficult? Most people say the opposite--- that the newer LR is harder since the answer choices are more subtle and nuanced.

I don't think newer LR is easier, just that I'm feeling a significant difference between the two. I think I may have been redrilling the same questions too much so that I simply am memorizing the answers. Things are going better with the older LR...I do find most older RC and LG to be easier. Though older LG can have a "different" feeling to it too.

[jmjm]

I don't think newer LR is easier, just that I'm feeling a significant difference between the two. I think I may have been redrilling the same questions too much so that I simply am memorizing the answers. Things are going better with the older LR...I do find most older RC and LG to be easier. Though older LG can have a "different" feeling to it too.

Your explanation sounds right. Older LR is just different and can throw you for the loop if you do it after practicing on a lot of newer LR. I did a 90s LR section recently and was off balance for the first few questions as they appeared quite difficult.

There's consensus about RC though, with the newer RC being far more difficult.

[Twitch]

Did my first 2 lessons in the Manhattan LR book today. I'm in love.

[jk148706]

Did my first 2 lessons in the Manhattan LR book today. I'm in love.

It's a fantastic book. I will be going back through it next week after I finish the trainer.

[WaltGrace83]

The big differences I noticed was in older flaw and principle questions. Some of those early PTs (even all the way up to the early 20s) are seriously messed up.

[jk148706]

Does anyone else feel dramatic differences between newer LR and older LR?

Also, what is everyone's opinion on re-using material. I keep reading Mike Kim say that he believes someone can get a top score simply by using all newer materials and not exhaustively drilling, using old pts, etc. Instead just use newer stuff and review, review, review. After focusing a bunch on newer materials and then going back to older stuff it was like I hit a brick wall. For some reason the older LR was hard to even wrap my head around. How could there be such a difference? Has anyone else experienced this?

Reusing PTs/LR/lg is 100% credited. You actually learn the method of how to solve and think about the problems. Reusing materials helps ingrain habits that are vital to master the test.

[charlesriver]

Can someone help me to understand my performance? recently I've been scoring around 167. The tests i used are the newer ones (52-61). I used these tests several months before. Last weekend I did a completely new test (68) and scored 173. And today I did 59 (used), I scored 161.
I really don't understand.

[WaltGrace83]

Can someone help me to understand my performance? recently I've been scoring around 167. The tests i used are the newer ones (52-61). I used these tests several months before. Last weekend I did a completely new test (68) and scored 173. And today I did 59 (used), I scored 161.
I really don't understand.

To me, the 161 sounds like more of a fluke than the 173. Maybe you let your guard down because you had already taken it?

[Tyr]

I don't think newer LR is easier, just that I'm feeling a significant difference between the two. I think I may have been redrilling the same questions too much so that I simply am memorizing the answers. Things are going better with the older LR...I do find most older RC and LG to be easier. Though older LG can have a "different" feeling to it too.

Your explanation sounds right. Older LR is just different and can throw you for the loop if you do it after practicing on a lot of newer LR. I did a 90s LR section recently and was off balance for the first few questions as they appeared quite difficult.

There's consensus about RC though, with the newer RC being far more difficult.

How old is too old for PTs? I'm using the Cambridge packets and using PT 1-30 for drilling by type. I have noticed that the old LR questions seem to have much more wordy stems. I'm currently using these instead of the 10 Actuals that The Trainer suggests so I can save those PTs for my full-length PTing.

[rebexness]

Can someone help me to understand my performance? recently I've been scoring around 167. The tests i used are the newer ones (52-61). I used these tests several months before. Last weekend I did a completely new test (68) and scored 173. And today I did 59 (used), I scored 161.
I really don't understand.

To me, the 161 sounds like more of a fluke than the 173. Maybe you let your guard down because you had already taken it?

I wouldn't presume this at all. Assume every test is an accurate example of what you could see on test day.

What did you get on 59 the first time around?

[WaltGrace83]

Can someone help me to understand my performance? recently I've been scoring around 167. The tests i used are the newer ones (52-61). I used these tests several months before. Last weekend I did a completely new test (68) and scored 173. And today I did 59 (used), I scored 161.
I really don't understand.

To me, the 161 sounds like more of a fluke than the 173. Maybe you let your guard down because you had already taken it?

I wouldn't presume this at all. Assume every test is an accurate example of what you could see on test day.

What did you get on 59 the first time around?

I see what you mean. That's a crazy fluctuation though. A 161 scorer is not the same as a 173 scorer. Apparently I am wrong It would be different if it was a 151 and a 157 or something.

[jk148706]

Can someone help me to understand my performance? recently I've been scoring around 167. The tests i used are the newer ones (52-61). I used these tests several months before. Last weekend I did a completely new test (68) and scored 173. And today I did 59 (used), I scored 161.
I really don't understand.

Did you bubble correctly?
Did a particular game trip you up?
Did you have timing issues?

There are a lot of things that affect scores, but few that would cause a fluctuation that large. Until you are consistently testing in a 2-3 point range, you cant really say either score is representative.

I would review thoroughly and try to figure out what went wrong on the 161 and what went right on 173. This is where blind review is very helpful.

[rebexness]

I see what you mean. That's a crazy fluctuation though. A 161 scorer is not the same as a 173 scorer. Apparently I am wrong It would be different if it was a 151 and a 157 or something.

I have fluxed between 172 and 160 within a 2 week period under test conditions. It is the worst feeling in the world.

[Erickt26]

Joining the group. Scored 155 december 2013 and retaking june.

I plan to hire a private tutor(10 hours) and purchase 7sage and use cambridge game package. I also have the LSAT trainer.

Any advice on how to schedule my daily study routine?

[rebexness]

Joining the group. Scored 155 december 2013 and retaking june.

I plan to hire a private tutor(10 hours) and purchase 7sage and use cambridge game package. I also have the LSAT trainer.

Any advice on how to schedule my daily study routine?

Why do you want a tutor?
How did you study before?

[confused_humpback]

Hey, everyone, just checking in.

Started studying the first week of January using Steve Schwartz's 7 month prep plan. Though working full time, I've still managed to follow the study plan exactly, never falling behind more than a day behind and am currently entering week eight.

It's a little humbling to see that this thread has been going since June of last year. Makes me feel a little silly for waiting until January to start studying. My target score is 175+ because of a low GPA. Haven't taken a diagnostic yet, but I tend to have about 95% accuracy on LR questions and am typically -2 on average on logic game sections now. Just starting to do timed sections, though, so it's really going to come down to really getting comfortable inside those 35 minute sprints and working on that ~5% LR issue.

Anyway, nice to meet you all.

[paglababa]

^ Don't feel bad, most people can study 3 months and be pretty prepped for the LSAT if they put in enough work. I know I did.

[confused_humpback]

Thanks. Definitely experienced a little bit of anxiety coming across McGruff's guide and seeing that he prepped for eight months and studied for about 30+ hours a week. That's crazy! It's not that I lack the discipline to do that, it's just that it would be virtually impossible to manage that with a full time job and not burn out. Tough. But you're right—I've definitely seen a lot of posters who have successfully scored 170+ in 6 months and less of studying, so I'm not going to let it get to my head too much.

[Twitch]

Can someone help me to understand my performance? recently I've been scoring around 167. The tests i used are the newer ones (52-61). I used these tests several months before. Last weekend I did a completely new test (68) and scored 173. And today I did 59 (used), I scored 161.
I really don't understand.

Read McGruff's method (specifically the second post in this thread): http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=224488

The part that stood out to me was the copious amount of information he tracked on himself and his environment. How much he slept, how much he ate, whether he had drunk caffeine and how much. Knowing little beyond the fact that your knowledge and ability generally fall into a certain range and you had a few wildly outlying scores, my immediate assumption would be that the influencing factors are those external to the test itself.

Become a student of yourself; keep track of data and note trends relating to that data. This way you can better understand the influencing factors that you can count on to affect your ability and do your best to use them to your advantage.

ETA: McGruff is not the only one who promotes this practice. I've seen a number of high-170s/180-scorers say that this minute attention to detail really does matter.

[givemea180]

It seems like my rc scores improve when I've been doing a decent amount of difficult reading, anyone else find this?

Also has anyone found any good reading material or strategy in order to get comfortable with scientific reading? My lowest rc passages always seem to be pertaining to the sciences. I've heard good things about the Scientific American and plan on picking up a few issues in the near future but was looking for something to supplement that.

[paglababa]

It seems like my rc scores improve when I've been doing a decent amount of difficult reading, anyone else find this?

Also has anyone found any good reading material or strategy in order to get comfortable with scientific reading? My lowest rc passages always seem to be pertaining to the sciences. I've heard good things about the Scientific American and plan on picking up a few issues in the near future but was looking for something to supplement that.

Why don't you just do isolated RC sections from official exams..all the old ones like in the 30s. I would do up to 3-4 sections a week just for 35 mins at a time. Saw noticeable improvement after 2 weeks, and by the time I was doing my final fully timed PTs. Went -0 on game day.