The Official June 2015 Study Group Forum

biggestlawman · Post by **biggestlawman** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:02 pm

Shakawkaw wrote:
biggestlawman wrote:
jam313 wrote:
biggestlawman wrote:
Anyone trying reading the Economist in a certain way?
Read it for structure.
And MLSAT RC is a good guide for that?
I think all guides attempt to teach readers how to read for structure.

Well, the questions is, how well? I used the Velocity method the last time, cannot say that it was for me. Too many notations for my liking. I guess, I will go with the MLSAT.

Rigo · Post by **Rigo** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:02 pm

Shakawkaw wrote:
biggestlawman wrote:
jam313 wrote: Read it for structure.
And MLSAT RC is a good guide for that?
I think all guides attempt to teach readers how to read for structure.

Yes. Reading for structure isn't a novel concept.
If you're going to buy a book though, I would go with Manhattan. It's a super quick read and not full of clutter bs.

texasaggie10 · Post by **texasaggie10** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:03 pm

This may have been asked, but is the Cambridge bundle 300$?

Rigo · Post by **Rigo** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:04 pm

texasaggie10 wrote:This may have been asked, but is the Cambridge bundle 300$?

Around there. Depends on which one you buy.

Shakawkaw · Post by **Shakawkaw** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:05 pm

biggestlawman wrote:Well, the questions is, how well? I used the Velocity method the last time, cannot say that it was for me. Too many notations for my liking. I guess, I will go with the MLSAT.

I can't speak to how useful it will be to you, and it seems you would agree. You might find Kraplan's methods useful. Reading is very subjective. Just go for it and see if it works for you, can't hurt.

Shakawkaw · Post by **Shakawkaw** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:06 pm

Dirigo wrote:
Shakawkaw wrote:Rigo - whenever I have 5 Guys (not the restaurant), I think of you.
As you should.

smalls wrote:
Shakawkaw wrote:Rigo - whenever I have 5 Guys (not the restaurant), I think of you.
oh boy

QFNP.

Shakawkaw · Post by **Shakawkaw** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:09 pm

biggestlawman's tar makes me think I'm talking to Jackel and then I am deeply disappointed when I realize it's not Jackel.

kang · Post by **kang** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:10 pm

Shakawkaw wrote:
Dirigo wrote:
Shakawkaw wrote:Rigo - whenever I have 5 Guys (not the restaurant), I think of you.
As you should.

smalls wrote:
Shakawkaw wrote:Rigo - whenever I have 5 Guys (not the restaurant), I think of you.
oh boy

QFNP.

At the risk of sounding stupid, what does QFNP mean?

Rigo · Post by **Rigo** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:10 pm

Quoting for new page, in this instance.

Shakawkaw · Post by **Shakawkaw** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:13 pm

Dirigo wrote:Quoting for new page, in this instance.

In all instances: Quoting for Narcissistic Purposes.

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:13 pm

Google says "Quad Flat Non-Leaded Package"

kang · Post by **kang** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:23 pm

Lol I'll go with RZ's definition

ETA: jk. And what does TTT stand for?

JackelJ · Post by **JackelJ** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:25 pm

Smallville wrote: [img]ditto[/img]

hahaha thanks for this

Shakawkaw wrote:biggestlawman's tar makes me think I'm talking to Jackel and then I am deeply disappointed when I realize it's not Jackel.

I'm disappointed you're not talking to me too bb

What should I drill now? LR, LG, or RC?

JackelJ · Post by **JackelJ** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:27 pm

kang wrote:Lol I'll go with RZ's definition

ETA: jk. And what does TTT stand for?

for all your abbreviation/acronym needs:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =2&t=18478

nlee10 · Post by **nlee10** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:31 pm

96 days.

Bringing back the countdown.

biggestlawman · Post by **biggestlawman** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:38 pm

Dirigo wrote:
Shakawkaw wrote:
biggestlawman wrote:
jam313 wrote: Read it for structure.
And MLSAT RC is a good guide for that?
I think all guides attempt to teach readers how to read for structure.
Yes. Reading for structure isn't a novel concept.
If you're going to buy a book though, I would go with Manhattan. It's a super quick read and not full of clutter bs.

So I hear. Thanks!

Rigo · Post by **Rigo** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:39 pm

~*~pushing my agenda~*~

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:41 pm

Lol I feel bad for the 176+ people who presumably underperformed on the Feb test and have to retake

biggestlawman · Post by **biggestlawman** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:45 pm

Some people have found the Trainer to be useless, and they swear by the MLSAT books for all three section types. But given the rave reviews overall, I will do the Trainer. My impression is that anyone with a score below 170 can learn something from the Trainer.

Trainer: Next 10 days.
MLSAT LG: Days 11 to 25
MLSAT LR: Days 11 to 40
MLSAT RC: Days 11 to 40

This accompanied by PT 51-60, and Cambridge Bundles for the next 40 days.

Then, with 8 weeks to go, more drill baby drill, and 6-section PTs.

Hopefully this plan (mutatis mutandis) works! Any suggestions?

buckiguy_sucks · Post by **buckiguy_sucks** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:51 pm

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:56 pm

Is the Trainer any good for RC? Everyone says the LG part is useless and what I read of the LR part seemed pretty meh.

Smallville · Post by **Smallville** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:56 pm

buckiguy_sucks wrote:
RZ5646 wrote:Lol I feel bad for the 176+ people who presumably underperformed on the Feb test and have to retake
if i had a 176 i'd be riding a golden pony off into the sunset of scholarship dollars

biggestlawman · Post by **biggestlawman** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:56 pm

buckiguy_sucks wrote:
RZ5646 wrote:Lol I feel bad for the 176+ people who presumably underperformed on the Feb test and have to retake
right? i've had the hardest time convincing myself to retake with an upper 160s. if i had a 176 i'd be riding a golden pony off into the sunset of scholarship dollars

Yes. Why would you retake a 176+? Why? Can you gain anything by scoring more? Yes, you want to go to Yale, and just Yale, and nothing else is good enough for you, but then, that is silly.

nlee10 · Post by **nlee10** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:57 pm

RZ5646 wrote:Is the Trainer any good for RC? Everyone says the LG part is useless and what I read of the LR part seemed pretty meh.

RC isn't too bad. I would just use the Trainer for LR+RC and 7Sage for LG.

Rigo · Post by **Rigo** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 5:03 pm

biggestlawman wrote:
buckiguy_sucks wrote:
RZ5646 wrote:Lol I feel bad for the 176+ people who presumably underperformed on the Feb test and have to retake
right? i've had the hardest time convincing myself to retake with an upper 160s. if i had a 176 i'd be riding a golden pony off into the sunset of scholarship dollars
Yes. Why would you retake a 176+? Why? Can you gain anything by scoring more? Yes, you want to go to Yale, and just Yale, and nothing else is good enough for you, but then, that is silly.

Who ever said these people were retakers? The question specifically asks about latest PT score.
No applicants are retaking a 176+.

The Official June 2015 Study Group Forum

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Register for access!

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Register now!

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Register now, it's still FREE!

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Re: The Official June 2015 Study Group

Seriously? What are you waiting for?