179 LSAT, 154 diagnostic, taking questions, giving advice... Forum

[Miracle]

They really should not sell original practice tests. This level of practice is ridiculous. What's the point of having a standardized test if you allow kids who have enough free time (read: no serious obligations) to take half-time off for 9 months to study for it? Maybe not selling PTs is a bad solution, I don't know, but 450 hours of prep seems ridiculous to me. They're just shooting in the leg people like me who have families, work, etc.

what's your point?

Lesson? Don't become preoccupied. If you want to become successful in law, you should dedicate yourself to law. I take student loans, and will take out additional loans so I can devote more time to LSAT prep. I will also wear a condom, if that will help.

[jackassjim]

They really should not sell original practice tests. This level of practice is ridiculous. What's the point of having a standardized test if you allow kids who have enough free time (read: no serious obligations) to take half-time off for 9 months to study for it? Maybe not selling PTs is a bad solution, I don't know, but 450 hours of prep seems ridiculous to me. They're just shooting in the leg people like me who have families, work, etc.

what's your point?

Quite frankly, I'm not sure I have a well thought-out point. I just have the feeling that they're selling the LSAT as some kind of measure of innate ability, when it is clearly something that can be learned (I should know, I went from 160-diag to 174real-thing in about 2 weeks, but with quite a bit of study). If the objective of the exam is to provide a more standardized and comparable measure of someone's aptitude than the GPA, I think that the fact we can study for, and learn the test defeats the stated purpose.

[jackassjim]

You mean fairer to you, right?

No, the LSAT has been really good to me. I have no personal grudge.

[Miracle]

They really should not sell original practice tests. This level of practice is ridiculous. What's the point of having a standardized test if you allow kids who have enough free time (read: no serious obligations) to take half-time off for 9 months to study for it? Maybe not selling PTs is a bad solution, I don't know, but 450 hours of prep seems ridiculous to me. They're just shooting in the leg people like me who have families, work, etc.

what's your point?

Quite frankly, I'm not sure I have a well thought-out point. I just have the feeling that they're selling the LSAT as some kind of measure of innate ability, when it is clearly something that can be learned (I should know, I went from 160-diag to 174real-thing in about 2 weeks, but with quite a bit of study). If the objective of the exam is to provide a more standardized and comparable measure of someone's aptitude than the GPA, I think that the fact we can study for, and learn the test defeats the stated purpose.

I actually agree with your statement completely. The test is totally learnable.

[Olive]

How about RC tips--how did you improve in that section? Any timing strategies specifically?
Additionally, what did your study plan look like a month before the test?

All the advice is much appreciated.

[Batman2]

You mean fairer to you, right?

No, the LSAT has been really good to me. I have no personal grudge.

Good; there are lots of reasons people are personally disadvantaged, and focusing on your reason is not constructive. Obviously if I came from a wealthy family, I would feel like I had more of an advantage. Life gives everyone hurdles, and I don't think trying to make things fair is the answer. Do your best, and if you can do what others can do with more of a burden, you are a stronger candidate for it. If life were fair we would all get 150's.

[bkbkbk]

They really should not sell original practice tests. This level of practice is ridiculous. What's the point of having a standardized test if you allow kids who have enough free time (read: no serious obligations) to take half-time off for 9 months to study for it? Maybe not selling PTs is a bad solution, I don't know, but 450 hours of prep seems ridiculous to me. They're just shooting in the leg people like me who have families, work, etc.

what's your point?

Quite frankly, I'm not sure I have a well thought-out point. I just have the feeling that they're selling the LSAT as some kind of measure of innate ability, when it is clearly something that can be learned (I should know, I went from 160-diag to 174real-thing in about 2 weeks, but with quite a bit of study). If the objective of the exam is to provide a more standardized and comparable measure of someone's aptitude than the GPA, I think that the fact we can study for, and learn the test defeats the stated purpose.

Is that not the purpose? Weed out those who are unprepared while rewarding those who are. Sounds like any other test. Would you like a test where only those born with certain abilities could move on to practice law?

[rondemarino]

They really should not sell original practice tests. This level of practice is ridiculous. What's the point of having a standardized test if you allow kids who have enough free time (read: no serious obligations) to take half-time off for 9 months to study for it? Maybe not selling PTs is a bad solution, I don't know, but 450 hours of prep seems ridiculous to me. They're just shooting in the leg people like me who have families, work, etc.

what's your point?

Quite frankly, I'm not sure I have a well thought-out point. I just have the feeling that they're selling the LSAT as some kind of measure of innate ability, when it is clearly something that can be learned (I should know, I went from 160-diag to 174real-thing in about 2 weeks, but with quite a bit of study). If the objective of the exam is to provide a more standardized and comparable measure of someone's aptitude than the GPA, I think that the fact we can study for, and learn the test defeats the stated purpose.

I actually agree with your statement completely. The test is totally learnable.

This is a bug because? The test is 'learning,' with the ability to 'learn' being dependent on some mixture of work and ability. Sounds like the scores do a good job measuring some combination of these qualities.

[jackassjim]

I don't think trying to make things fair is the answer.

You're getting everything backwards. It's not that there is a moral imperative to keep everything fair in a hippie-progressive-egalitarian-communist way, it's that the very existence and use of the test is premised on the idea that it provides a "fair" way of comparing candidates.

[sassafraza]

If people are able to learn the reasoning skills top schools are looking for through 450 hours of prep, more power to them. In the end, their score is just as good as 170+ cold. If you get that score, you will have attained THE PROPER REASONING SKILLS to do well in law school and beyond (provided you will do the work). It doesn't matter how you got there. Also, law students who didn't get that score for some reason will need to acquire the skills somehow in the future anyway if they want to become great lawyers, so why not start the process now, before law school even starts? Also, that process of acquiring the skills once in law school or in the working world might not be fair either. We all have different constraints on our time.

[Batman2]

I don't think trying to make things fair is the answer.

You're getting everything backwards. It's not that there is a moral imperative to keep everything fair in a hippie-progressive-egalitarian-communist way, it's that the very existence and use of the test is premised on the idea that it provides a "fair" way of comparing candidates.

Yes, everyone has a "fair" chance to prepare for the LSAT. I suppose it would be more fair if I got a point deduction because I had more time to study?

[jackassjim]

This is a bug because? The test is 'learning,' with the ability to 'learn' being dependent on some mixture of work and ability. Sounds like the scores do a good job measuring some combination of these qualities.

I think this is what the GPA is supposed to get at. To me, it seems that the LSAT aims to measure something different. In an ideal world, it would measure some kind of intrinsic ability for logical reasoning. I don't think that the adcomms actually care for the ability of students to study for standardized tests (a very particular type of examination).

[silveri]

If the stated purpose is to measure a person's ability to succeed in law school and then at prestigious law jobs than it seems perfectly fine that it is somewhat learnable. In law, just like the LSAT, hard work can compensate somewhat for natural brilliance. Both are necessary.

It also seems that law, like most demanding careers, will constantly produce a tension between things like family and success (at least measured in conventional terms of prestige and money). There seems to me to be no reason that the LSAT should not start conform to this same paradigm.

Finally, from what I gather, the desire and ability to completely immerse yourself in an activity that has no value other than possible intellectual stimulation and the furtherance of your career is immensely important to success in biglaw or other high prestige jobs. As such, having a lawschool entrance exam that can be mastered by those with natural intellect and a penchant for hyperfocusing and leading unbalanced lives makes perfect sense.

Just my two cents.

[sassafraza]

This is a bug because? The test is 'learning,' with the ability to 'learn' being dependent on some mixture of work and ability. Sounds like the scores do a good job measuring some combination of these qualities.

I think this is what the GPA is supposed to get at. To me, it seems that the LSAT aims to measure something different. In an ideal world, it would measure some kind of intrinsic ability for logical reasoning. I don't think that the adcomms actually care for the ability of students to study for standardized tests (a very particular type of examination).

I don't think they care much if reasoning ability is intrinsic or not. The point is, just by studying for the LSAT, your REASONING SKILLS BECOME BETTER. It's not just a standardized test.

[jackassjim]

I don't think trying to make things fair is the answer.

You're getting everything backwards. It's not that there is a moral imperative to keep everything fair in a hippie-progressive-egalitarian-communist way, it's that the very existence and use of the test is premised on the idea that it provides a "fair" way of comparing candidates.

Yes, everyone has a "fair" chance to prepare for the LSAT. I suppose it would be more fair if I got a point deduction because I had more time to study?

Again, you're using the word "fair" in a complete different way than me. What I meant is that, presumably, in an ideal world (from the adcomms perspective), everyone who takes the LSAT would have had the same time and tools to prepare for the LSAT. This comes back to my initial argument: it would bring us closer to this ideal world if real PTs were not sold or distributed. (Again, I'm not making a moral argument here. I do care about fairness in the way you talk about, but it is completely irrelevant to the argument I am making)

[Olive]

Can we move this debate to a different thread please? I was hoping to refer back to this thread for good advice. I'm not looking forward to scrolling forever/digging through the ongoing debate just to find it...

[jackassjim]

If the stated purpose is to measure a person's ability to succeed in law school and then at prestigious law jobs than it seems perfectly fine that it is somewhat learnable. In law, just like the LSAT, hard work can compensate somewhat for natural brilliance. Both are necessary.

It also seems that law, like most demanding careers, will constantly produce a tension between things like family and success (at least measured in conventional terms of prestige and money). There seems to me to be no reason that the LSAT should not start conform to this same paradigm.

Finally, from what I gather, the desire and ability to completely immerse yourself in an activity that has no value other than possible intellectual stimulation and the furtherance of your career is immensely important to success in biglaw or other high prestige jobs. As such, having a lawschool entrance exam that can be mastered by those with natural intellect and a penchant for hyperfocusing and leading unbalanced lives makes perfect sense.

Just my two cents.

IMHO, this is the best argument so far in favor of the current formula. Still, I would argue that the GPA captures much of the effects you discuss (capacity to balance life/work, ability to hyperfocus, etc.), and that adcomms would be better served by a less learnable test.

[Batman2]

I don't think trying to make things fair is the answer.

You're getting everything backwards. It's not that there is a moral imperative to keep everything fair in a hippie-progressive-egalitarian-communist way, it's that the very existence and use of the test is premised on the idea that it provides a "fair" way of comparing candidates.

Yes, everyone has a "fair" chance to prepare for the LSAT. I suppose it would be more fair if I got a point deduction because I had more time to study?

Again, you're using the word "fair" in a complete different way than me. What I meant is that, presumably, in an ideal world (from the adcomms perspective), everyone who takes the LSAT would have had the same time and tools to prepare for the LSAT. This comes back to my initial argument: it would bring us closer to this ideal world if real PTs were not sold or distributed. (Again, I'm not making a moral argument here. I do care about fairness in the way you talk about, but it is completely irrelevant to the argument I am making)

But the argument you are making is wrong. Time and dedication should be a factor in law school admissions consideration, as it will be a factor in legal careers. I am sorry, but if you want a Biglaw job and don't have the time to commit to the LSAT, you probably don't have the time to commit to the firm, either. This is not meant as a personal attack, but a logical explanation as to why it is ok to seriously prepare for the LSAT. I don't particularly want Biglaw, but I am aware that it requires a certain amount of time and dedication.

[Alexpride007]

This thread is going the wrong way now.

To OP, what advice could you give for the RC section. It is actually the hardest for me and logic is the easiest unlike most people.

[jackassjim]

But the argument you are making is wrong. Time and dedication should be a factor in law school admissions consideration, as it will be a factor in legal careers. I am sorry, but if you want a Biglaw job and don't have the time to commit to the LSAT, you probably don't have the time to commit to the firm, either. This is not meant as a personal attack, but a logical explanation as to why it is ok to seriously prepare for the LSAT. I don't particularly want Biglaw, but I am aware that it requires a certain amount of time and dedication.

Please see my reply to the other poster just before your own last post.

[jackassjim]

This thread is going the wrong way now.

Please don't judge me!

[Alexpride007]

This thread is going the wrong way now.

Please don't judge me!

It wasn't aimed towards you, I was just saying in general.

[coldbeverage]

back to the topic...

I am taking the June '10 Lsat; when do you think I should take my diagnostic, and begin intensive studying?

I wouldn't start studying in earnest until 3 or 4 months before the test. This is plenty of time.

1) How would you suggest I use my time now, before the June '10 LSAT, if I shouldn't begin studying in earnest until 3 or 4 months before the test?

I'm an undergrad right now, meaning that April will be a lot of paper writing and exam preparation, rather than straight LSAT studying. I'd like to maximize what time I have now to get ready.

2) Did you take your preptests in a particular order? Ex: Oldest to newest, random, evenly dispersed, etc.

3) Did you use non-LSAC questions or material? For example, the "tough questions" in Kaplan 180?

Thanks for your help!

[Bobby Dazzler]

If you don't mind me asking, where are you heading for school?

Also love the attitude in this old thread of yours http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 9#p1024519 Great motivation, sorry you were off by 1 though!

[Stanley Otto Swift]

How about RC tips--how did you improve in that section? Any timing strategies specifically?
Additionally, what did your study plan look like a month before the test?

All the advice is much appreciated.

A month away from the December LSAT I was taking practice tests and doing a very thorough review. By then, I was testing in the high 170s, so it was just a matter of getting accustomed to the most recent tests and building my endurance. I also tried to read a couple of hours every day (non LSAT material) to keep my RC sharp and to maintain my focus.

I have no great advice for RC and I'm not sure there is any good advice, given that RC is such an individual thing. I experimented with several different methods, but what worked for me was a minimalist approach. I did a very brisk read of the passage and just referred back when I got to the questions. Moderate underlining to de-lineate the main points and shifts of tone/argument.