The Official September 2017 Study Group Forum

[Barry grandpapy]

I totally would if it wasn't for the fact that I just took a 5 day break to move cross-country. Don't know how much more time I have to take off at this point. I'll probably take tomorrow at minimum, but at the official T-2 months, I'm wondering what's going wrong. I am noticing that every time I drill, I go -1 to -5/section, and when I take PTs, it goes down to -5+. Should I not be drilling from the pre-20 section? What's a more appropriate section of PTs do drill from?

Alright, this is odd. I've never seen a long term downtrend (after a study break) in the June group or with personal study buddies. What does your current study schedule look like?

Before the move, it was doing at least 2 sections of LG or LR every other night or so after work, with a PT on the weekend recently, or a straight session of like 3-4 sections of whatever. I wonder if what's doing me in is that I'm drilling in the sub PT20 range. Would you cannibalize from 40 onwards you think to drill?

Now that I've moved, it's probably going to be 3-4 sections/day plus some specific drilling. 2 PTs/week

What's your LG, RC, LR typical breakdown when you drill a section in 35 minutes?

[tapenade]

So I finally figured out why my scores jumped! I thought I'd been finishing each section pretty close to 35 minutes, but one LG section took me nearly an hour.

[abujabal]

Typically:

LG: -1 to -4
RC: 0 to -2
LR: -3 to -6 (before the move, was getting consistent -3/-2, now post-move I drilled some sections and seem to have fallen back down to -4/-6

So that's where I'm curious. I wonder if it's just the material, and if there's some legit difference between the old and new. The other odd thing is I didn't feel super rushed, except on LG, where I had to race to the end. Hell, on this last PT, I had an extra 6 minutes to check my answers on RC...

[HesusChrist]

I think you may need to return to a curriculum. Missing 7 Q's on BR indicates that you could have a gap in your understanding. I'm sure that once you shore it up you will get your LR going again. Also, there is some difference between the 60s and the 20s, usually the wrong AC's are more attractive on newer tests. If your fundamentals are sightly lacking you can fall prey to them.

[abujabal]

I think you may need to return to a curriculum. Missing 7 Q's on BR indicates that you could have a gap in your understanding. I'm sure that once you shore it up you will get your LR going again. Also, there is some difference between the 60s and the 20s, usually the wrong AC's are more attractive on newer tests. If your fundamentals are sightly lacking you can fall prey to them.

It's a good point - typically, however, the majority of mistakes seem to come from questions that I hadn't marked from BR at all. If I'm marking them, I'm usually either getting them down to 0 or -1. I was thinking of switching to a method where I just BR any question that wasn't immediately obvious - thoughts?

Regardless - I'm probably going to rip through the Flaw and Sufficient assumption sections in the Trainer again. Also need to get better at parallel reasoning questions that involve drawing out contrapositives etc.

[CottonHarvest]

PT 61:
RC -2
LR1 -0
LG -0
LR2 -1
-3, 179

[CottonHarvest]

Am I the only one who thinks 2 months is a lot of time? There is still so much you can learn in that frame.

In two months I went from 169/170 to both of my last two PTs being 179

[Barry grandpapy]

Typically:

LG: -1 to -4
RC: 0 to -2
LR: -3 to -6 (before the move, was getting consistent -3/-2, now post-move I drilled some sections and seem to have fallen back down to -4/-6

So that's where I'm curious. I wonder if it's just the material, and if there's some legit difference between the old and new. The other odd thing is I didn't feel super rushed, except on LG, where I had to race to the end. Hell, on this last PT, I had an extra 6 minutes to check my answers on RC...

If you're getting -12 max on timed drills but lower 160s on PTs, then I don't know what's going on. I still suggest a rest with maybe even a week off from studying. Also, while the newer PTs are slightly different than the old ones, I don't believe they are different enough to explain anything larger than a one or two point drop.

[abujabal]

Typically:

LG: -1 to -4
RC: 0 to -2
LR: -3 to -6 (before the move, was getting consistent -3/-2, now post-move I drilled some sections and seem to have fallen back down to -4/-6

So that's where I'm curious. I wonder if it's just the material, and if there's some legit difference between the old and new. The other odd thing is I didn't feel super rushed, except on LG, where I had to race to the end. Hell, on this last PT, I had an extra 6 minutes to check my answers on RC...

If you're getting -12 max on timed drills but lower 160s on PTs, then I don't know what's going on. I still suggest a rest with maybe even a week off from studying. Also, while the newer PTs are slightly different than the old ones, I don't believe they are different enough to explain anything larger than a one or two point drop.

Yeah, I'm legitimately baffled. My only thought is that this move has affected me more than I thought, in the sense that it was too long a break. For what its worth, would you think that cannibalizing some PTs from the 40 section would be OK for drilling more "recent" things?

[Gluteus]

Officially in for September

163+ Gets me into a school I'd be very happy with
166+ Gets me into my dream school

I'm Canadian so I'm not in the situation of needing 170+ or bust


December is my backup, but I will only have an extra 50-75 hours to study between the Sept test and December. Backup is mainly a second attempt to get a score that is equal to or greater than my PT average.

Drilling LG for 5 hours a day~ until August 1st

Then I will implement LR and RC preparation (while still working on LG weaknesses). When I studied for the LSAT in the past I quickly began to get 40/50+ on LR after reading Manhattan LR and getting familiar with the types of questions so I'm not concerned too much with that.

[augustyyy]

Am I the only one who thinks 2 months is a lot of time? There is still so much you can learn in that frame.

In two months I went from 169/170 to both of my last two PTs being 179

wow this is amazing progress!! do u mind to share whats ur pace? how often a PT and how much drill a day?

[chewinggum]

Am I the only one who thinks 2 months is a lot of time? There is still so much you can learn in that frame.

In two months I went from 169/170 to both of my last two PTs being 179

wow this is amazing progress!! do u mind to share whats ur pace? how often a PT and how much drill a day?

[CottonHarvest]

Am I the only one who thinks 2 months is a lot of time? There is still so much you can learn in that frame.

In two months I went from 169/170 to both of my last two PTs being 179

wow this is amazing progress!! do u mind to share whats ur pace? how often a PT and how much drill a day?

After my 170 I did all of the 19-28 book as sections then I started taking PTs every 3-4 days. They have been 176, 173, 179, 179. I don't do anything on the days in between except maybe some games.

[Anon-e-miss]

Has anyone found success by switching away from LR orthodoxy (stimulus then question stem) and tried reading the stem before the stimulus? Thoughts for or against it?

[CottonHarvest]

Has anyone found success by switching away from LR orthodoxy (stimulus then question stem) and tried reading the stem before the stimulus? Thoughts for or against it?

A LOT of people read the stem first. I do and it works great. I don't really think one is considered the LR orthodoxy.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Last summer when I first started studying LSAT I would read the stim first but now this time around I started reading the Q-stem first and I like the latter much better. It allows you to fully get into the specific mode you need to approach a question. When I read the stim first, i found myself reading the question over and over again sometimes and I didnt approach the questions as effectively. I definitely recommend reading the Q-stem first

[Impressionist]

I also saw my score go up when I started reading the stem first. Knowing what to look for in each stimulus while reading is a boon.

[Mikey]

I don't understand why people don't read the Q stem first. It lets you focus on the strategy you need to do for that question. I know people say some crap about getting to the point where you're advanced enough to be able to do the stim and not wonder what the Q type is and just go from there, but what the hell is the point? Just know what your damn task is by reading the Q stem and focus on that instead of wondering up in the stimulus wtf you're going to have to do, you already have enough on your shoulders.

totally subjective of course, but seriously, what the hell lol

[littlewing67]

.

[abujabal]

I am having issues with sleep inertia, where I wake up early and still feel groggy hours after and unable to concentrate to do problems. Any tips for shaking this?

What's your sleep timings? Are you sleeping regularly at the same time every night/waking up at the same time? What's your morning routine as well? Slash are you sleeping in 1.5 hour increments? Typically, it can be more beneficial to sleep say for 6 hours than 6.5 because then you're not coming out of REM sleep when you wake up

[chewinggum]

I used PS method of stim first initially then switched to the question stem first and immediately saw improvements.

For me, it's helped how I read the stim (knowing what to look for) and also, knowing certain question types eat up more time for me than others, I can quickly skip those and come back.

[littlewing67]

.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I am having issues with sleep inertia, where I wake up early and still feel groggy hours after and unable to concentrate to do problems. Any tips for shaking this?

What's your sleep timings? Are you sleeping regularly at the same time every night/waking up at the same time? What's your morning routine as well? Slash are you sleeping in 1.5 hour increments? Typically, it can be more beneficial to sleep say for 6 hours than 6.5 because then you're not coming out of REM sleep when you wake up

Wake up 7:30 shower get ready eat breakfast, drive to library around 8:30, arrive at library and all set to start work at 9.

Sleep around 11:30? Also I've been having problems falling asleep as well as waking up in the middle of the night :/

Should I take melatonin or something?

Yea, it could be that you aren;t sleeping deep or waking up in the middle of a REM cycle. Check out the sleep app maybe and you set your alarm and itll wake you up within 30 min prior to that alarm based on your REM patterns. You could try melatonin, but it made me groggy if I didnt sleep at least 8 hours and wake up on my own accord w/o an alarm.

[abujabal]

I am having issues with sleep inertia, where I wake up early and still feel groggy hours after and unable to concentrate to do problems. Any tips for shaking this?

What's your sleep timings? Are you sleeping regularly at the same time every night/waking up at the same time? What's your morning routine as well? Slash are you sleeping in 1.5 hour increments? Typically, it can be more beneficial to sleep say for 6 hours than 6.5 because then you're not coming out of REM sleep when you wake up

Wake up 7:30 shower get ready eat breakfast, drive to library around 8:30, arrive at library and all set to start work at 9.

Sleep around 11:30? Also I've been having problems falling asleep as well as waking up in the middle of the night :/

Should I take melatonin or something?

I mean - I'd avoid starting something up with this much time until the test - don't know that it's advisable just in case it sends you totally for a loop. Could be worth shifting the schedule a bit (ie trying to cut down your breakfast time in favor of more sleep) or something. Sometimes, it also helps me to sleep back to front on my bed - sometimes your mattress gets lumpy in one spot, and that plus the new direction seems to "reset" something for me.

[littlewing67]

.