Top Law Schools

scored a 167 on september 2009, and i'm experiencing a ding festival right now, so i'm seriously thinking of taking it again and applying next cycle

I took a testmasters course for the september test (did all the homework and the practice tests that they offered), and i honestly can't think of how i'd score any better (BUT I also want to improve my score)

i'm in a "not totally CRAPPY but not GOOD either" limbo situation and i want to know if i should just go ahead and sign up for another course anyway for the June test? i'd be willing to shell out another grand if it's going to push me closer to a 170. i'm trying to study, but i feel like i'm not expanding my brain because i've seen most of these questions already. (what to do/anyone in this situation??)

lastly:
everyone here seems to rave about the powerscore bibles. ummmm will that help for someone in my position? if so, i'm thinking of maybe taking a powerscore course this time around. (?)

i'd appreciate it if people who were in my position or a similar situation could offer advice.

thank you

with a 167 already on the books taking one of the mainstream classes out there designed for the average joe to get him from a 148 to a 155 isnt going to help you very much.

Get the powerscore bibles and figure out where your weaknesses are and go to work. A class really doesnt seem like it would make sense for you, unless you have 1k to just throw away.

I took the Kaplan class, and I went from a 157 to a 171. It might be the best grand I've ever spent.

I doubt taking the PS course would do anything for you, but the bibles would be good review. If you've already done all available problems, you should spend plenty of time on every problem you thought was difficult or that you missed. Write out thorough justifications for eliminating the wrong answers and write out justifications for choosing (what you believe to be) the correct answer. Don't ever choose to select or eliminate an answer choice in your practice work without a strong, clear, logical justification.

That's a start. Repeat all the games, too.

What are people's opinions on tutors? To me they seem like they'd be more cost-effective if you're in the high scoring range already. A class is geared toward the masses, but a tutor is geared toward you personally, correct?

That's the idea. The more specific your needs, the better a tutor can help you. (I say this as an LSAT tutor myself.)

ah, thanks!

so i guess no class, just get the bibles

I'm in a similar position. I'm going to retake my 170 if I don't get any awesome offers this cycle. So I'd like to hear responses to this thread as well.

I'm not sure if I'm going to take any kind of a course, unless there is a course exclusively for people with 170+ pushing for 175, cuz otherwise it might be a waste of time...

So far my plan is to do self study again, except maybe this time I'll take less full PTs and will instead focus on each section individually.

The only thing that has me worried is that I already took pretty much every PT out there at least once (lots of them not even timed), so finding fresh material is definitely a concern.

yeaa ahh that fresh material concern, same here

lebob wrote:ah, thanks!

so i guess no class, just get the bibles

+1

Repeating tests is actually really useful, not so much to measure your score but to make sure that you've learned from your mistakes. If you don't remember a question specifically but get it right on the second time through, you've learned what you need to. If you miss it again on the second time through, there's something you don't understand.

You can keep taking tests over again until you get 180's on them. Until you're doing that, you still have something to learn.

You could always try to get a job with Kaplan or Princeton Review and then get paid to study (and get free access to all their material).

If not that, I would recommend self-study or a good tutor.

Ragged wrote:I'm in a similar position. I'm going to retake my 170 if I don't get any awesome offers this cycle. So I'd like to hear responses to this thread as well.

I'm not sure if I'm going to take any kind of a course, unless there is a course exclusively for people with 170+ pushing for 175, cuz otherwise it might be a waste of time...

So far my plan is to do self study again, except maybe this time I'll take less full PTs and will instead focus on each section individually.

The only thing that has me worried is that I already took pretty much every PT out there at least once (lots of them not even timed), so finding fresh material is definitely a concern.

Fresh material shouldn't be a huge concern. Are you scoring -2 or less consistently in games? If not, you need to be doing them over and over again until you are.

For LR, go through previously done sections and write out explanations for why every single wrong answer is incorrect and why the correct answer is the correct one.

For RC you can use the same strategy as LR. You can also incorporate some denser material into your daily reading (scientific american, the economist, etc).

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:You could always try to get a job with Kaplan or Princeton Review and then get paid to study (and get free access to all their material).

167 won't cut it for us (PR) most of the time.

tomwatts wrote:

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:You could always try to get a job with Kaplan or Princeton Review and then get paid to study (and get free access to all their material).

167 won't cut it for us (PR) most of the time.

I was under the impression that 95th percentile (with +90th percentile if they are desperate for teachers at that location) and the ability to teach well was pretty much all that was needed for PR and Kaplan. Thus the need to distinguish in advertising 98th percentile for the hyperlearning and advanced courses. They seem to compete for the same teachers since they have lower %ile standards and lower pay than powerscore, testmasters, and blueprint.

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:I was under the impression that 95th percentile (with +90th percentile if they are desperate for teachers at that location) and the ability to teach well was pretty much all that was needed for PR and Kaplan. Thus the need to distinguish in advertising 98th percentile for the hyperlearning and advanced courses.

Not exactly. Most offices won't train a teacher who can't teach Hyperlearning courses, and you need 98th percentile for that. It's up to each individual office, and if they have a pretty big Accelerated market (where there is no advertised score requirement, just a qualifying test), they might train a teacher without the score. But that's unusual.

It costs us a bunch of money to train teachers, so we usually are pretty selective about who we choose. Especially since usually we have a bunch of SAT teachers who want to cross-train.

Seek the tutelage of an LSAT God, and shore up those last few points.

Best of luck

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:

Ragged wrote:I'm in a similar position. I'm going to retake my 170 if I don't get any awesome offers this cycle. So I'd like to hear responses to this thread as well.

I'm not sure if I'm going to take any kind of a course, unless there is a course exclusively for people with 170+ pushing for 175, cuz otherwise it might be a waste of time...

So far my plan is to do self study again, except maybe this time I'll take less full PTs and will instead focus on each section individually.

The only thing that has me worried is that I already took pretty much every PT out there at least once (lots of them not even timed), so finding fresh material is definitely a concern.

Fresh material shouldn't be a huge concern. Are you scoring -2 or less consistently in games? If not, you need to be doing them over and over again until you are.

For LR, go through previously done sections and write out explanations for why every single wrong answer is incorrect and why the correct answer is the correct one.

For RC you can use the same strategy as LR. You can also incorporate some denser material into your daily reading (scientific american, the economist, etc).

Do you think writing out reasons for right and wrong answers for every single question is a good use of time and energy? Cuz most of the answers I understand pretty clearly. Or is it going to train my brain to faster identify the logical patterns or something like that?

Good point on LG even though I only got -1 on the real thing but I don't feel very confident, since there are many LGs I get stuck on. Is there an LG book besides the bible you can recommend?

Thanks for the help.

I took a Kaplan Course but it wasn't very helpful. For June, I am planning to take either Testmasters or Powerscore. Seems like Testmasters is getting a bad rep on here, perhaps go with Powerscore??

Ragged wrote:

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:

Ragged wrote:I'm in a similar position. I'm going to retake my 170 if I don't get any awesome offers this cycle. So I'd like to hear responses to this thread as well.

I'm not sure if I'm going to take any kind of a course, unless there is a course exclusively for people with 170+ pushing for 175, cuz otherwise it might be a waste of time...

So far my plan is to do self study again, except maybe this time I'll take less full PTs and will instead focus on each section individually.

The only thing that has me worried is that I already took pretty much every PT out there at least once (lots of them not even timed), so finding fresh material is definitely a concern.

Fresh material shouldn't be a huge concern. Are you scoring -2 or less consistently in games? If not, you need to be doing them over and over again until you are.

For LR, go through previously done sections and write out explanations for why every single wrong answer is incorrect and why the correct answer is the correct one.

For RC you can use the same strategy as LR. You can also incorporate some denser material into your daily reading (scientific american, the economist, etc).

Do you think writing out reasons for right and wrong answers for every single question is a good use of time and energy? Cuz most of the answers I understand pretty clearly. Or is it going to train my brain to faster identify the logical patterns or something like that?

Good point on LR even though I only got -1 on the real thing but I don't feel very confident, since there are many LRs I get stuck on. Is there an LR book besides the bible you can recommend?

Thanks for the help.

If you are averaging -2 or less on both LR sections combined, then you don't need to do much work there. Are you just getting brutalized by RC? LG should be the gimme section for most ppl. It was by far my worst section when I started and still a struggling point, but if I get can to a point where I get -1 to -2 consistently, most ppl who are capable of 170's should be able to do the same.

If RC is what is getting you (which I presume it is), that is the toughest section to get consistently good at if you don't have the reading speed. That was my last hurdle to getting into the mid 170s. I just did a lot of sections, read some of a speed reading book (not sure if it helped or not), and reviewed every missed answer. You could also try doing RC marathons (sitting down and doing 3 timed RC sections in a row). I don't know if fresh material is a concern for you though.

If you still want to do some work on LR and don't want to devote too much time writing out why each answer choice was wrong and why the correct one was right on all the questions, try just doing something like 17-25 of sections you've done before. Another fun exercise for LR is taking sections you haven't done before in 32 minutes (some people like to make it even more extreme and doing 30 or less, but I like 32).

Sandro777 wrote:A class really doesnt seem like it would make sense for you, unless you have 1k to just throw away.

Yeah but I thought that there is some money back guarantee if you don't raise your score. would that apply?

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:

Ragged wrote:

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:

Ragged wrote:I'm in a similar position. I'm going to retake my 170 if I don't get any awesome offers this cycle. So I'd like to hear responses to this thread as well.

I'm not sure if I'm going to take any kind of a course, unless there is a course exclusively for people with 170+ pushing for 175, cuz otherwise it might be a waste of time...

So far my plan is to do self study again, except maybe this time I'll take less full PTs and will instead focus on each section individually.

The only thing that has me worried is that I already took pretty much every PT out there at least once (lots of them not even timed), so finding fresh material is definitely a concern.

Fresh material shouldn't be a huge concern. Are you scoring -2 or less consistently in games? If not, you need to be doing them over and over again until you are.

For LR, go through previously done sections and write out explanations for why every single wrong answer is incorrect and why the correct answer is the correct one.

For RC you can use the same strategy as LR. You can also incorporate some denser material into your daily reading (scientific american, the economist, etc).

Do you think writing out reasons for right and wrong answers for every single question is a good use of time and energy? Cuz most of the answers I understand pretty clearly. Or is it going to train my brain to faster identify the logical patterns or something like that?

Good point on LG even though I only got -1 on the real thing but I don't feel very confident, since there are many LGs I get stuck on. Is there an LG book besides the bible you can recommend?

Thanks for the help.

If you are averaging -2 or less on both LR sections combined, then you don't need to do much work there. Are you just getting brutalized by RC? LG should be the gimme section for most ppl. It was by far my worst section when I started and still a struggling point, but if I get can to a point where I get -1 to -2 consistently, most ppl who are capable of 170's should be able to do the same.

If RC is what is getting you (which I presume it is), that is the toughest section to get consistently good at if you don't have the reading speed. That was my last hurdle to getting into the mid 170s. I just did a lot of sections, read some of a speed reading book (not sure if it helped or not), and reviewed every missed answer. You could also try doing RC marathons (sitting down and doing 3 timed RC sections in a row). I don't know if fresh material is a concern for you though.

If you still want to do some work on LR and don't want to devote too much time writing out why each answer choice was wrong and why the correct one was right on all the questions, try just doing something like 17-25 of sections you've done before. Another fun exercise for LR is taking sections you haven't done before in 32 minutes (some people like to make it even more extreme and doing 30 or less, but I like 32).

I meant LG when I said LR earlier... but its no matter. Thanks for your advice Richie, I will definatly try those strategies.

Unfortionatly I don't have any section I'm 100% on which would give me -0 or even -1/2 every time. It tends to fluctuate from test to test. So I still have alot of work ahead of me if I am ever to get to mid 170s.

Ragged wrote: I meant LG when I said LR earlier... but its no matter. Thanks for your advice Richie, I will definatly try those strategies.

Unfortionatly I don't have any section I'm 100% on which would give me -0 or even -1/2 every time. It tends to fluctuate from test to test. So I still have alot of work ahead of me if I am ever to get to mid 170s.

Ah, if that's the case then hit LR hard, both easier and harder questions. Increasing your speed on the easier LR Q's helps a lot in giving you adequate time on the later questions.

Grouped by Game Type by Traciela has all the old LG's which are the hardest.

I took a Kaplan course but it wasn't of much help to raise me to 165, am considering taking either Testmasters/powerscore/or blueprint. I have friends who have taken testmasters and powerscore and both say they are good investments, but I am thinking more of taking blueprint since it seems to be a fun course?