Top Law Schools

Hey all,

So I've taken the LSAT twice before, the first time I took it I took a class and did not do very well, I got a 157. I decided again to take it in september and got a 154. The second time I had someone help me study. I think overall I lacked a lot of self discipline. I found it very hard to sit down and concentrate on studying for the test despite the ever present knowledge that getting into law school depends a lot on my LSAT score. I think a lot of this has to do with my displeasure in studying something that isn't content, but is rather procedurally based.

It doesn't look like my cycle is going to end up very well this year, so I plan on taking off next year (I'm a graduating senior) to once again study for the October LSAT. In addition to looking up every possible study method, and just getting a better general picture of how to approach the test, I'm looking to absolutely force myself to have better self discipline in studying for the test. Numerous guides have been helpful in providing example study plans, and I plan to take a hybrid of these for this test preparation period.

The only major detractor in my application is my LSAT score, so I'm looking for any suggestion at all to improve on it. I've taken up playing chess to get a better visualization and logical thinking pattern, bought and read a couple of informal logic books, but I really appreciate any suggestions at all. Whether it concerns ways to force yourself to study through self discipline, or anything else, please let me know...It's my last shot.

Thanks.

*bumb*

suggest something, in return you will get a * in my book.

When I see these types of threads, usually I find that the problem is pretty consistent among lower scorers: you simply are not studying the right material and enough.

Things like chess and brain teaser books are fun, but your time is much better spent studying actual logic games. Long story short, I have not seen a "more fun" way of preparing for the LSAT (ie playing brain teaser games to learn LG, reading novels to study for RC, etc).

I can tell you what worked for me (I got a 165... not great, not terrible):
About a month and a half before the LSAT, I took an online virtual Powerscore course. In the course you're assigned homework out of the course books, and they also provide you with a supplemental book with extra sections/practice tests/etc. I did two hours/day of the assigned homework until I ran out (i ran out in roughly 4/5 days), then I did two hours/day out of the supplemental book until the next class rolled around and I was assigned HW again (classes were on Monday nights). Also, every Saturday, I took a full length test. What it roughly equated to, without including Saturday full length tests and class time, was two hours a day/7 days a week/for about 45 days (around 90 hours of study, not including class time and practice tests). This is generally how much you should be studying for the LSAT, minimum. Everyone is different, but judging by your previous scores, which were similar to my baseline scores, this is what you'll need to improve significantly.

Two hours a day is nothing. You should have no trouble motivating yourself to do that, especially if you break it up (like an hour from 4-5pm and an hour from 11pm-12am) or whatever. Really, there is no substitute for studying actual sample questions/tests...and you need to do a LOT of it.

Can you explain why the words "procedurally based" cannot be applied to "content"-based tests? It bugs me for some reason.

Shrimps wrote:Can you explain why the words "procedurally based" cannot be applied to "content"-based tests? It bugs me for some reason.

I don't have a problem applying a procedural strategy to a content based test, rather the problem is the procedural nature of the LSAT and my inability to have it substantiated in any consistent content. It is the learning of a process instead of any type of particular material. The difficulty for me lies in acquiring this type of procedural thinking (yes, I realize this is what law school is, but again, even that type of thinking is housed within some type of content, be it torts, contracts, etc.).

brickman wrote:

Shrimps wrote:Can you explain why the words "procedurally based" cannot be applied to "content"-based tests? It bugs me for some reason.

I don't have a problem applying a procedural strategy to a content based test, rather the problem is the procedural nature of the LSAT and my inability to have it substantiated in any consistent content. It is the learning of a process instead of any type of particular material. The difficulty for me lies in acquiring this type of procedural thinking (yes, I realize this is what law school is, but again, even that type of thinking is housed within some type of content, be it torts, contracts, etc.).

As you previously mentioned, since it's procedurally based and not content based, the only way to do well on the test is to learn the procedures...which is a lot harder then learning and regurgitating content. I know it sucks because the content is constantly changing and often not of any interest to you, but that's a huge part of what makes the test difficult/what it is. The only way to get good unfortunately is take tons of practice tests/sections and motivate yourself. It sucks--but that's life.