Top Law Schools

Just wondering. Also, if you had prepped in the past, you can post your score and how many hours you spent a week.

JurisDoctorate wrote:Just wondering. Also, if you had prepped in the past, you can post your score and how many hours you spent a week.

need to know how many weeks you plan on studying.

8 weeks.

JurisDoctorate wrote:8 weeks.

Hmm, in that case i'd suggest 20 or more depending on where your starting point is and your goal for the test. I studied between 12-15 hours a week for 17 weeks. I went from 159 cold to 171 pt average for the last 10 pt's. I'm still waiting on the October score but I feel confident that I scored around that average or better.

8 weeks

~5 hrs/wk for 6 weeks, excluding timed practice exams (one every weekend) till the week before and the week of, where i only took practice exams (roughly one every other day for a total of 6)

~5/6 hrs for 4 months.

I did a test a day for 4 weeks and that worked for me.

My situation was relatively atypical, though. What other people suggest is probably better.

I guess the answer here depends on what is your cold diagnostic score and what is your goal.

6 weeks, a test everyday and a day off in between if I was burnt out. I managed to finish 40 PT's, got a 160 which was nowehere near my PT range (165-170) and I felt that I over prepared, on RC I panicked as safe to say the rest of the test was a disastor. If not for the generous curve it could have been even worse.

For the October LSAT I studied for 3-4 weeks, doing a test a day or every other day. Did PT's 48-60 in that span, stayed off the forums, didn't discuss the LSAT with anyone, and I was surprisingly calm during the test, no pressure. Probably did better as a result.

My point: Don't overdo it, but don't be incomplete in studying. Don't rush, don't let too much time pass in between. It's better to study for a longer period with more days in between than to cram and do a test everyday for so and so days, your brain needs time to wre-wire itself into "LSAT mode".

^^^ the problem with habits like the above is they neglect to study the concepts before taking practice tests. This may not be a problem if you are naturally getting in the high 160's without any real study. But you are going to get the most out of study if it includes more than just practice tests.

Patriot1208 wrote:^^^ the problem with habits like the above is they neglect to study the concepts before taking practice tests. This may not be a problem if you are naturally getting in the high 160's without any real study. But you are going to get the most out of study if it includes more than just practice tests.

Pat is 100% correct. I'm a prime example of this. I didnt understand the concepts and just took PT's (per the terrible advice of my schools "pre law" advisor) day after day and I scored a sad 154 on Sept 2009.

I revamped my studying and after 3 months I was practice testing in the mid 160's. Learn the concepts first. Dont just do PT's. Its very important.

Good luck!

My cold diagnostic was 155 on August 18th. I took part of a Powerscore class and worked with a tutor. I took 6 practice tests total (155, 157, 160, 163, 161). At this point, I'm at - 6 to - 8 on LR (combined), -4 to -8 on RC and -4 to -8 on LG.

I just took the October LSAT and feel like I did -6, -4 and -8 (but we will see!) I am retaking the LSAT in December and I have 8 weeks, until then. I bought the Cambridge LG by type Package and I am working through all of the LG types. I've done 7 games so far and have only missed 1 question (although the beginning ones are fairly simple sequencing and matching games). I bought all three bibles and the official preptests for 45-60. I plan on taking 2 PT's a week and running through every game ever done. However, I am thinking about buying the LR by type Package, but am not sure if the juice is worth the squeeze. I am sure I will move to a -3 to -5, after all of that, but I am not sure if that is worth it. I am also considering buying all the RC's just to get as much practice in, as possible.

I'm doing all of this while being heavily involved in my grad student organization, working as an RA, working on 2 studies, taking a full course load as a PhD student, among other things.

I NEED a 170, I am just trying to figure out what that would take. I appreciate any, and all, input.

Without having one section you know you're going to kill, 170 is difficult to assure.
At that stage, you're probably still having problems with only a couple types of questions in each section...it should not be difficult to pick those out after a PT or two.

I had massive issues first with assumption problems in LR, then with main point questions in RC. I ended up conquering the former with diagramming and the latter just by sheer drilling.
What works for one doesn't necessarily work for another, though. You'll have to find what works for you.

incompetentia wrote:Without having one section you know you're going to kill, 170 is difficult to assure.
At that stage, you're probably still having problems with only a couple types of questions in each section...it should not be difficult to pick those out after a PT or two.

I had massive issues first with assumption problems in LR, then with main point questions in RC. I ended up conquering the former with diagramming and the latter just by sheer drilling.
What works for one doesn't necessarily work for another, though. You'll have to find what works for you.

Yup, keep plugging away. I made my 170 fairly consistent just because I started going -0 on LG all the time. And then really drilled the LR's that I often got wrong which for me was always main point and weakener/strengthener. RC just never really clicked for me. I was always going -4 or -5 because of my inability to read that quickly.

My tutor and I looked through a couple of my PT's and she said my mistakes were all over the place, unfortunately. With LG, I just feel practice will do it because I only make stupid mistakes. As for RC, I actually don't diagram so I feel I can improve a lot - once I start. As for LR, I think I only miss the tough ones. So, like with the October one, most of the ones you all debated - I struggled with them, as well (I did get a couple of them right). For LR, I think practice could help but I think I'm only missing the parallel reasoning and some of the trickier inference questions.

Meh, I wish I had huge holes in my game that can be worked on. For me, it feels like I'm just naturally adept enough that I am struggling to go back to the drawing board, as I don't know what I need work on.

I agree. That's why I decided to go through all of the LG's, I REALLY need to get to -0. I feel like I could have gotten a 170, last week, if the LG fell into place. Instead, I got tripped up on MY first game (I order them) and spent 11 minutes, still guessing on a couple.

If I can really lock down the LG, it's within reach. I'm just wondering if I should avoid being cocky and really get to work on LR. That's why I was trying to gauge time spent; I don't want to spend 10 hours a week, thinking I'm doing all I can do - when it's clearly not.

JurisDoctorate wrote:I agree. That's why I decided to go through all of the LG's, I REALLY need to get to -0. I feel like I could have gotten a 170, last week, if the LG fell into place. Instead, I got tripped up on MY first game (I order them) and spent 11 minutes, still guessing on a couple.

If I can really lock down the LG, it's within reach. I'm just wondering if I should avoid being cocky and really get to work on LR. That's why I was trying to gauge time spent; I don't want to spend 10 hours a week, thinking I'm doing all I can do - when it's clearly not.

FUCK the first game...

Lol, that's what I get for waiting until 1 week to go, to start working on LG! I feel like I'll have the confidence to not get thrown by any game, once I get through all of them.

We shall see, though...

Well, even getting LG down to -1 or -2 seems like a big enough step to try, if you think it's feasible. If you really obsess over LG for a week and get a good diagramming system absolutely down, you might be able to make more of a difference than perhaps light study on it every so often.

I, like Patriot, generally go -0 on LG (seriously, who knew all those Mensa puzzle books I did as a kid would come in handy); without it my PT average would drop like 6-8 points. However, after seeing a critical mass of LR problems I really felt they almost started to be formulaic and therefore somewhat predictable - at this point my scores managed to jump back up after having a gigantic RC meltdown. (I think I hit this point around my 20th PT...could be more or less but I think getting to that point is not out of the question for anybody.)

You know, I dig that. The week before the LSAT, I went from <50% - 66% correct on the LG to 66% - 80%. I do feel that immersing yourself in something can yield greater results than a more gradual approach.

It's hard to know what to do. Should I spend a week going through each bible and then go through all of the games in a couple weeks and then go through all LR, all the while doing 2 preptests a week?

I feel I need to do some soul searching.

At the end of the day, in all honesty, no matter what happens - I can walk in and miss 8 on half of the test (LR) at the MOST. As for RC and LR, I can miss 8 on either one of the sections. I feel the absolute musts are to get LG to -0 and to get RC to <-4. If I can get to that point, I think I'm golden.

My biggest fear is that I'll only operate with 70% effort, get <170 and regret it for months - if not a year. You know, reading that makes me think that I have my answer. I have to do everything in my power, that is productive (meaning not taking 3 PT's a day as that would be counterproductive).

Took in June and October. For the June exam I studied around 10 hours a week for four months. The month up to the exam, I took a PT every other day. On the days off from PT, I would go over the PT. I got a 166 in June and my PT average was around 170.

For October I did not study until 6 weeks before the exam. PT every other day. Did not look them over the next day, did not go on TLS, obsess over the LSAT and law school. I think that helped me.

I was able to get in ~10-15 hours per week between late August and test day. This was as much time as I could spare without endangering my average. For me, taking a reduced (12 credit) load made this possible.

Couple months before the test, I would spend 3-5 hours per day studying the LSAT. Before then, I would spend a couple hours per day studying. All together I studied for about 4 months. Materials Used and fully-completed:

*Powerscore Bibles: LRB, LGB, LRB
*Powerscore Games Workbook
*Advanced Games Course by Powerscore
*40+ Preptests, including the SuperPrep

I felt confident on the October exam and am aiming for 165+.

I spent a little less than four months prepping for this exam, with about 2 hours per day in the summer. Used my PT usually to do section by section untimed for some time, and then took timed exams. Used the few unused sections as last minute checks on my ability to maintain my score.

Best best is really to mix in the sections as you go, and not get discouraged by any low scores. Case in point, my first Rc section was a -13 and by the end i was at a best of -5, and averaged about -7.

LR was initially quite difficult, as i was again getting -13 or higher, and then through recognition, the LR bible, and underlining, i cut that number in half and averaged -8 to -9

LG was the most difficult and depending on the section i was getting plenty wrong, and after the bible and using strategies i was getting about -7 to -11 at the end of practicing.

I started off taking 2 PT's to gauge where I started. I then turned my Powerscore bible into... well my Bible. I prob spent around 5-10 hours a week on it, and went for 6 weeks. I saw a significant jump in my LSAT PT scores.