Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=173075
You looking to do HYS or have a very low UGPA? Otherwise, why would you retake with a 170+?QuincyWagstaff wrote:I'm looking for insight from anyone who has retaken a 170s LSAT and improved 5 or more points. What did your study schedule look like for the retake? What, if any, prep strategies did you use? I'm looking at February; I've skimmed the LRB, gone through the LGB before my last exam. Also I have quite a few recent untouched prep tests. I'm strong in LR, decent on LG, and inconsistent on RC.
I've been guaranteed a substantial merit scholarship at the school I'm attending if I can improve my score above 175.willwash wrote: You looking to do HYS or have a very low UGPA? Otherwise, why would you retake with a 170+?
I've been guaranteed a substantial merit scholarship at the school I'm attending if I can improve my score above 175./quote]QuincyWagstaff wrote:willwash wrote: You looking to do HYS or have a very low UGPA? Otherwise, why would you retake with a 170+?
Excuse me?dietcoke0 wrote:I've been guaranteed a substantial merit scholarship at the school I'm attending if I can improve my score above 175./quote]QuincyWagstaff wrote:willwash wrote: You looking to do HYS or have a very low UGPA? Otherwise, why would you retake with a 170+?
Um, False on so many levels?
American_in_China wrote:172 to 179 here.
1. I got a job teaching for Kaplan. While the average quality of their instructors may not be high, becoming a teacher forces you to think comprehensively on everything, and you have access to literally 5000+ pages of lsat material.
2. I stopped doing PTs. I did 25 in 1 and a half months leading to my first test, but only 10 in 3 months leading to my second test. Focus on question type review.
3. To expand, I used the Kaplan books to work on essentially all of each question type ever used, by difficulty. Every other day, I'd do 100 LR questions of a new type. 100 assumption, 100 strengthen, 100 weaken, etc. I did games by type, each day doing 8 games of ranging difficulty by type. For RC I changed methods to outlining while reading, practiced that on 1 and 2 stars for a month, and then just did 3 and 4 stars for the rest of my review.
4. Take PTs 2 in a row. I was fatigued during the first test. I came out of the second test feeling like I had just had coffee because I did 3 double tests (8 sections each time). The real test was like taking a mild jog after that.
My #1 advice is not to be afraid of changing your methods. I changed my approach on half of LG, completely on RC, and substantially on LR (switching to reading question stem first, switched notation of formal logic). And definitely do the double tests. Nothing beats feeling fresh going into the 5th section while everyone is having trouble staying awake.
What does decent on games mean? How many do you miss on avg? That needs to be down to a very consistent -0.QuincyWagstaff wrote:I'm looking for insight from anyone who has retaken a 170s LSAT and improved 5 or more points. What did your study schedule look like for the retake? What, if any, prep strategies did you use? I'm looking at February; I've skimmed the LRB, gone through the LGB before my last exam. Also I have quite a few recent untouched prep tests. I'm strong in LR, decent on LG, and inconsistent on RC.
I was proud of my -1 LG on the October '11 LSAT, but got smacked down by RC with a -9QuincyWagstaff wrote:I mean that, on a PT or drill, I can consistently get -0 and finish with extra time; however, in the high-stakes environment of the real thing (October 2011; a challenging games section for most), I'm not infallible, and I ended up with a -3.
What does decent on games mean? How many do you miss on avg? That needs to be down to a very consistent -0.
Did you apply any specific strategies that you would recommend?emkay625 wrote:This thread is interesting. As someone who regularly scores 170 - 180 with no real consistency, I'm fascinated by this. No matter what I did/strategies I used, it just seemed like I would score anywhere from 170 to 180 randomly. (Hence a PT average of 175).
What does decent on games mean? How many do you miss on avg? That needs to be down to a very consistent -0.[/quote]QuincyWagstaff wrote:
The ignorance in your post is mind-numbing.fathergoose wrote:The arrogance, conceit, and idiocy in this thread is mind boggling.
I call bullshit on so many levels.
Threads like this make me hate TLS. Not that this couldn't have been done in a reasonable way but this is just obnoxious humblebragging at its worst.blink wrote:The ignorance in your post is mind-numbing.fathergoose wrote:The arrogance, conceit, and idiocy in this thread is mind boggling.
I call bullshit on so many levels.
I call GTFO.
Needs to gtfo of TLSseanPtheB wrote:I mean that, on a PT or drill, I can consistently get -0 and finish with extra time; however, in the high-stakes environment of the real thing (October 2011; a challenging games section for most), I'm not infallible, and I ended up with a -3.
This is interesting. What method did you use before? I was fully immersed in powerscore and I've thought about trying to teach for Kaplan, but I was worried about tangling up my methodologies. Was this an issue for you?American_in_China wrote:172 to 179 here.
1. I got a job teaching for Kaplan. While the average quality of their instructors may not be high, becoming a teacher forces you to think comprehensively on everything, and you have access to literally 5000+ pages of lsat material.
2. I stopped doing PTs. I did 25 in 1 and a half months leading to my first test, but only 10 in 3 months leading to my second test. Focus on question type review.
3. To expand, I used the Kaplan books to work on essentially all of each question type ever used, by difficulty. Every other day, I'd do 100 LR questions of a new type. 100 assumption, 100 strengthen, 100 weaken, etc. I did games by type, each day doing 8 games of ranging difficulty by type. For RC I changed methods to outlining while reading, practiced that on 1 and 2 stars for a month, and then just did 3 and 4 stars for the rest of my review.
4. Take PTs 2 in a row. I was fatigued during the first test. I came out of the second test feeling like I had just had coffee because I did 3 double tests (8 sections each time). The real test was like taking a mild jog after that.
My #1 advice is not to be afraid of changing your methods. I changed my approach on half of LG, completely on RC, and substantially on LR (switching to reading question stem first, switched notation of formal logic). And definitely do the double tests. Nothing beats feeling fresh going into the 5th section while everyone is having trouble staying awake.
TLS stands for TOP Law Schools. HTHfathergoose wrote:Threads like this make me hate TLS. Not that this couldn't have been done in a reasonable way but this is just obnoxious humblebragging at its worst.blink wrote:The ignorance in your post is mind-numbing.fathergoose wrote:The arrogance, conceit, and idiocy in this thread is mind boggling.
I call bullshit on so many levels.
I call GTFO.
Anybody who starts a thread about how their 99th percentile score is inadequate and says things like:
Needs to gtfo of TLSseanPtheB wrote:I mean that, on a PT or drill, I can consistently get -0 and finish with extra time; however, in the high-stakes environment of the real thing (October 2011; a challenging games section for most), I'm not infallible, and I ended up with a -3.
Look, I'm sorry that you find the discussion offensive; I certainly didn't intend it to agitate anyone. What exactly are you calling b.s. on? I have very good reasons to raise my score, and if you really care, I could discuss them in a PM. Otherwise, kindly move along.fathergoose wrote:The arrogance, conceit, and idiocy in this thread is mind boggling.
I call bullshit on so many levels.
retakefathergoose wrote:Threads like this make me hate TLS. Not that this couldn't have been done in a reasonable way but this is just obnoxious humblebragging at its worst.blink wrote:The ignorance in your post is mind-numbing.fathergoose wrote:The arrogance, conceit, and idiocy in this thread is mind boggling.
I call bullshit on so many levels.
I call GTFO.
Anybody who starts a thread about how their 99th percentile score is inadequate and says things like:
Needs to gtfo of TLSseanPtheB wrote:I mean that, on a PT or drill, I can consistently get -0 and finish with extra time; however, in the high-stakes environment of the real thing (October 2011; a challenging games section for most), I'm not infallible, and I ended up with a -3.
me?seanPtheB wrote:retake
My method before was completely ad-hoc. Essentially whatever I stated with, I did. Logic Games was the only structured one, and that was based on the Logic Games bible, although I abandoned a lot of the heavy sketching since I could fit most of the rules inside my head.blink wrote:This is interesting. What method did you use before? I was fully immersed in powerscore and I've thought about trying to teach for Kaplan, but I was worried about tangling up my methodologies. Was this an issue for you?American_in_China wrote:172 to 179 here.
1. I got a job teaching for Kaplan. While the average quality of their instructors may not be high, becoming a teacher forces you to think comprehensively on everything, and you have access to literally 5000+ pages of lsat material.
2. I stopped doing PTs. I did 25 in 1 and a half months leading to my first test, but only 10 in 3 months leading to my second test. Focus on question type review.
3. To expand, I used the Kaplan books to work on essentially all of each question type ever used, by difficulty. Every other day, I'd do 100 LR questions of a new type. 100 assumption, 100 strengthen, 100 weaken, etc. I did games by type, each day doing 8 games of ranging difficulty by type. For RC I changed methods to outlining while reading, practiced that on 1 and 2 stars for a month, and then just did 3 and 4 stars for the rest of my review.
4. Take PTs 2 in a row. I was fatigued during the first test. I came out of the second test feeling like I had just had coffee because I did 3 double tests (8 sections each time). The real test was like taking a mild jog after that.
My #1 advice is not to be afraid of changing your methods. I changed my approach on half of LG, completely on RC, and substantially on LR (switching to reading question stem first, switched notation of formal logic). And definitely do the double tests. Nothing beats feeling fresh going into the 5th section while everyone is having trouble staying awake.
Also, I'd be interested to hear what you thought of your teaching experience? was it full time in a year off scenario, or parttime ?
Btw, nice score increase, I hope to emulate that.
No reason whatsoever to be an asshole ITT. OP is looking for legit advice for legit reasons.fathergoose wrote:The arrogance, conceit, and idiocy in this thread is mind boggling.
I call bullshit on so many levels.
If you don't mind my asking, how the hell did you figure out the bike game? That one just destroyed me, and I'm generally pretty good at games. Hell, I finished the other 3 (and got perfect on them) with 15 minutes to spare and even with 15 minutes I STILL lost 4 marks on that game.InGoodFaith wrote:I was proud of my -1 LG on the October '11 LSAT, but got smacked down by RC with a -9QuincyWagstaff wrote:I mean that, on a PT or drill, I can consistently get -0 and finish with extra time; however, in the high-stakes environment of the real thing (October 2011; a challenging games section for most), I'm not infallible, and I ended up with a -3.
What does decent on games mean? How many do you miss on avg? That needs to be down to a very consistent -0.