Top Law Schools

.

read the pithypike and noodleyone guides, most people here find them very helpful.

and

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
Between years of policy debate in high school and college, having to basically be de facto GC for my non-profit, triple majoring in Philosophy, Political Science, and Pre-Law, reading complex philosophy since high school, and being a big puzzle/logic games fan to begin with, this is kind of my dream test.

you still sound kinda cocky, which is actually a problem a lot of high (going for higher) scorers have. forget thinking of this as your "dream test" and start analyzing where you need to improve.

gguuueessttt wrote:read the pithypike and noodleyone guides, most people here find them very helpful.

and

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
Between years of policy debate in high school and college, having to basically be de facto GC for my non-profit, triple majoring in Philosophy, Political Science, and Pre-Law, reading complex philosophy since high school, and being a big puzzle/logic games fan to begin with, this is kind of my dream test.

you still sound kinda cocky, which is actually a problem a lot of high (going for higher) scorers have. forget thinking of this as your "dream test" and start analyzing where you need to improve.

Agreed on all accounts. Thanks for the advice.

I need the most improvement on speed, much more so than on any particular question type. Hopefully continual practice will help with that.

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:2) How adept is a course or private tutoring (say Testmasters or Powerscore) at providing mobility in the 170s?

If your scores in LG are good, I'd say you don't need to worry about taking a course. Private tutoring may help, but again, you're at a level where you basically just need to fine-tune your skills and accuracy.

Good luck!

gaud wrote:

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:2) How adept is a course or private tutoring (say Testmasters or Powerscore) at providing mobility in the 170s?

If your scores in LG are good, I'd say you don't need to worry about taking a course. Private tutoring may help, but again, you're at a level where you basically just need to fine-tune your skills and accuracy.

Good luck!

Thanks!

what helped me the most (even though you are scoring better than me, I'm reaching for 170-171), was tallying up my answers and categorizing them. I took all my post-prep tests and tallied up all the wrong answers and sharpened on the trends I saw. Through this I saw that my score rose significantly each time I sharpened a weak area.

Good luck.

red52 wrote:what helped me the most (even though you are scoring better than me, I'm reaching for 170-171), was tallying up my answers and categorizing them. I took all my post-prep tests and tallied up all the wrong answers and sharpened on the trends I saw. Through this I saw that my score rose significantly each time I sharpened a weak area.

Good luck.

Ah, this is excellent advice.

OP, this may help you: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 6&t=152117

Was in a similar situation.

Take a ton of PTs and practice sections. I've seen people on these boards advise against it but for me at least if i didn't have enough time/energy for a PT I'd do one or two 34 minute sections.

Cambridge "Difficult LR Questions" also helped me.

Stay fresh on LG...those can come back and bite you if you don't stay fresh. Especially under test day pressure.

Depending on what kind of time investment you're willing to make, you could bust your ass studying and go into test day knowing you aren't going to get below a 174 or you could coast and let you potential take you to somewhere between 169-178. I'm not advocating either approach, just saying don't let the first 177 PT you get make you feel complacent.

JDeezy wrote:Was in a similar situation.

Take a ton of PTs and practice sections. I've seen people on these boards advise against it but for me at least if i didn't have enough time/energy for a PT I'd do one or two 34 minute sections.

Cambridge "Difficult LR Questions" also helped me.

Stay fresh on LG...those can come back and bite you if you don't stay fresh. Especially under test day pressure.

Depending on what kind of time investment you're willing to make, you could bust your ass studying and go into test day knowing you aren't going to get below a 174 or you could coast and let you potential take you to somewhere between 169-178. I'm not advocating either approach, just saying don't let the first 177 PT you get make you feel complacent.

Time constraint isn't an issue. I'm taking 3 classes instead of 5 next semester and cutting work hours from 30 to 15 and taking the financial hit - all for LSAT prep. I want to step into that test room knowing that sub-173 is barely a possibility.

What books do you recommend other than Cambridge? Manhattan, the PS Bibles (LG/LR)?

Thanks for the advice.

What's your section breakdown?

(How many you miss on LG/LR/RC?)

sinfiery wrote:What's your section breakdown?

(How many you miss on LG/LR/RC?)

That's kind of the issue, it's an even miss distribution as opposed to a decided weakness.

LG: miss about 1-2 per section
LR: miss about 1-3 per section
RC: miss about 2-4 per section

Speed is my biggest issue. I did one PT last night without time constraints, took an extra ~40 minutes total, and pulled a 177.

I need to A) understand and be able to quickly identify the LG/LR types more quickly, B) maintain accuracy with increased speed, and C) get better with endurance and not get burned out by the 4hr marathon.

That's my basic assessment.

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:

sinfiery wrote:What's your section breakdown?

(How many you miss on LG/LR/RC?)

That's kind of the issue, it's an even miss distribution as opposed to a decided weakness.

LG: miss about 1-2 per section
LR: miss about 1-3 per section
RC: miss about 2-4 per section

Speed is my biggest issue. I did one PT last night without time constraints, took an extra ~40 minutes total, and pulled a 177.

I need to A) understand and be able to quickly identify the LG/LR types more quickly, B) maintain accuracy with increased speed, and C) get better with endurance and not get burned out by the 4hr marathon.

That's my basic assessment.

I'd start with a LG bible, and focus on getting that section down to -0 almost every time.

Time comes with practice.


Consistency is one of the hardest things to build for this test.
Good luck, you're in a great position. You have no major flaws, so there really isn't anything you have to do. It is much harder to advise someone going from 170-->175 than it is 150/160-->170.

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:Between years of policy debate in high school and college, having to basically be de facto GC for my non-profit, triple majoring in Philosophy, Political Science, and Pre-Law, reading complex philosophy since high school, and being a big puzzle/logic games fan to begin with, this is kind of my dream test.
I got cocky, read a few pages of the Kaplan book, had no knowledge of this site, and did a few PTs (maybe 4). That landed me an official 170.

Damn dude. You're going to be the one in our group that gets the 180. I did policy debate and I literally can't wrap my mind around triple majoring.
This Study Guide is badass. He put together a list of everything that every top scorer ever did right, and he has a lot of good advice on the little things that matter as you approach perfection.

A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A wrote:

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:Between years of policy debate in high school and college, having to basically be de facto GC for my non-profit, triple majoring in Philosophy, Political Science, and Pre-Law, reading complex philosophy since high school, and being a big puzzle/logic games fan to begin with, this is kind of my dream test.
I got cocky, read a few pages of the Kaplan book, had no knowledge of this site, and did a few PTs (maybe 4). That landed me an official 170.

Damn dude. You're going to be the one in our group that gets the 180. I did policy debate and I literally can't wrap my mind around triple majoring.
This Study Guide is badass. He put together a list of everything that every top scorer ever did right, and he has a lot of good advice on the little things that matter as you approach perfection.

I wish bro, I'm shooting for 175. We'll see.

You did policy? Very cool. I firmly believe it is the best prep for the LSAT anyone could get. All the research, the reading, thinking on your feet and having to hit at the bare root of every argument with limited time against folks speaking at blazing high speeds about subjects ranging from global Econ collapse sparking a Kashmir nuke war to Lacanian psychoanalysis - or all of the above if you hit a multiple conditional advocacy NEG running 7 Off. Did you ever compete at NDT or CEDA?

Re:TLS1776 - Now THAT is the guide I was looking for. Great stuff. Thanks so much for the link. Best of luck, I'm sure we'll all talk more before app time next Fall.

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:

JDeezy wrote:Was in a similar situation.

Take a ton of PTs and practice sections. I've seen people on these boards advise against it but for me at least if i didn't have enough time/energy for a PT I'd do one or two 34 minute sections.

Cambridge "Difficult LR Questions" also helped me.

Stay fresh on LG...those can come back and bite you if you don't stay fresh. Especially under test day pressure.

Depending on what kind of time investment you're willing to make, you could bust your ass studying and go into test day knowing you aren't going to get below a 174 or you could coast and let you potential take you to somewhere between 169-178. I'm not advocating either approach, just saying don't let the first 177 PT you get make you feel complacent.

Time constraint isn't an issue. I'm taking 3 classes instead of 5 next semester and cutting work hours from 30 to 15 and taking the financial hit - all for LSAT prep. I want to step into that test room knowing that sub-173 is barely a possibility.

What books do you recommend other than Cambridge? Manhattan, the PS Bibles (LG/LR)?

Thanks for the advice.

Personally, I did the Powerscore LG Bible intensely cover to cover. Bought the Powerscore LR book and did about half of it. For me trying to figure out what type of question I was looking at was a distraction. If you are naturally getting -2 or -3 without thinking about what type of question you are looking at I would advise against trying to incorporate that into your approach. Total personal choice though.

I read Manhattan RC book. I can see how their approach can be effective, and I probably got something out of the book even if I didn't use their "methods" per se.

This probably seems like an unhelpful post because I didn't necessarily follow to orthodox approach. My big piece of advice is to take a ton of PTs (like 20-30.) It sucks, but you will be so locked in and it will be very difficult to trip you up.

Cheesey metaphor...Look at yourself like a rookie Quarterback drafted in the first round. You probably don't need to focus on increasing your individual skills ("necessary assumption vs must be true, etc.") You just need some game experience.

Haha I did policy debate too! I absolutely believe it made me smarter than anything I've ever done since. Sadly, I'm PT-ing in the high 160s (highest PT was 169), and want to be in the 170s. So I'm jealous. Stupid LG. Sigh. But I'm taking it this weekend anyway. So we shall see.

Pretend like you're a cat.

tuna_finger wrote:Pretend like you're a cat.

How many points can this get me?

A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A wrote:

tuna_finger wrote:Pretend like you're a cat.

How many points can this get me?

Auto 180.