Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=202234
Please don't tell me you took the diagnostic online.Bobnoxious wrote:153...I probably need to do a lot of studying and take a course before the June LSAT.
This sucks!
WutBobnoxious wrote:I won't tell you I took it online, but I didn't take it off-line.
Bobnoxious wrote:I won't tell you I took it online, but I didn't take it off-line.
This.nmop_apisdn wrote:Please don't tell me you took the diagnostic online.Bobnoxious wrote:153...I probably need to do a lot of studying and take a course before the June LSAT.
This sucks!
I don't think the effect is pronounced. But they're fake questions that are probably harder, is the anecdotal consensus. And they can't be held to a very high standard of accuracy; since they're fake questions, they don't go through the validation process as the real LSATs do.Bobnoxious wrote:That seems unethical. Probably profitable until word spreads far enough, but still unethical.
I wondered if that might be a strategy for all of these test prep companies.
I'm fairly certain the Kaplan diagnostic is just PT 56. But I've been wrong before.manofjustice wrote:I don't think the effect is pronounced. But they're fake questions that are probably harder, is the anecdotal consensus. And they can't be held to a very high standard of accuracy; since they're fake questions, they don't go through the validation process as the real LSATs do.Bobnoxious wrote:That seems unethical. Probably profitable until word spreads far enough, but still unethical.
I wondered if that might be a strategy for all of these test prep companies.
Yeah, it's a real test (I took it). I just know that taking it online does close to nothing for you in terms of establishing a basis.Instinctive wrote:I'm fairly certain the Kaplan diagnostic is just PT 56. But I've been wrong before.manofjustice wrote:I don't think the effect is pronounced. But they're fake questions that are probably harder, is the anecdotal consensus. And they can't be held to a very high standard of accuracy; since they're fake questions, they don't go through the validation process as the real LSATs do.Bobnoxious wrote:That seems unethical. Probably profitable until word spreads far enough, but still unethical.
I wondered if that might be a strategy for all of these test prep companies.
This!!! Don't do Kaplan. It's a waste of money.efin12 wrote:DON'T take a Kaplan course. Save yourself the money and time. Self study works.
nmop_apisdn wrote:This!!! Don't do Kaplan. It's a waste of money.efin12 wrote:DON'T take a Kaplan course. Save yourself the money and time. Self study works.
Honestly, you're probably better off spending your money on a private tutor. Courses can only help you so much, and PS doesn't have the 170+ focus that Manhattan has. I self studied with PS and got a 167 in June. I self studied again for December, but this time with Manhattan and a private tutor and improved to a 173. If you insist on a course for the structure, you should at least supplement it with the Manhattan bundle. Those books focus on the core of the argument and explain subtle nuances of each of the different types of questions that I wasn't seeing the first time I took it.Bobnoxious wrote:I just ordered the LG and LR Bibles and workbooks for self study. I'll be taking the full PowerScore course this April.
It was PT 56.Instinctive wrote:I'm fairly certain the Kaplan diagnostic is just PT 56. But I've been wrong before.manofjustice wrote:I don't think the effect is pronounced. But they're fake questions that are probably harder, is the anecdotal consensus. And they can't be held to a very high standard of accuracy; since they're fake questions, they don't go through the validation process as the real LSATs do.Bobnoxious wrote:That seems unethical. Probably profitable until word spreads far enough, but still unethical.
I wondered if that might be a strategy for all of these test prep companies.
Great news that you did badly on LG, since it is completely learnable. Do the work and you'll be disappointed if you don't hit -0 on game day.Bobnoxious wrote:Logic Games killed me: -14
I wasn't real happy with LR either: -5 / -10
RC was just as bad as LR: -8
Once the materials come in I'll be starting on Logic Games until I get comfortable (-4 to -7) then switch to LR until I get some improvement, then just keep swapping them up after studying long enough to get a little more comfortable with each section. RC...not sure what to do there other than just practice, practice, practice.
2 reasonsalbanach wrote:Great news that you did badly on LG, since it is completely learnable. Do the work and you'll be disappointed if you don't hit -0 on game day.Bobnoxious wrote:Logic Games killed me: -14
I wasn't real happy with LR either: -5 / -10
RC was just as bad as LR: -8
Once the materials come in I'll be starting on Logic Games until I get comfortable (-4 to -7) then switch to LR until I get some improvement, then just keep swapping them up after studying long enough to get a little more comfortable with each section. RC...not sure what to do there other than just practice, practice, practice.
-5 on one of your LR diagnostics is also pretty good.
I can't see why you'd sign up for a course. I'd think with work you can quickly move that sort of diagnostic up into the high 160s and from there into the 170s.