Things I learned about myself by studying for the LSAT Forum

[patfeeney]

I thought it would be interesting to start a thread concerning things we've learned about ourselves, to help ourselves, by studying for the test. I'm sure we've all discovered or learned something, directly or indirectly, that we wouldn't have learned otherwise (or at least would be hard-pressed to realize) and that we've started to apply in real life.

For example, I've realized from my LSAT studies that I'm a HORRIBLE annotator. Absolutely vile. That's the only way I can describe it. I don't intend to be bad at it, but I go into reading a document without any particular direction, other than to get all the information I possibly can. After reading, say, a book for a politics course about Colombian coca farmers and reform movements, I'll have underlined every quoted person, every important quote, every date, every event, every opinion, the author's opinion, every interesting tidbit, and I'll have a paragraph or two written down in the margins. When I try to go back to my annotations, it's about as effective as reading an untainted page, with the added hurdle of messy pen markings all over the page.

I knew this was bad beforehand, but it took RC prep to realize HOW BADLY it was bogging me down with understanding a passage. I've gotten to the point where I'll underline anywhere from 5-7 pieces of info in an RC passage, but nothing else. I'll also mark competing viewpoints (A or B). Other than that, I keep my pencil down. I've noticed that my comprehension increased exponentially, not just with RC passages, but with my day-to-day reading as well. I can read the Economist, trying to focus on the bare minimum of structure, and I've gone from understand the first paragraph to being able to breeze through pages at a time. I'm almost anxious to get back to school so I can actually apply this new annotation method.

Anyone else have any similar experiences?

[RobertGolddust]

But anyways, I learned from the LG section that my thinking is somewhat careless and undisciplined. I sort of had to dumb down my normal stream of thought and conform to a more systematic and analytic style of thinking, no offense to those of you who think this makes you smart.

[10052014]

.

[Otunga]

Well, in RC prep, it's certainly been affirmed that I'm a slow fucking reader. Timing issues on RC are constant.

[Motivator9]

I thought it would be interesting to start a thread concerning things we've learned about ourselves, to help ourselves, by studying for the test. I'm sure we've all discovered or learned something, directly or indirectly, that we wouldn't have learned otherwise (or at least would be hard-pressed to realize) and that we've started to apply in real life.

For example, I've realized from my LSAT studies that I'm a HORRIBLE annotator. Absolutely vile. That's the only way I can describe it. I don't intend to be bad at it, but I go into reading a document without any particular direction, other than to get all the information I possibly can. After reading, say, a book for a politics course about Colombian coca farmers and reform movements, I'll have underlined every quoted person, every important quote, every date, every event, every opinion, the author's opinion, every interesting tidbit, and I'll have a paragraph or two written down in the margins. When I try to go back to my annotations, it's about as effective as reading an untainted page, with the added hurdle of messy pen markings all over the page.

I knew this was bad beforehand, but it took RC prep to realize HOW BADLY it was bogging me down with understanding a passage. I've gotten to the point where I'll underline anywhere from 5-7 pieces of info in an RC passage, but nothing else. I'll also mark competing viewpoints (A or B). Other than that, I keep my pencil down. I've noticed that my comprehension increased exponentially, not just with RC passages, but with my day-to-day reading as well. I can read the Economist, trying to focus on the bare minimum of structure, and I've gone from understand the first paragraph to being able to breeze through pages at a time. I'm almost anxious to get back to school so I can actually apply this new annotation method.

Anyone else have any similar experiences?

I used todo the same thing with me RC passages. It looked as if the passage had more things underlined than not. Now, I only underline one or two things, but I'll also circle some stuff too.

[akg144]

I used to do all that stuff too -- now I just speed read the passage in 60 seconds and hit the questions. It's not much better in terms of accuracy as my previous strategy still get about -5.85 or 80.1% of RC questions correct but I always have about 5 mins at the end to go back to the tough questions try it out and see if it works for you.

[Motivator9]

I used to do all that stuff too -- now I just speed read the passage in 60 seconds and hit the questions. It's not much better in terms of accuracy as my previous strategy still get about -6 or roughly 80.1% of RC questions correct but I always have about 5 mins at the end to go back to the tough questions try it out and see if it works for you.

60 seconds, wow that's impressive.

[Otunga]

I thought it would be interesting to start a thread concerning things we've learned about ourselves, to help ourselves, by studying for the test. I'm sure we've all discovered or learned something, directly or indirectly, that we wouldn't have learned otherwise (or at least would be hard-pressed to realize) and that we've started to apply in real life.

For example, I've realized from my LSAT studies that I'm a HORRIBLE annotator. Absolutely vile. That's the only way I can describe it. I don't intend to be bad at it, but I go into reading a document without any particular direction, other than to get all the information I possibly can. After reading, say, a book for a politics course about Colombian coca farmers and reform movements, I'll have underlined every quoted person, every important quote, every date, every event, every opinion, the author's opinion, every interesting tidbit, and I'll have a paragraph or two written down in the margins. When I try to go back to my annotations, it's about as effective as reading an untainted page, with the added hurdle of messy pen markings all over the page.

I knew this was bad beforehand, but it took RC prep to realize HOW BADLY it was bogging me down with understanding a passage. I've gotten to the point where I'll underline anywhere from 5-7 pieces of info in an RC passage, but nothing else. I'll also mark competing viewpoints (A or B). Other than that, I keep my pencil down. I've noticed that my comprehension increased exponentially, not just with RC passages, but with my day-to-day reading as well. I can read the Economist, trying to focus on the bare minimum of structure, and I've gone from understand the first paragraph to being able to breeze through pages at a time. I'm almost anxious to get back to school so I can actually apply this new annotation method.

Anyone else have any similar experiences?

I used todo the same thing with me RC passages. It looked as if the passage had more things underlined than not. Now, I only underline one or two things, but I'll also circle some stuff too.

I find myself underlining a lot less in writing the main point/purpose of each paragraph in the margins. I mainly just seem to box terms and underline key evidence/conclusions of arguments.

[akg144]

I used to do all that stuff too -- now I just speed read the passage in 60 seconds and hit the questions. It's not much better in terms of accuracy as my previous strategy still get about -6 or roughly 80.1% of RC questions correct but I always have about 5 mins at the end to go back to the tough questions try it out and see if it works for you.

60 seconds, wow that's impressive.

That's a rough estimate for passages that are longer or particularly nebulous 90 seconds is not uncommon. The point is it's a foil going over and against the strategy that says mark everything and take 4 minutes to make your roadmap leaving 3mins45seconds for the 7-8 questions.

[Otunga]

I used to do all that stuff too -- now I just speed read the passage in 60 seconds and hit the questions. It's not much better in terms of accuracy as my previous strategy still get about -6 or roughly 80.1% of RC questions correct but I always have about 5 mins at the end to go back to the tough questions try it out and see if it works for you.

60 seconds, wow that's impressive.

That's a rough estimate for passages that are longer or particularly nebulous 90 seconds is not uncommon. The point is it's a foil going over and against the strategy that says mark everything and take 4 minutes to make your roadmap leaving 3mins45seconds for the 7-8 questions.

This MAY be partly responsible for my score-drop in modern RC relative to older RC. Tougher inferences are demanded and more inference questions are asked. So to complete the questions so quickly is a demanding task.

[CyanIdes Of March]

But anyways, I learned from the LG section that my thinking is somewhat careless and undisciplined. I sort of had to dumb down my normal stream of thought and conform to a more systematic and analytic style of thinking, no offense to those of you who think this makes you smart.

Nominated for most pretentious thing said in LSAT Prep forum?

Oh you know... my thoughts are usually so deep and creative, I really had to bring myself to the LSAT's level to work with something so simplistic in its expression. Bleh.

[westjr]

But anyways, I learned from the LG section that my thinking is somewhat careless and undisciplined. I sort of had to dumb down my normal stream of thought and conform to a more systematic and analytic style of thinking, no offense to those of you who think this makes you smart.

Dude, you're too good for law skewl. Give this guy a call: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking).

[crestor]

I learned that I never studied for more than a consistent two hours in a row max for a whole day in undergrad. Fuck

[crestor]

But anyways, I learned from the LG section that my thinking is somewhat careless and undisciplined. I sort of had to dumb down my normal stream of thought and conform to a more systematic and analytic style of thinking, no offense to those of you who think this makes you smart.

Dude, you're too good for law skewl. Give this guy a call: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking).

[RobertGolddust]

Listen, I wasn't suggesting that I'm too good for law school, only that I'm too cool for the LSAT. LSAC should just give me a 170 and the rest of you simpletons your 150s and 60s.

[westjr]

.

[KingofSplitters55]

I've learned I'm really good at learning.

[CardozoLaw09]

I've learned that I will probably enjoy law school if the type of thinking involved in law school is similar to the style of thinking required on the LSAT. Like many of us, I enjoyed prepping for the LSAT.

[KingofSplitters55]

I've learned that I will probably enjoy law school if the type of thinking involved in law school is similar to the style of thinking required on the LSAT. Like many of us, I enjoyed prepping for the LSAT.

I've greatly enjoyed my LSAT prep as well. I'd say if someone were not to enjoy the kind of thinking involved in the LSAT that they should seriously reconsider their legal aspirations, as law school is more of the same kind of thing and then legal practice is basically it on an even greater level.

[RobertGolddust]

Your not a lawyer pal ^

And I don't think whether or not shrieks and jays can be in the forest together, (which of course they cannot), is pertinent to the legal proffesional.

[isuperserial]

I learned that successfully bullshitting my way to 4.0s in every and all classes related to my English major without actually doing much reading at all was completely non-conducive to doing well on RC. I also learned that I like dominating rather than struggling, to the point that I needlessly study LG and neglect RC. Basically I need to study RC.