Top Law Schools

.

I had a similar plan for study. I focused on LG all last month and have shown plenty of improvement. This month, I'll focus on LR, then I'll start drilling and PTing like crazy. The only difference is that of the ~10 PTs I've taken, I've never missed more than 1 in the RC section. I don't know if you'll have enough time to improve in LR AND RC, but I think it could be possible. If not, you could always take the December test.

How many hours a day are you studying?

akechi wrote:Completely demoralized.
Just took Super Prep A:
LR Sec 1: -11 (14/25)
RC Sec 2: -12 (15/27)
LG Sec 3: -2 (21/24)
LR Sec 4: -6 (19/25)

Raw: 70
Scaled: 156....

Been prepping for approximately 38 days, using pithy's guide, but focused solely on LG for the first month. I just finished drilling the Grouping - Distribution packet (now I only have to master the hybrid games). I obviously see the results of my LG studies, but I was really intent on sitting for the October exam. This score is absolutely horrendous and is really making me feel like pushing the exam date back to December. What is really shocking is my RC result. I really thought that critical reading was a strong point of mine, given that this is the exact type of reading a major in Philosophy has trained me for.

Any of you follow a similar approach (i.e. LG first month -> LR / RC second month -> Full length PTs) and get your desired results?

Should I ditch this method of purely focusing on one section at a time and start integrating all three sections into my study plan? I opted to go this route because I was under the impression that one should first build a solid base of LSAT conditional logic by mastering LGs, then moving onto LR with the knowledge acquired from extensively studying LG.

I studied all three at once through a Powerscore course and found that was a good way to build a strong foundation. The class spent roughly 1/2 time covering LR, and the other half split around 65/35 LG vs RC if I remember correctly. When I focus on one area too long, I tend to drop off in other areas during my next PTs.

I am spending anywhere between 3-5 hours a day or 20-30 hours a week to study. What really fucked me up one the LR and RC sections was the time-constraint. I felt that my judgment was being compromised as the test went on, and that I was starting to choose answers more hastily because of the anxiety that I would not finish on time.

Well this was a cold hard reality check. Looks like ill have to quit my part time and devote the next couple months to intense LSAT studies.

Brettanomyces wrote:I had a similar plan for study. I focused on LG all last month and have shown plenty of improvement. This month, I'll focus on LR, then I'll start drilling and PTing like crazy. The only difference is that of the ~10 PTs I've taken, I've never missed more than 1 in the RC section. I don't know if you'll have enough time to improve in LR AND RC, but I think it could be possible. If not, you could always take the December test.

How many hours a day are you studying?

Would you mind sharing your 10 PT avg? Also, have you seen similar progress with your LG section now that you have completed your 1 month study regiment?

I went 4 months without a point increase on PTs. Four months. I have increased now 10-12 points but am still unsatisfied. You put in the time and time and eventually it comes more natural.

akechi wrote:

Brettanomyces wrote:I had a similar plan for study. I focused on LG all last month and have shown plenty of improvement. This month, I'll focus on LR, then I'll start drilling and PTing like crazy. The only difference is that of the ~10 PTs I've taken, I've never missed more than 1 in the RC section. I don't know if you'll have enough time to improve in LR AND RC, but I think it could be possible. If not, you could always take the December test.

How many hours a day are you studying?

Would you mind sharing your 10 PT avg? Also, have you seen similar progress with your LG section now that you have completed your 1 month study regiment?

My diagnostic was something like -1 RC, -14LR combined, and -12LG, for a 159.

Now I'm hitting -0 or -1RC, -2 or 3 LG and -10 LR combined, despite having not yet really studied for it. So, yeah, big improvement in LG. Not sure what the average is for all ten, but I've been scoring anywhere from 165-171. I'm beginning to think, though, that my method of study is probably not best for everyone, including yourself, since I was really strong in one section (RC), and really weak in another (LG). This meant I could spend one month working on my weak section and another month working on LR, while basically ignoring RC (although I did read the Manhattan RC guide one day at Barnes and Noble.) Now that LG is your strength, you can focus on LR and RC, but you'll have to study a lot more than 20hrs/week in order to hit a 170 average.

If you feel critical reading should be your strength and the reason you miss so many questions is the time constraint, then it seems like what you may need to do is improve your reading speed. I'd recommend reading several RC passages, as well as The Economist and a few scientific journals. If you fully understand what you're reading, push yourself to read a bit faster the next time you read a passage, and your reading speed should really pick up.

crestor wrote:I went 4 months without a point increase on PTs. Four months. I have increased now 10-12 points but am still unsatisfied. You put in the time and time and eventually it comes more natural.

This

Also, SuperPrep A is, IMO, a little harder than most. You might notice a 2-4 point increase on another exam.

spleenworship wrote:Also, SuperPrep A is, IMO, a little harder than most. You might notice a 2-4 point increase on another exam.

i agree with this. my superprep a score was quite awful compared to my other pt scores.

I'm curious to know what your diagnostic was. If it was 150 for example, then I see this is a very good improvement.

Also, I believe the LSAT trainer was the book that talked about how the RC section has its difference from the conventional meaning of 'critical reading'. In some ways, i'd imagine that the philosophy majors would benefit. Lots of reading would probably make you a strong reader.

But i'd also imagine that the many things required for philosophy majors to do well in their course while reading, is absolutely not required (and is downright a waste of time in some circumstances) for the LSAT.

If you look into it, i think it might really help you!

Don't get demotivated. Stay humble and accept the results as they come. Keep at it!

.

akechi wrote:Completely demoralized.
Just took Super Prep A:
LR Sec 1: -11 (14/25)
RC Sec 2: -12 (15/27)
LG Sec 3: -2 (21/24)
LR Sec 4: -6 (19/25)

Raw: 70
Scaled: 156....

Been prepping for approximately 38 days, using pithy's guide, but focused solely on LG for the first month. I just finished drilling the Grouping - Distribution packet (now I only have to master the hybrid games). I obviously see the results of my LG studies, but I was really intent on sitting for the October exam. This score is absolutely horrendous and is really making me feel like pushing the exam date back to December. What is really shocking is my RC result. I really thought that critical reading was a strong point of mine, given that this is the exact type of reading a major in Philosophy has trained me for.

Any of you follow a similar approach (i.e. LG first month -> LR / RC second month -> Full length PTs) and get your desired results?

Should I ditch this method of purely focusing on one section at a time and start integrating all three sections into my study plan? I opted to go this route because I was under the impression that one should first build a solid base of LSAT conditional logic by mastering LGs, then moving onto LR with the knowledge acquired from extensively studying LG.

I can't Speak for anyone else But I found SuperPrep a to be insanely hard. My prep test average was well above 170 yet I scored 164 on this prep test. Don't read too much into it.

.

I'll just add to the idea that Pure Protein was talking about. If its your first test than theres not much to worry about.
If its not, then it could be just a fluke. Superpreptest A, A-C for that matter, were exceptionally hard for me!! I mean it was demotivating to take them. I am currently even going over Preptest A bc thats the worse score I've gotten (it was awhile ago but I figured it would be beneficial to try redo the things I got wrong). My scores for those tests were 155-158. I have been scoring 165-170 now..probably around 165 at the time I took those tests. Needless to say I panicked. Big time.

Trajectory wrote:I'll just add to the idea that Pure Protein was talking about. If its your first test than theres not much to worry about.
If its not, then it could be just a fluke. Superpreptest A, A-C for that matter, were exceptionally hard for me!! I mean it was demotivating to take them. I am currently even going over Preptest A bc thats the worse score I've gotten (it was awhile ago but I figured it would be beneficial to try redo the things I got wrong). My scores for those tests were 155-158. I have been scoring 165-170 now..probably around 165 at the time I took those tests. Needless to say I panicked. Big time.

Whichever one of them had the wool/silk, oval/rectangular rug logic games can go to hell. That test is an invalid indicator of your likely LSAT performance. I'd say the same about all the super preps tbh.

willwash wrote:

Trajectory wrote:I'll just add to the idea that Pure Protein was talking about. If its your first test than theres not much to worry about.
If its not, then it could be just a fluke. Superpreptest A, A-C for that matter, were exceptionally hard for me!! I mean it was demotivating to take them. I am currently even going over Preptest A bc thats the worse score I've gotten (it was awhile ago but I figured it would be beneficial to try redo the things I got wrong). My scores for those tests were 155-158. I have been scoring 165-170 now..probably around 165 at the time I took those tests. Needless to say I panicked. Big time.

Whichever one of them had the wool/silk, oval/rectangular rug logic games can go to hell. That test is an invalid indicator of your likely LSAT performance. I'd say the same about all the super preps tbh.

Yeah, don't put too much weight into PT scores from the SuperPrep tests if they are substantially different from scores on other practice tests taken shortly before or after. Unlike most other PTs, many people report that their performance on the SuperPrep ones is significantly lower than scores on other PTs taken around the same time period. One of the big reasons lots of people do poorly on these compared to others is the LG sections, they are lopsided in difficulty compared to how most test forms are balanced and some of the LR sections are also a bit more difficult overall than typical LR sections.

The tests are still great for practice and especially helpful for deep analysis and review since with the book you get full detailed explanations written by the test writers, which are invaluable for helping to learn the inner workings of test questions and to get a good handle on what the test writers are thinking and looking for. They just aren't great for use as a diagnostic practice test to determine your current scoring range on modern test forms.
I feel bad for the people that got those tests on game day, got brutalized and never got to know why since the tests were non-disclosed when officially administered.

Jeffort wrote:

willwash wrote:

Trajectory wrote:I'll just add to the idea that Pure Protein was talking about. If its your first test than theres not much to worry about.
If its not, then it could be just a fluke. Superpreptest A, A-C for that matter, were exceptionally hard for me!! I mean it was demotivating to take them. I am currently even going over Preptest A bc thats the worse score I've gotten (it was awhile ago but I figured it would be beneficial to try redo the things I got wrong). My scores for those tests were 155-158. I have been scoring 165-170 now..probably around 165 at the time I took those tests. Needless to say I panicked. Big time.

Whichever one of them had the wool/silk, oval/rectangular rug logic games can go to hell. That test is an invalid indicator of your likely LSAT performance. I'd say the same about all the super preps tbh.

Yeah, don't put too much weight into PT scores from the SuperPrep tests if they are substantially different from scores on other practice tests taken shortly before or after. Unlike most other PTs, many people report that their performance on the SuperPrep ones is significantly lower than scores on other PTs taken around the same time period. One of the big reasons lots of people do poorly on these compared to others is the LG sections, they are lopsided in difficulty compared to how most test forms are balanced and some of the LR sections are also a bit more difficult overall than typical LR sections.

The tests are still great for practice and especially helpful for deep analysis and review since with the book you get full detailed explanations written by the test writers, which are invaluable for helping to learn the inner workings of test questions and to get a good handle on what the test writers are thinking and looking for. They just aren't great for use as a diagnostic practice test to determine your current scoring range on modern test forms.
I feel bad for the people that got those tests on game day, got brutalized and never got to know why since the tests were non-disclosed when officially administered.

So, do you think that the SuperPrep games are just, like, psychometric failures on the part of the LSAC? That's probably too harsh haha. I guess what I'm getting at is, why do you think the difficulty of the games didn't result in more generous raw-to-scaled conversions?

cop dis

http://www.amazon.com/The-LSAT-Trainer- ... 0989081508

neprep wrote:

Jeffort wrote:

willwash wrote:

Trajectory wrote:I'll just add to the idea that Pure Protein was talking about. If its your first test than theres not much to worry about.
If its not, then it could be just a fluke. Superpreptest A, A-C for that matter, were exceptionally hard for me!! I mean it was demotivating to take them. I am currently even going over Preptest A bc thats the worse score I've gotten (it was awhile ago but I figured it would be beneficial to try redo the things I got wrong). My scores for those tests were 155-158. I have been scoring 165-170 now..probably around 165 at the time I took those tests. Needless to say I panicked. Big time.

Whichever one of them had the wool/silk, oval/rectangular rug logic games can go to hell. That test is an invalid indicator of your likely LSAT performance. I'd say the same about all the super preps tbh.

Yeah, don't put too much weight into PT scores from the SuperPrep tests if they are substantially different from scores on other practice tests taken shortly before or after. Unlike most other PTs, many people report that their performance on the SuperPrep ones is significantly lower than scores on other PTs taken around the same time period. One of the big reasons lots of people do poorly on these compared to others is the LG sections, they are lopsided in difficulty compared to how most test forms are balanced and some of the LR sections are also a bit more difficult overall than typical LR sections.

The tests are still great for practice and especially helpful for deep analysis and review since with the book you get full detailed explanations written by the test writers, which are invaluable for helping to learn the inner workings of test questions and to get a good handle on what the test writers are thinking and looking for. They just aren't great for use as a diagnostic practice test to determine your current scoring range on modern test forms.
I feel bad for the people that got those tests on game day, got brutalized and never got to know why since the tests were non-disclosed when officially administered.

So, do you think that the SuperPrep games are just, like, psychometric failures on the part of the LSAC? That's probably too harsh haha. I guess what I'm getting at is, why do you think the difficulty of the games didn't result in more generous raw-to-scaled conversions?

That's a good question I've thought a lot about many times before.

I think part of the reason those tests ended up being balanced a bit differently than modern tests and also more lopsided than usual compared to other tests even from the same periods of time around when they were administered was the way tests were constructed and assembled back then.

It wasn't until the year 2002 that LSAC implemented a very sophisticated computerized test construction, development and assembly program to develop and assemble new test questions and full test forms. It's not that they didn't use computers and software before, but not to nearly the extent that they do now to really really standardize each test form as accurately and precisely as possible. All test forms from 2002 until now have been assembled using LSACs super advanced test assembler program whereas tests from before 2002 were largely assembled by hand using much more human decision making instead of letting a computer work out all the psychometrics according to set parameters using detailed item pre-test performance data and complex psychometric analysis of data gained from experimental sections and scored sections.

Prior to implementing the LSAT assembler program some of the decision making about which particular games got put together into a section and which game section got matched with which other separately assembled LR and RC sections in order to balance out the sections and test overall was done by humans using the pre-test data along with their own subjective perception and interpretation of the data and test content. Now all those decisions are made by the computer program based on complex parameters, measurements, data sets, specific limits and requirements, lots o mind boggling calculations and stuff beyond human brain computing powers. Now the subjective human part is out of the equation unlike before and each test form is born from the exact same rigid mathematical parameters without unusual fluctuations between test forms like seen in many older tests when human decisions had more influence. Part of the job of the test assembler is to prevent having test forms with unusual variations compared to others like happened with some tests in the 90s up to 2001.

Here is a link to an article about the LSAT assembler program. I'm sure it has been tweaked and improved since this article was published but of course it's still in use to make new tests.
http://www.math.washington.edu/~billey/ ... Week.3.pdf

IMO use of the assembler program has produced much more consistent and uniform test forms overall with conversion scales more precisely equated to difficulty variances from one test form to another.

Jeffort wrote:
That's a good question I've thought a lot about many times before.

I think part of the reason those tests ended up being balanced a bit differently than modern tests and also more lopsided than usual compared to other tests even from the same periods of time around when they were administered was the way tests were constructed and assembled back then.

It wasn't until the year 2002 that LSAC implemented a very sophisticated computerized test construction, development and assembly program to develop and assemble new test questions and full test forms. It's not that they didn't use computers and software before, but not to nearly the extent that they do now to really really standardize each test form as accurately and precisely as possible. All test forms from 2002 until now have been assembled using LSACs super advanced test assembler program whereas tests from before 2002 were largely assembled by hand using much more human decision making instead of letting a computer work out all the psychometrics according to set parameters using detailed item pre-test performance data and complex psychometric analysis of data gained from experimental sections and scored sections.

Prior to implementing the LSAT assembler program some of the decision making about which particular games got put together into a section and which game section got matched with which other separately assembled LR and RC sections in order to balance out the sections and test overall was done by humans using the pre-test data along with their own subjective perception and interpretation of the data and test content. Now all those decisions are made by the computer program based on complex parameters, measurements, data sets, specific limits and requirements, lots o mind boggling calculations and stuff beyond human brain computing powers. Now the subjective human part is out of the equation unlike before and each test form is born from the exact same rigid mathematical parameters without unusual fluctuations between test forms like seen in many older tests when human decisions had more influence. Part of the job of the test assembler is to prevent having test forms with unusual variations compared to others like happened with some tests in the 90s up to 2001.

Here is a link to an article about the LSAT assembler program. I'm sure it has been tweaked and improved since this article was published but of course it's still in use to make new tests.
http://www.math.washington.edu/~billey/ ... Week.3.pdf

IMO use of the assembler program has produced much more consistent and uniform test forms overall with conversion scales more precisely equated to difficulty variances from one test form to another.

Wow, that linked PDF looks like quite a gem! Assembling the LSAT (right from writing the items to putting the forms together) seems much harder than the content of the test itself. I wonder if anyone as a child says "I want to help assemble LSAT / ETS test forms when I grow up."

akechi wrote:My cold diagnostic was a 152, took it at a campus based event (hosted by Kaplan).
I am beginning to see this in a positive light, so as to not let it hinder my dedication and progress. I realized that I did fairly well in the LG section and bombed the LR and RC sections mainly due to lack of familiarity with the questions and a case of test anxiety/nerves. I found myself rushing through every single question. This was caused by the fact that I would be reading and re-reading some questions and still not comprehend them. For the first time, I felt severe debilitating test anxiety, the only thing I could think of was "holy shit, if this was the real thing I would be absolutely fucked".

I am not making excuses and will continue to work hard and be honest when assessing my own progress. Hopefully, the next PT I take, after studying LR and RC, will be in the 160s.

Thank you for all your responses.

I've just been taking the SuperPrep tests and just finished B. On A I got a 174 and on B I got a 167 with -12 on LG. I think if you have a fluke test or a fluke section that bombs your test than you can chalk it up to whatever and just keep it in the back of your mind that you need to watch for certain things in the future (which is what I'm doing for B).

That being said, IMO, it depends on what section you bombed. LG correlates the worst to modern tests because the games sections are way easier in new tests and less varied, so if you bomb those sections then, while still demoralizing, it's not the worst. RC is harder in new tests, so if those were consistently bad throughout A-C I'd be working on that heavy because it's not going to get any easier. LR is looser in the older tests so if you look for things out of muscle memory connected to whatever prep method you use (PS, MLSAT etc.) it might be more difficult, but LR is still conceptually the same and if you have a good grasp of it there shouldn't be that huge of a drop off.