Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=215229
Mind blownDesert Fox wrote:I hadn't even taken a single PT yet, or even cracked open the powerscore bibles.
Most people who score this high don't grind away point by point for weeks and weeks and build up. They just naturally do well.
Even though the test can be learned and gamed, it's not designed to be that way.
I hope your joking.Desert Fox wrote:I hadn't even taken a single PT yet, or even cracked open the powerscore bibles.
Most people who score this high don't grind away point by point for weeks and weeks and build up. They just naturally do well.
Even though the test can be learned and gamed, it's not designed to be that way.
No I'm not. The LSAT isn't supposed to be learned. You can use little tricks to backwards engineering the logic you are supposed to be using.jlb251 wrote:I hope your joking.Desert Fox wrote:I hadn't even taken a single PT yet, or even cracked open the powerscore bibles.
Most people who score this high don't grind away point by point for weeks and weeks and build up. They just naturally do well.
Even though the test can be learned and gamed, it's not designed to be that way.
But to respond to OP, I believe with a lot of focus you can get there. If you have 20+ recent PTs still available, take each one, then review it VERY carefully.
Six weeks before the test, I was probably averaging 168. Four weeks till, I had inched up to low 170s. Within a couple more weeks (when I started to get really consistent with each section) I started hitting as high as 178. Make it a full time job and you can do it.
"The LSAT isn't supposed to be learned." Ok? This has nothing to do with if it can be learned. Everyone is different. I started off at 165 and inched up very slowly to my 176. I wouldn't have been able to do that using your study plan. Neither would many other people. But many people could if they commit to learn; whether or not it's supposed to be learned is irrelevant.Desert Fox wrote:No I'm not. The LSAT isn't supposed to be learned. You can use little tricks to backwards engineering the logic you are supposed to be using.jlb251 wrote:I hope your joking.Desert Fox wrote:I hadn't even taken a single PT yet, or even cracked open the powerscore bibles.
Most people who score this high don't grind away point by point for weeks and weeks and build up. They just naturally do well.
Even though the test can be learned and gamed, it's not designed to be that way.
But to respond to OP, I believe with a lot of focus you can get there. If you have 20+ recent PTs still available, take each one, then review it VERY carefully.
Six weeks before the test, I was probably averaging 168. Four weeks till, I had inched up to low 170s. Within a couple more weeks (when I started to get really consistent with each section) I started hitting as high as 178. Make it a full time job and you can do it.
I did about 3 weeks of prep, and after the first I was scoring 173+. The rest was learning not to fall for silly tricks. And a little bit of increase in RC because I was rusty.
I didn't claim everyone could do it my way. But most people getting 176's aren't spending months inching their way up.jlb251 wrote:"The LSAT isn't supposed to be learned." Ok? This has nothing to do with if it can be learned. Everyone is different. I started off at 165 and inched up very slowly to my 176. I wouldn't have been able to do that using your study plan. Neither would many other people. But many people could if they commit to learn; whether or not it's supposed to be learned is irrelevant.Desert Fox wrote:No I'm not. The LSAT isn't supposed to be learned. You can use little tricks to backwards engineering the logic you are supposed to be using.jlb251 wrote: I hope your joking.
But to respond to OP, I believe with a lot of focus you can get there. If you have 20+ recent PTs still available, take each one, then review it VERY carefully.
Six weeks before the test, I was probably averaging 168. Four weeks till, I had inched up to low 170s. Within a couple more weeks (when I started to get really consistent with each section) I started hitting as high as 178. Make it a full time job and you can do it.
I did about 3 weeks of prep, and after the first I was scoring 173+. The rest was learning not to fall for silly tricks. And a little bit of increase in RC because I was rusty.
qf dat stem dominanceDesert Fox wrote:I hadn't even taken a single PT yet, or even cracked open the powerscore bibles.
Most people who score this high don't grind away point by point for weeks and weeks and build up. They just naturally do well.
Even though the test can be learned and gamed, it's not designed to be that way.
Ehh for me studying was about gaining consistency. When I started, I could score that high on about 1 out of every 3 practice tests I took. But by the end it was 3 out of 4 or so.Desert Fox wrote:I didn't claim everyone could do it my way. But most people getting 176's aren't spending months inching their way up.jlb251 wrote:"The LSAT isn't supposed to be learned." Ok? This has nothing to do with if it can be learned. Everyone is different. I started off at 165 and inched up very slowly to my 176. I wouldn't have been able to do that using your study plan. Neither would many other people. But many people could if they commit to learn; whether or not it's supposed to be learned is irrelevant.Desert Fox wrote:No I'm not. The LSAT isn't supposed to be learned. You can use little tricks to backwards engineering the logic you are supposed to be using.jlb251 wrote: I hope your joking.
But to respond to OP, I believe with a lot of focus you can get there. If you have 20+ recent PTs still available, take each one, then review it VERY carefully.
Six weeks before the test, I was probably averaging 168. Four weeks till, I had inched up to low 170s. Within a couple more weeks (when I started to get really consistent with each section) I started hitting as high as 178. Make it a full time job and you can do it.
I did about 3 weeks of prep, and after the first I was scoring 173+. The rest was learning not to fall for silly tricks. And a little bit of increase in RC because I was rusty.
The test is somewhat learnable, but it's not intended to be.
Desert Fox wrote: The LSAT isn't supposed to be learned.
dF what is wrong with you? It isn't supposed to be learned but it can and should be learned. Who cares about a boomer system that hurts students from doing their best. Studying hard for the LSAT can pay huge real dollar dividends.jk148706 wrote:Desert Fox wrote: The LSAT isn't supposed to be learned.
Uuuhhh
It's not supposed to be learned. It's a skills and aptitude test.jk148706 wrote:Desert Fox wrote: The LSAT isn't supposed to be learned.
Uuuhhh
You don't learn skills?Desert Fox wrote:
It's not supposed to be learned. It's a skills and aptitude test.
What does "it's not supposed to be learned" even mean?Desert Fox wrote:It's not supposed to be learned. It's a skills and aptitude test.jk148706 wrote:Desert Fox wrote: The LSAT isn't supposed to be learned.
Uuuhhh
@NYSTATE
Not discouraging people from gunning it, since there are obvious benefits.
vuthy wrote:You don't learn skills?Desert Fox wrote:
It's not supposed to be learned. It's a skills and aptitude test.
You learn stupid skills like how to DOMINATE double grouping games or whatever the fuck they are called. But you really aren't increasing your analytical reasoning by memorizing all the game types and practicing strategies.vuthy wrote:You don't learn skills?Desert Fox wrote:
It's not supposed to be learned. It's a skills and aptitude test.
[/quote]jk148706 wrote:What does "it's not supposed to be learned" even mean?Desert Fox wrote: It's not supposed to be learned. It's a skills and aptitude test.
@NYSTATE
Not discouraging people from gunning it, since there are obvious benefits.
Who made that decision? What criteria did they use to make that decision? Where is the evidence to support your claim? Why can't skills and aptitude tests be learned?
In short... WUUUUUTTT??
Good riddance to bad rubbish, nobody cares what you think.Daily_Double wrote:It's posts like this that remind me not to visit this site again. This topic has been taken outside the scope of the original question. To the original poster, good luck with your test, and if you want my view on the stress of test say, check out my guide. If you have any more questions, feel free to PM me.Desert Fox wrote:You learn stupid skills like how to DOMINATE double grouping games or whatever the fuck they are called. But you really aren't increasing your analytical reasoning by memorizing all the game types and practicing strategies.vuthy wrote:You don't learn skills?Desert Fox wrote:
It's not supposed to be learned. It's a skills and aptitude test.
Though I did probably learn to read better doing RC practice.
Not being learnable is the point of standardized skills and aptitude tests.Desert Fox wrote:jk148706 wrote:What does "it's not supposed to be learned" even mean?Desert Fox wrote: It's not supposed to be learned. It's a skills and aptitude test.
@NYSTATE
Not discouraging people from gunning it, since there are obvious benefits.
Who made that decision? What criteria did they use to make that decision? Where is the evidence to support your claim? Why can't skills and aptitude tests be learned?
In short... WUUUUUTTT??