What is the best time to study? Forum

[Durppy]

I am an undergrad sophomore heading into spring semester and plan on taking the 2017 June LSAT (18 months away).

My dream is Harvard and I am on my way to graduate with a LSDAS GPA of 3.95~4.0
I am willing to as hard and smart as it takes to get a 175+
Self-study would be the way I would go.

Now, my question is, how can I start lightly prepping now? What might be some good reads to get my crit reading up?
I'm not sure how far out I should hit the studying hard and ramp up the difficulty progressively.
Where would I start?
Last question, are those "self study" schedules legit, or should I try and schedule myself?

Thanks again,
It all seems so overwhelming, but I know I am not alone and I can do it with your guys' help at TLS!!

EDIT: I have no job year round, just school (15 credits a semester). I have lots of time to study.

[sjp200]

Read the wall Street journal.

Expose yourself slowly to the lsat trainer and bibles.

Take a few EARLY PT's to see where you're starting

Create a study plan for drilling

Drill

Drill more

Take some PT's in the 40-60 range

Drill everything again, spend extra time on problem sections

PT and review all tests from 60+ extensively under timed conditions.

[Trippel]

18 months? It's a test and you get three tries. My advice is to not build it up too much in your head...

[RZ5646]

First take a diagnostic test. Download the free June 2007 test from LSAC's website, print it out, and take it while following the time limits exactly. If you get over 160, don't think about the LSAT at all for another year. If you score below that, then you might want to consider light prep starting maybe 6 months from now.

I think longterm, "slow and steady" study plans can work very well (see the classic post here by TLS1776), but they also set you up for failure and unnecessary stress. It requires a lot of discipline to study for something that's a whole year or more away, so you'll likely fail to follow your schedule; if you fail to follow your schedule, you'll feel bad and stress out. From what I've read, most people who got 99th percentile scores the first time only did 2-3 months of semi-intense studying, which is easy to do when your test date is looming over you.

Source: had longterm study plan that crashed and burned, stressed about the LSAT for a year, then did like 2 months of somewhat hard studying and got a good score.

[RamTitan]

First take a diagnostic test. Download the free June 2007 test from LSAC's website, print it out, and take it while following the time limits exactly. If you get over 160, don't think about the LSAT at all for another year. If you score below that, then you might want to consider light prep starting maybe 6 months from now.

I think longterm, "slow and steady" study plans can work very well (see the classic post here by TLS1776), but they also set you up for failure and unnecessary stress. It requires a lot of discipline to study for something that's a whole year or more away, so you'll likely fail to follow your schedule; if you fail to follow your schedule, you'll feel bad and stress out. From what I've read, most people who got 99th percentile scores the first time only did 2-3 months of semi-intense studying, which is easy to do when your test date is looming over you.

Source: had longterm study plan that crashed and burned, stressed about the LSAT for a year, then did like 2 months of somewhat hard studying and got a good score.

That's anecdotal evidence; everyone is different, and just because you couldn't stick to a long-term study schedule doesn't mean the same for others. If this person is already thinking about the LSAT, then they are probably a pretty dedicated student and could benefit from long-term studying.

The LSAT requires deep understanding of concepts that take time to understand. I've noticed that most high scorers actually do the long-term study route.

[RZ5646]

I've noticed that most high scorers actually do the long-term study route.

I think that's true, but only because most of the high scorers you hear about here are retakers.

I also agree that it's difficult and time-consuming to acquire reaaoning skills if you don't have them already. That's why I recommended he take a diagnostic. If you start with a high score, you can probably reach 170+ with a sprint. If you get a low diagnostic, then you might need to do a long term plan.

[cbbinnyc]

Others may disagree with me here, but here goes ...

I took the test twice, hit a 172 twice. I studied intensely for 2 months for my first take, figured I hadn't given it enough time, spent another 3 months studying for the second take and, obviously, didn't improve. Both times I was hitting 175-179 consistently on PTs, and I was being pretty rigorous about replicating test conditions and I thought I was studying pretty efficiently (keeping a detailed log of question types I was missing and focusing my time on the problem areas, etc etc).

My advice would be to take a class from a reputable company like PowerScore. I ended up getting in ED to my top choice school, but, had I been deferred, this was my plan in preparing for a third take. Classes are neither necessary nor sufficient for performing well on the LSAT; many people, including myself, have performed excellently through self-study. That said, if I could go back and do it again, I would certainly do a class. It's well worth the money, in the long run. Sure, you will probably be head and shoulders above your classmates (at least judging by your goals and GPA) but the class setting can provide some invaluable insights, and being able to work through problems with an actual person and articulating your thought process out loud is super helpful as well. Even the best self-studier can benefit by having an outside eye. At worst, it can't hurt; at best, it might give you valuable tools. (Also, most companies will give you a couple *actual* practice tests with proctors, other people in the room, etc, which is impossible to replicate on your own.)

$1000 (or whatever classes cost) might seem like a lot to pay for something that isn't necessary for success and "can't hurt," but in the long run it is a drop in the bucket and well worth it for a little extra security.

[RamTitan]

I've noticed that most high scorers actually do the long-term study route.

I think that's true, but only because most of the high scorers you hear about here are retakers.

I also agree that it's difficult and time-consuming to acquire reaaoning skills if you don't have them already. That's why I recommended he take a diagnostic. If you start with a high score, you can probably reach 170+ with a sprint. If you get a low diagnostic, then you might need to do a long term plan.

That makes sense. I started at 146, and it's taken me 6 months to get to 170.

[jepper]

Yeah, diagnostic is important. Started with 148. Took a full 6 months at about 25 hours a week. 170+ first attempt.

[Broncos15]

It's bad advice to give OP that they only need 2-3 months of semi intense study....A 175 on an actual LSAT is exponentially harder than a 170, even if OP has a great GPA we can't assume they will automatically be great at the LSAT and won't need as much prep as the average taker.