The Official September 2016 Study Group - WAKE ME UP WHEN SEPTEMBER ENDS Forum

[Mikey]

First recent PT that I've taken this cycle and my worst score, -2 RC, -2 LR for a 177 on PT 75. The only other recent ones I have left are 76, 77, and 78 and I'm planning on taking them the next three Saturdays. If I want the commemorative belt buckle, I've got to get better at reading comprehension.

I wish I had this problem. *tears*

Word.

[Mikey]

I had a caramel macchiato today. DID YOU?!?!??!? If not, be jealous!!!!!

Sorry not sorry

[34iplaw]

Is it just me or was Dec 09 an absolutely miserable test?

[proteinshake]

Is it just me or was Dec 09 an absolutely miserable test?

the LG wasn't bad. just wait till you get to PT 67. idk any test worse than that one.

[Alexandros]

I had a caramel macchiato today. DID YOU?!?!??!? If not, be jealous!!!!!

Sorry not sorry

hOW dARE U i am warning u son if u keep this up u will leave me no choice but to call my friend the dean of cooley and tell him U R NOT A GOOD CANDIDATE 4 cooley law school.

[Mikey]

I had a caramel macchiato today. DID YOU?!?!??!? If not, be jealous!!!!!

Sorry not sorry

hOW dARE U i am warning u son if u keep this up u will leave me no choice but to call my friend the dean of cooley and tell him U R NOT A GOOD CANDIDATE 4 COOLEY LAW SCHOOL.

CHILL BRO

COOLEY OR DIE

[34iplaw]

Is it just me or was Dec 09 an absolutely miserable test?

the LG wasn't bad. just wait till you get to PT 67. idk any test worse than that one.

Oh the LG wasn't bad. I think it's probably my first -0LG bc I slowed down. I just felt the LR was miserable. I just wasn't totally with it and during the test someone started having a full volume convo behind me.

BRing it while I have some pizza.

[Alexandros]

Today, thus far:
- PT 13 intermittently - -0 lg and the first LR, -1 RC and -1 LR2.
- Got lost in the park
- 2 more LR sets - -1, and 0.
- murdered 762 fruit flies.
- did not have a single caramel macchiato. not even one.

Was going to do another LR set but did not feel like it. I'm going to finally print out the file of questions that tripped me up, work on those, possibly LG and then do RC this evening. I'm thinking of changing up RC strategies - maybe more notation/drilling with the memory method. I feel like I get lucky on these far too often and I'm not as solid as I should be.

[Alexandros]

I had a caramel macchiato today. DID YOU?!?!??!? If not, be jealous!!!!!

Sorry not sorry

hOW dARE U i am warning u son if u keep this up u will leave me no choice but to call my friend the dean of cooley and tell him U R NOT A GOOD CANDIDATE 4 COOLEY LAW SCHOOL.

CHILL BRO

COOLEY OR DIE

i don't want to completely destroy a fine young man like you's chances of achieving his dream, so i'll hold off for now. but NEXT TIME. IM WARNING U.

[20170322]

Took my first PT in over a month today. Results

PT 39, 5 section, timed conditions in Starbucks.

LG: -1
LR: -3
RC: -2
LR2: -1
Raw: 94
Scaled: 175


I should note, though, that I had seen the RC before (I did not know this until I was taking the test). So, probably subtract a point or two.

The -3 LR is unacceptable. I didn't do any LR warmup, so I'm guessing that's why. Hoping to bump this score up by at least 2 points by test day.

[proteinshake]

Is it just me or was Dec 09 an absolutely miserable test?

the LG wasn't bad. just wait till you get to PT 67. idk any test worse than that one.

Oh the LG wasn't bad. I think it's probably my first -0LG bc I slowed down. I just felt the LR was miserable. I just wasn't totally with it and during the test someone started having a full volume convo behind me.

BRing it while I have some pizza.

wow I just realized I did section 2 of PT 59 for a drill section earlier. I'm BRing it now.

[Mikey]

Took my first PT in over a month today. Results

PT 39, 5 section, timed conditions in Starbucks.

LG: -1
LR: -3
RC: -2
LR2: -1
Raw: 94
Scaled: 175


I should note, though, that I had seen the RC before (I did not know this until I was taking the test). So, probably subtract a point or two.

The -3 LR is unacceptable. I didn't do any LR warmup, so I'm guessing that's why. Hoping to bump this score up by at least 2 points by test day.

Still a solid score for not studying in a while. Curious, what's the lowest score you're willing to accept?

[Mikey]

I had a caramel macchiato today. DID YOU?!?!??!? If not, be jealous!!!!!

Sorry not sorry

hOW dARE U i am warning u son if u keep this up u will leave me no choice but to call my friend the dean of cooley and tell him U R NOT A GOOD CANDIDATE 4 COOLEY LAW SCHOOL.

CHILL BRO

COOLEY OR DIE

i don't want to completely destroy a fine young man like you's chances of achieving his dream, so i'll hold off for now. but NEXT TIME. IM WARNING U.

AYY

I know your dream is to go to thomas jefferson law at sticker price. I got the hook ups in there so watch it buddy!!/@@3!:&'

[20170322]

Took my first PT in over a month today. Results

PT 39, 5 section, timed conditions in Starbucks.

LG: -1
LR: -3
RC: -2
LR2: -1
Raw: 94
Scaled: 175


I should note, though, that I had seen the RC before (I did not know this until I was taking the test). So, probably subtract a point or two.

The -3 LR is unacceptable. I didn't do any LR warmup, so I'm guessing that's why. Hoping to bump this score up by at least 2 points by test day.

Still a solid score for not studying in a while. Curious, what's the lowest score you're willing to accept?

I'd probably apply with anything above a 172, though I would also probably retake a 172 or 173.

I'm mainly uncomfortable with this because I had seen the RC, so it's not an indicative score. Need to take more PT's in the next few weeks.


ETA: I realized this was confusing after. I would apply with a 172 if that was the lowest I got. However, if I get a 172 or 173, I will almost certainly do an extra year of UG and retake the LSAT.

[proteinshake]

did an RC section (PT 42) and an LR section (PT 59):

RC -5 (4/5 difficulty) -- so I missed FOUR of these on one passage, the one about Lichtenstein and Pop Art. sigh.
LR -3 (4/5 difficulty) -- to repeat SweetTort: -3 on LR is unacceptable. at least the three I missed were 5/5 difficulty. some tricky questions!

[34iplaw]

Dec 09 LG (-0); LR (-5 ick); LR (-2) RC; (-5) LG[EXP] (-2)

89/101 RAW ; 171

Literally shocked on the experimental LG that it was -2... I found that to be a really hard LG section even though I had definitely seen a game before (turns out that was from the Sep 98 test)

BR wasn't really any better, as I didn't actually recognize the questions that I had missed... except for three, one of which I didn't get. I'll have to be more diligent in how I BR... when you BR... do you do the entire test or just the questions you circled going through it?

[Mikey]

Took my first PT in over a month today. Results

PT 39, 5 section, timed conditions in Starbucks.

LG: -1
LR: -3
RC: -2
LR2: -1
Raw: 94
Scaled: 175


I should note, though, that I had seen the RC before (I did not know this until I was taking the test). So, probably subtract a point or two.

The -3 LR is unacceptable. I didn't do any LR warmup, so I'm guessing that's why. Hoping to bump this score up by at least 2 points by test day.

Still a solid score for not studying in a while. Curious, what's the lowest score you're willing to accept?

I'd probably apply with anything above a 172, though I would also probably retake a 172 or 173.

I'm mainly uncomfortable with this because I had seen the RC, so it's not an indicative score. Need to take more PT's in the next few weeks.


ETA: I realized this was confusing after. I would apply with a 172 if that was the lowest I got. However, if I get a 172 or 173, I will almost certainly do an extra year of UG and retake the LSAT.

I see. So if you were to get an outcome with that 172/173 that you really like, then you wouldn't reapply? Correct?

[proteinshake]

Dec 09 LG (-0); LR (-5 ick); LR (-2) RC; (-5) LG[EXP] (-2)

89/101 RAW ; 171

Literally shocked on the experimental LG that it was -2... I found that to be a really hard LG section even though I had definitely seen a game before (turns out that was from the Sep 98 test)

BR wasn't really any better, as I didn't actually recognize the questions that I had missed... except for three, one of which I didn't get. I'll have to be more diligent in how I BR... when you BR... do you do the entire test or just the questions you circled going through it?

the q about manufacture samples in the second LR section was dumb.

[20170322]

Took my first PT in over a month today. Results

PT 39, 5 section, timed conditions in Starbucks.

LG: -1
LR: -3
RC: -2
LR2: -1
Raw: 94
Scaled: 175


I should note, though, that I had seen the RC before (I did not know this until I was taking the test). So, probably subtract a point or two.

The -3 LR is unacceptable. I didn't do any LR warmup, so I'm guessing that's why. Hoping to bump this score up by at least 2 points by test day.

Still a solid score for not studying in a while. Curious, what's the lowest score you're willing to accept?

I'd probably apply with anything above a 172, though I would also probably retake a 172 or 173.

I'm mainly uncomfortable with this because I had seen the RC, so it's not an indicative score. Need to take more PT's in the next few weeks.


ETA: I realized this was confusing after. I would apply with a 172 if that was the lowest I got. However, if I get a 172 or 173, I will almost certainly do an extra year of UG and retake the LSAT.

I see. So if you were to get an outcome with that 172/173 that you really like, then you wouldn't reapply? Correct?

Yeah, but I would retake. So, like, if I get a 172/173, I'll take in December and apply next year. If I don't get a better score, though, I'd still apply.

Idk, I'm trying to keep my mind open to retaking, especially since I'm planning on spending next year abroad.

[Instrumental]

PT58: Another disaster. messed up the last LG for a couple reasons, RC sucked. -8 on the LR. jfc. Brain transplant stat.

[Mikey]

Took my first PT in over a month today. Results

PT 39, 5 section, timed conditions in Starbucks.

LG: -1
LR: -3
RC: -2
LR2: -1
Raw: 94
Scaled: 175


I should note, though, that I had seen the RC before (I did not know this until I was taking the test). So, probably subtract a point or two.

The -3 LR is unacceptable. I didn't do any LR warmup, so I'm guessing that's why. Hoping to bump this score up by at least 2 points by test day.

Still a solid score for not studying in a while. Curious, what's the lowest score you're willing to accept?

I'd probably apply with anything above a 172, though I would also probably retake a 172 or 173.

I'm mainly uncomfortable with this because I had seen the RC, so it's not an indicative score. Need to take more PT's in the next few weeks.


ETA: I realized this was confusing after. I would apply with a 172 if that was the lowest I got. However, if I get a 172 or 173, I will almost certainly do an extra year of UG and retake the LSAT.

I see. So if you were to get an outcome with that 172/173 that you really like, then you wouldn't reapply? Correct?

Yeah, but I would retake. So, like, if I get a 172/173, I'll take in December and apply next year. If I don't get a better score, though, I'd still apply.

Idk, I'm trying to keep my mind open to retaking, especially since I'm planning on spending next year abroad.

Oooooo where to??

[34iplaw]

Dec 09 LG (-0); LR (-5 ick); LR (-2) RC; (-5) LG[EXP] (-2)

89/101 RAW ; 171

Literally shocked on the experimental LG that it was -2... I found that to be a really hard LG section even though I had definitely seen a game before (turns out that was from the Sep 98 test)

BR wasn't really any better, as I didn't actually recognize the questions that I had missed... except for three, one of which I didn't get. I'll have to be more diligent in how I BR... when you BR... do you do the entire test or just the questions you circled going through it?

the q about manufacture samples in the second LR section was dumb.

You mean section 2 / first LR section? The one with the quality control investigator?

Apparently, I misbubbled that one so... 172... sort of?

[Alexandros]

Some of these LR questions are still so confusing. I can talk myself into the right answer going over them again, knowing which one is correct (sometimes) but, unless I'm missing something here, I really don't think I'd be able to get a lot of these right, unless by chance, on a real test.
3.2.14, 11.2.17, and 1.3.18 (although I think I'd be able to get that one through process of elimination, but the answer still doesn't make sense.) Anyone have any insight?

[proteinshake]

Dec 09 LG (-0); LR (-5 ick); LR (-2) RC; (-5) LG[EXP] (-2)

89/101 RAW ; 171

Literally shocked on the experimental LG that it was -2... I found that to be a really hard LG section even though I had definitely seen a game before (turns out that was from the Sep 98 test)

BR wasn't really any better, as I didn't actually recognize the questions that I had missed... except for three, one of which I didn't get. I'll have to be more diligent in how I BR... when you BR... do you do the entire test or just the questions you circled going through it?

the q about manufacture samples in the second LR section was dumb.

You mean section 2 / first LR section? The one with the quality control investigator?

Apparently, I misbubbled that one so... 172... sort of?

oh right, the first LR section. I missed numbers 20, 22, 25. should've gotten 25 right.

[Instrumental]

Speaking of difficult LR, anyone want to flesh out the right answer for Q22 in PT57 Section 3? I got it right from process of elimination but I'm not confident I understand the reasoning.