Top Law Schools

Hello everyone! A little about myself: I plan on taking my LSAT June 2017. My diagnostic test (about 2 months back) was a 141. Since then, I've taken a live setting course which is coming to an end. I have seen some improvement in LSAT fundamentals, but not too much. Aside from studying, I have also set out to do significant research to find a way to master the LSAT. I have always wanted to be a lawyer, and I set my goal early on in college to attend my dream school (NYU Law). A 141 was very discouraging and very upsetting, considering how hard the LSAT is. However, after posting my first thread on here (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4#p9464264), I came across some users here on TLS who managed to increase their scores significantly, even more than 20 points (one from 140 to 170).

Shortly after my diagnostic, I picked up a book called Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise (strongly recommend) by performance psychologist Anders Ericsson (he is the basis for the 10,000-hour rule). He found that the individuals who truly outperformed their peers and were masters in the respective fields engaged in deliberate practice (rigorous, hard, tough and precise practice focused on improving focused weaknesses and pushing past plateaus). The more hours spent in deliberate practice, the more changes the brain goes through while forming mental representations which allow the brain to perform the skills you are learning in a more efficient and easier way. He also claims that innate talent is misleading because those who are exceptionally gifted, have probably been developing these skills from an earlier age or practicing for a longer period of time. Anyone is capable of mastering any skill because the brain is capable of great change considering one practice in an appropriate and effective manner (deliberate practice).

You can read the research publication journal here: (http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/Eri ... cePR93.pdf)

Finishing this book and reading some other threads, I was convinced that, despite my terrible diagnostic, it was completely possible to get a 170+. Will it be hard? Absolutely. But it's worth the shot considering how much time I have. For those who have scored 15+, 20+ and even 30+ points, what kind of practice techniques, methods, books, scheduling and hours did you put in? To increase that much requires some serious dedication, but also very specific and deliberate training. Hopefully, those of you who have accomplished will see this and post your advice here. Hopefully, those who have scored low scores will see this and use it as an effective tool for studying and motivation. Thanks in advance!

My first PT I got a 156 and my highest score in my PTs is a 172, so I'm just barely meeting the criteria for this topic. My strategy thus far has been to work on PTs, analyze the questions I got wrong, analyze my method of thinking when I chose the wrong answer, and analyzing how I should approach such questions in the future. I also analyze my overall approach for the section, as far as pacing and skipping or redoing questions. Whether a question is extremely difficult or extremely easy, in the end it's worth the same amount of points, so I don't let myself get dragged down by the tough ones too much. I write out any learned lessons that I can take to the next test and try again. I also look for guidance from other users here and at 7sage and on blogs and such to see if I can glean any insight to improved strategy.

For me, this has been most effective at increasing my LR and AR scores, but my RC score is still not much better (if at all) than when I started, so I decided to get the Power Score RC Bible which was recommended by many people here and elsewhere and I'm hoping learning from it will improve my ability.

With a year to prepare, and your positive attitude about it, you can absolutely accomplish this. Maintaining a positive attitude is key not only in studying, but the test itself which will try to frustrate you.

Went from a 159 to a 173. You already know what you have to do. The LSAT is a learnable test. Every test, and to some extent, every problem on test day is assessing the same limited number of different issues to you. it may take you a different amount of time to grasp methods for each problem type than your neighbor or LSAT instructor allots, but it is doable. Good luck.

cm4998 wrote:Hello everyone! A little about myself: I plan on taking my LSAT June 2017. My diagnostic test (about 2 months back) was a 141. Since then, I've taken a live setting course which is coming to an end. I have seen some improvement in LSAT fundamentals, but not too much. Aside from studying, I have also set out to do significant research to find a way to master the LSAT. I have always wanted to be a lawyer, and I set my goal early on in college to attend my dream school (NYU Law). A 141 was very discouraging and very upsetting, considering how hard the LSAT is. However, after posting my first thread on here (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4#p9464264), I came across some users here on TLS who managed to increase their scores significantly, even more than 20 points (one from 140 to 170).

Finishing this book and reading some other threads, I was convinced that, despite my terrible diagnostic, it was completely possible to get a 170+. Will it be hard? Absolutely. But it's worth the shot considering how much time I have. For those who have scored 15+, 20+ and even 30+ points, what kind of practice techniques, methods, books, scheduling and hours did you put in? To increase that much requires some serious dedication, but also very specific and deliberate training. Hopefully, those of you who have accomplished will see this and post your advice here. Hopefully, those who have scored low scores will see this and use it as an effective tool for studying and motivation. Thanks in advance!

I saw a 22 point increase through self studying (153 diagnostic, 175 final score). I studied intensely for 3 months while I was working part-time, putting in 4 1/2 - 6 hours per day with only a few days off here and there when I needed a break. In the last month of my prep, when I was mainly taking 5-section, timed practice tests, I would spend 2 hours studying on the off-days, reviewing my PTs carefully and drilling a section or two.

Before getting into my schedule I should say that this was right after I'd graduated college, so I knew my study and learning habits very well, and knew that I'd do better if I studied heavily for a short, concentrated period of time. Everyone has different preferences, and it's up to you to figure out what works best for you. I was okay with making LSAT my #1 priority, especially if I could do well and be done with it quickly, and my schedule was open enough where I could make that happen. Think about how you're feeling and what schedules gave you the most academic success in the past, and go from there.

I start out by purchasing guides for each section and working through those. In between, I'd occasionally do a section here and there, but I was mostly focused on learning the material through reading and doing the drills presented in the books. Once I'd worked through all the material, I began to mainly complete sections, mostly from older tests. I didn't time myself, instead focusing on approaching each question type methodically, based on what I had learned, until using those strategies became second nature. I did this for a while before moving on to timing - at that point I felt comfortable with all but a few question types (assumption Qs, parallel Qs, and certain RC passages).

I started timing not by jumping into preptests, but by doing sections and timing myself. At first, I just tracked how long it took me to finish each section, and compared that to 35 minutes to gauge how much faster I needed to work. Then, I started imposing the 35 minute limit. I also started to take more sections in a row without a break - essentially, I was working my way up to 5-section PTs, starting with 2, then 3, then a 4th after a 15-minute break, and finally the full 5.

Things were going pretty well, as I saw steady improvements, but I noticed that it was usually the same question types on LR that gave me trouble. RC was also fluctuating a lot, as I'd get anywhere from 2 to 7 questions wrong. So I decided to go back and re-learn my strategies for those LR q. types and for RC in general. I bought another LR book and worked through it - it was a great refresher, and I much preferred their assumption question approach to my previous guide. I drilled sufficient and necessary questions until they were no longer a weakness of mine - this was hard to do at first, as I'd built up an aversion to them, and found them stressful. But that's also why doing it was so important for me. For RC, I scoured this board for different strategies and tried different things. I found that I preferred one that focused on analyzing the passages as you initially read them, taking your time, and not taking a ton of notation.

After doing all this review, I went back to PTing and took a few practice tests per week, reviewing on the off days. I found that was a good way of keeping my head in the game, maintaining my endurance, and keeping my score consistent. I will say that taking a lot of preptests is intense, though. Even though I was spending less time per week on LSAT study than when I started, the PT phase was the most mentally taxing. At this point, even more so than before, I found it important to get plenty of rest, and to do some daily exercise and meditation.

By test day, I'd been scoring 173-176 on my PTs for the two weeks prior, so my score wasn't an outlier or anything. After getting it, I chilled really hard for the next 5 months

Went from a 146 to a 169, and am retaking in a few weeks. I think the biggest factor (for me, everyone is different) was not having an ultimatum on when to take the test. If I wasn't ready, then I wasn't ready, and I pushed the date back.

Really learn the fundamentals, and spend a lot of time drilling initially. This is where the growth happens. Burning through practice tests did not teach me a lot about the test, but it did teach me how to take the test if that makes sense. It's a different, but necessary, skill to acquire down the road, once you understand the concepts of the LSAT.

Edit - as you see, it is more than possible to make huge gains on the LSAT. While this is anecdotal, I did come across two posters who had the same diagnostic as you; one pulled a 177, and the other a 180. They could be liars, but they had some interesting insights about the test, so I doubt it.