|
Hey guys, I'll start entering serious mode to study LSAT. No, I'm not like those people who fail MCAT so they try to redeem themselves to take LSAT (They really need to put law major class requirements to restrict bums like that who take LSAT just to rebound from their failed original study) I've been quite motivated to study for it for a while now, but part of me is still a bit scared for the future months of no internet - no phone - no human interaction type of studying I'm gonna have to do.
I've been told that Prep classes are at least 4 digit in terms of cost so I've decided to just pull through by myself. Currently, I've bought 1 prep book, "Official LSAT SuperPrep". It has useful sample tests and explains quite nicely but I don't think it has good explanation about how to approach problems (like what is the least time consuming ways to tackle analytical reasoning questions tips)
If anyone has any really really helpful LSAT prep books they used, please recommend me, I think I might need more than this book, its not very thick either.
If you did take the LSAT and you did well, let me know approximately how long you studied for, and what kind of studying did you do (classes / prep books / memorizing vocab? )
I'm quite freaked to be honest, because this is a big step in my life and I really want to do well.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
LSAT is sneaky, it's got a covert IQ test within it ; )
don't worry though, most tl.neters score top 1 percentile in most standardized tests
if ur not a tl.neter for ~ 1300 bucks there is always http://www.kaptest.com/LSAT/Home/index.html
|
Powerscore LG and LR Bibles.
Do LOTS of preptests.
Study min. 3 months
|
United States12607 Posts
I took the LSAT last winter and, while I did well enough to get into a decent law school, I was disappointed with both my score and my preparation. Here's what I learned:
a) try to avoid taking the LSAT during the academic year, if you're a college student. You want to be able to focus on preparing for it, not your schoolwork too.
b) sign up early. AzureEye I don't know where you live, but in the Bay Area (and other populated areas, I imagine) test centers fill up fast. I had to drive an hour to Santa Cruz to take the test both times I did it (I stayed in a hotel the night before). That was expensive and it sucked. I also heard horror stories of people having to fly places to take the test because they signed up close to the deadline and needed a score in time to apply to law schools in the winter.
c) sign up for an early test date. It sounds like you might be on top of this (more on top of it than I was, for sure), but ideally you want to have about two test dates between the first time you take the test and the last opportunity you'll have to take it before you go off to school (giving you four shots at the test). The reason for this is that (correct me if I'm wrong, and you definitely want to check up on this) before seeing your score, you can cancel it without penalty and without law schools seeing that you've done so. If you've taken plenty of practice tests, when you walk out of the building you are going to know exactly how you did on the test. If you did well, keep that score. If not, cancel and you'll have the opportunity to take it again.
d) practice under real conditions. Practice tests are only so useful if you take them in pieces. Try to take at least a few practices just as you would the regular test: wake up early, time your breaks, and take the test in a bland room with desks that are too small. All of this will put you more at ease during the actual test.
e) watch out for games. In practice, I didn't have much trouble with them. But games absolutely destroyed me both times I took the test (accounted for more than 80% of my missed questions). Time management is super, super important here. Being better at identifying easy/hard games questions would have really helped me.
f) don't be afraid to retake the test. This bullshit about law schools only taking your lowest score is...bullshit. If you're sure you bombed the test and can do better, take it again ASAP. I had a pretty disappointing score my first time around and retook the test. One school deferred me upon seeing my first score, but admitted me literally a day after my second score arrived.
g) when you go to take the test, pack a full meal - not a "snack" as advised. The test takes a long time, and when you finally hit your break it will be about noon. You'll be starving from thinking so hard all morning, and a granola bar is not enough. Bring shitloads of food so you don't have to go hungry for the last sections.
I didn't take any classes and didn't take enough practice tests. I'm not sure how useful the classes are, but my guess is that most of the benefit is simply in forcing you into a regimented practice schedule that includes lots of sample questions. So if you're forgoing the classes, be sure not to let yourself slip in your preparation.
Hot_Bid and GrandInquisitor are both students at prestigious law schools, maybe they'll have some useful input here.
|
On June 18 2009 12:55 AzureEye wrote:
I've been quite motivated to study for it for a while now, but part of me is still a bit scared for the future months of no internet - no phone - no human interaction type of studying I'm gonna have to do.
I dont know what the LSAT is, but either way, you should never study like this. Thats just the best way to burn yourself out. A good study plan includes plenty of destressing time as well as study time. You need to find a balance, not lock yourself in a room expecting to learn.
Good luck with the test though.
|
I took the LSAT for fun and aced it without a problem. I'm not even going to law school. You may hate me, but there's a reason. That reason is an inherent problem-solving ability from years of analytical thinking. No matter what they tell you, you can't study this. I mean of course you can go through LSAT prep books and that will help you if you are lacking basic skills, and it's a good idea, but you should focus on the meta-level: how YOU solve the problem rather than 'how the problem should be solved.'
I'm serious about this - pick a random game, board game, computer game, card game, anything, and learn it. Write down how you learned it, what helped you organize strategies in your head and when breakthrough moments were. Then do that twice more, each time creating and implementing new learning ideas.
That's the key. The LSAT is a series of games with different rulesets. Every 'problem' is just asking you the win condition for some ruleset. For instance, the classic 'there are 6 people at a table, how do you seat them given these rules' problem. They're all just mini-games. If you learn how to learn, you will ace that test without a problem.
|
United States12607 Posts
On June 18 2009 14:47 garmule2 wrote:
You may hate me, but there's a reason.
You're right! My inherent problem-solving ability tells me you're a dbag based on the contents of your post.
Of course the LSAT is a test of inherent ability, but that doesn't mean you should target your preparation at enhancing your problem-solving skills on an abstract level. Ignore garmule's advice - playing chess is an extremely inefficient way to improve your performance on the test.
|
On June 18 2009 14:47 garmule2 wrote:
I took the LSAT for fun and aced it without a problem. I'm not even going to law school. You may hate me, but there's a reason. That reason is an inherent problem-solving ability from years of analytical thinking.
oh god. this is almost good enough to screen shot and put in the project wonderful banner.
|
You're right! My inherent problem-solving ability tells me you're a dbag based on the contents of your post.
Of course the LSAT is a test of inherent ability, but that doesn't mean you should target your preparation at enhancing your problem-solving skills on an abstract level. Ignore garmule's advice - playing chess is an extremely inefficient way to improve your performance on the test.
No, I told him to learn how to learn how to play chess. Though average people always find a reason to resent smarter people. :p
|
On June 18 2009 16:42 garmule2 wrote:Show nested quote +You're right! My inherent problem-solving ability tells me you're a dbag based on the contents of your post.
Of course the LSAT is a test of inherent ability, but that doesn't mean you should target your preparation at enhancing your problem-solving skills on an abstract level. Ignore garmule's advice - playing chess is an extremely inefficient way to improve your performance on the test. No, I told him to learn how to learn how to play chess. Though average people always find a reason to resent smarter people. :p
Yeah calling yourself smarter really proves the point here. Oh hey i aced the mcat and lsat on the same day and i did it because i play lots of basketball. Whatever, give constructive advice please. Hypocrite indeed
|
I studied about a week for the LSAT and got a 169. Its not that bad, the main thing is TIME. Its really time intensive. For what its worth my worst section was arguments; because the parallel the reasoning and a few of the other argument question types take forever.
Anyway, even if you know everything you will feel the time pressure. That is why its essential to practice tests and time yourself, and take FULL ones. 2 hours into the test you have to keep up your pace and alertness.
For Games, its essential to draw diagrams and use lots of paper. Never ever keep any information in your head. I didn't draw formal diagrams, usually just a basic grid or something like __ __ __ __ __ and fill in the blanks, I also wrote out the rules in symbol form
(e.g. If P then not C, etc.)
Oh, and abuse process of elimination as much as possible. Abuse abuse abuse. On all the sections. One thing that I did that was very stupid was that I left 4 questions blank. I didn't know that on the LSAT, there is no penalty for wrong answers, so always fill in the answer if you run out time just bubble something in.
Also I took Adderall before the test, you should consider it. It kept me super focused and energized.
|
On June 18 2009 16:42 garmule2 wrote:Show nested quote +You're right! My inherent problem-solving ability tells me you're a dbag based on the contents of your post.
Of course the LSAT is a test of inherent ability, but that doesn't mean you should target your preparation at enhancing your problem-solving skills on an abstract level. Ignore garmule's advice - playing chess is an extremely inefficient way to improve your performance on the test. No, I told him to learn how to learn how to play chess. Though average people always find a reason to resent smarter people. :p
Elitist POS.
|
Adderall only works if you have ADD/ADHD from what I heard. I have ADHD. If you use the drug with one of the disorders it calms you down and allows you to focus on your work without jumping thoughts every 20 seconds. If you don't have it, it gets you jacked up with energy and will make sitting down and focusing one of the last things on your mind, I believe you would be more prone to the idea of running a few laps or hitting up the gym or something.
I dunno, maybe it works different for different people. But I think the basic rules apply no matter what. If you have ADD/ADHD helps relax and focus you. Since I don't normally take medication for my ADHD because its not that bad, I think if I took it for a test it would actually help me. I don't find my ADHD to be unmanageable though. But I would say don't take it walking into the test for hopeful amounts of energy. Try using it during a practice test like someone mentioned before, where you try to set the conditions as close to the actual conditions as possible and see if it helps you with it, or if you can't focus because you just want to jump through the roof.
I am still trying to figure out what I want to do, I of course considered being a lawyer. International business law seemed cool, I met this retired guy named tom at a camp who got to travel all over the world and make bank while doing it. It seemed like an awesome job that I would enjoy, so I am still considering that.
Edit: And good luck with your test, while I am sure inherent talent is useful for the test, I wouldn't shrug off studying. I mean I am exceptionally good in history and can usually get B+/A without even studying for a test, but if I were to study it can easily go A/A+ range. My point being that even if you can do good without studying, you can undoubtedly do better if you do study.
This was mainly directed at the jackass who said he had a near perfect score from learning to learn how to play Chess.
|
Before going into law, ask yourself very seriously - is it right for me? Do I want to be for the rest of my life a hyperactive neurotic douchebag on stimulants without the least bit of ethics? Will the good money (a lot of mediocre lawyers don't even get paid that much) really buy me the happiness?
I have 2 friends who went to law school, but discovered it just wasn't their thing several months into their jobs - now they're depressed and have a huge college debt.
I honestly don't think LSAT is somethign you can study for. It's just common sense/logic that should be innately present in most people.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On June 18 2009 14:47 garmule2 wrote:
I took the LSAT for fun and aced it without a problem.
You are right in some sense -- it is very difficult to get better at the LSAT. This is because whatever answers you get right, you'll think it's obvious, but answers that you get wrong, you won't immediately 'get' why.
Still, you're a jackass, and I probably scored higher than you did.
I recommend practice. It's probably the best way to get better at the LSAT -- if you're scoring low, then maybe Kaplan / Princeton Review can help out, but if you're scoring 160+ understand that there's nothing magical that'll boost you to the 170+ range. Take the tests, find out what you did wrong, and go over it carefully and try to understand why. Repeat with as many practice tests as you can. You just can't waste your time reading about 'strategy' and such, it's like theorycrafting without actually mass-gaming. Lastly, it helps you get through the test faster, which is absolutely essential. The LSAT is designed so that the average test-taker cannot finish in time.
In addition, you should practice on Real LSAT's -- the PrepTests that the College Board sells. They can be found on Amazon, in books of ten, like this -- http://www.amazon.com/More-Actual-Official-LSAT-PrepTests/dp/0979305039/ and http://www.amazon.com/Next-Actual-Official-LSAT-Preptests/dp/0942639898/
Lastly, you need to have an idea of what law schools you are applying to. www.lawschoolnumbers.com is perfect for that. You can search a massive database of past applications and see what GPA/LSAT law schools have accepted in the past. For example, my school's graph can be found here: http://nyu.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats You can see that NYU places a higher value on LSAT, generally, and is in fact willing to drop to about a 3.4 GPA to accept 170+ scores. Compare to say, http://uva.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats , which cares much less about a 170+ LSAT and much more about GPA.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On June 18 2009 19:26 Sadistx wrote:
Before going into law, ask yourself very seriously - is it right for me? Do I want to be for the rest of my life a hyperactive neurotic douchebag on stimulants without the least bit of ethics? Will the good money (a lot of mediocre lawyers don't even get paid that much) really buy me the happiness?
I have 2 friends who went to law school, but discovered it just wasn't their thing several months into their jobs - now they're depressed and have a huge college debt.
I honestly don't think LSAT is somethign you can study for. It's just common sense/logic that should be innately present in most people.
There's much, much more to the world of law than being a hyperactive neurotic douchebag on stimulants without ethics. No one is forced into that kind of work. There are prosecutors, defense attorneys, corporate counsel, public interest folk, government policy-makers, and much more. You should carefully evaluate whether you enjoy the study of law. If you do, then you will find a job that you like, and you will have a good quality of life.
That having been said, you should reconsider your law school plans a little bit if you can't get into a Tier 1 (or for the more elitist, a Top 14 + UT + Vanderbilt + USC) school. It's very, very hard to get a good choice of jobs from a bad law school.
|
8751 Posts
On June 18 2009 14:47 garmule2 wrote:
I took the LSAT for fun and aced it without a problem. I'm not even going to law school. You may hate me, but there's a reason. That reason is an inherent problem-solving ability from years of analytical thinking. No matter what they tell you, you can't study this. I mean of course you can go through LSAT prep books and that will help you if you are lacking basic skills, and it's a good idea, but you should focus on the meta-level: how YOU solve the problem rather than 'how the problem should be solved.'
I'm serious about this - pick a random game, board game, computer game, card game, anything, and learn it. Write down how you learned it, what helped you organize strategies in your head and when breakthrough moments were. Then do that twice more, each time creating and implementing new learning ideas.
That's the key. The LSAT is a series of games with different rulesets. Every 'problem' is just asking you the win condition for some ruleset. For instance, the classic 'there are 6 people at a table, how do you seat them given these rules' problem. They're all just mini-games. If you learn how to learn, you will ace that test without a problem.
You've only mentioned one type of section from the LSAT. The LSAT is absolutely not a "series of games with different rulesets". Only one section is. So either there's something wrong with the function of your glorious brain, a major failure of memory or communication, or you're lying about taking the test. Post a scan of your results sheet or give up.
To the OP: Buy a ton of books: one strategy book and the rest books of practice tests. Learn the strategies and then take the practice tests while strictly sticking to the time constraints. The games section is the most difficult for most people, especially under time constraints, but there are efficient methods that you can use to approach any problem the LSAT may throw at you. Establish a method and then practice it over and over again.
|
United States22883 Posts
Half the people I know who took the LSAT last year made up a fake medical excuse (with doctor's notation) to get the time limit removed from their test, so you could try that. Then again, they're all hyperactive neurotic douchebags on stimulants without ethics.
|
On June 18 2009 21:19 GrandInquisitor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2009 14:47 garmule2 wrote:
I took the LSAT for fun and aced it without a problem. Lastly, you need to have an idea of what law schools you are applying to. www.lawschoolnumbers.com is perfect for that. You can search a massive database of past applications and see what GPA/LSAT law schools have accepted in the past. For example, my school's graph can be found here: http://nyu.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats You can see that NYU places a higher value on LSAT, generally, and is in fact willing to drop to about a 3.4 GPA to accept 170+ scores. Compare to say, http://uva.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats , which cares much less about a 170+ LSAT and much more about GPA.
I'm trying to aim for NYU but my GPA is horrible so I'm going to have to at least get 170+ score to make up for that =((((
On June 18 2009 22:50 Jibba wrote:
Half the people I know who took the LSAT last year made up a fake medical excuse (with doctor's notation) to get the time limit removed from their test, so you could try that. Then again, they're all hyperactive neurotic douchebags on stimulants without ethics.
Fuck man. thats not even fair. And to think those scores are competing with mine who take the test straight up....damn hate those people. If you got medical problems with taking the test, the test is optional, no one is forcing you to take it
Thanks for the helpful insights, I get absolutely time-fucked on games, its incredibly frustrating and sometimes low difficulty game problems gets be clueless. I just wish there was a better method for me to deal with it =(
|
On June 18 2009 16:42 garmule2 wrote:
No, I told him to learn how to learn how to play chess. Though average people always find a reason to resent smarter people. :p
The average person glorifies and immortalizes smarter people through biographies and other historical documentations. The idiot glorifies himself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
