Why am I not progressing with self-study?

[Julie Fern]

Leave it to some guide to hand out the worst advice on this thread. Here are just the first three things I found wrong with this idea.

1. Wouldn't categorizing the passages as easy or interesting entail having to read them?

One can usually briefly skim a passage in a few seconds and get a sense of the subject matter, level of complexity, etc.

2. What happens if you find the law related passage to be the easiest or most interesting? I mean, a) it's pretty subjective, and b)this is, after all, a test for future lawyers.

Then you should definitely do it first.

3. In a 35 minute test, any time spent analyzing which ones are easier before even diving in to the passage is, by definition, wasted time.

Not at all. If this helps you approach the exam in a efficient manner that helps you maximize points (which it usually will), then it's generally very well-invested time.

You're going to have to read them all if you want a good score. Take 'em as they come.

Not necessarily. Most people would probably define "good score" as anything above 160. You could certainly break 160 (or even perhaps 170) while guessing on an RC passage, and/or a game. (You could theoretically guess on 25 questions and get a 160, as long as you nailed the remainder.) For many students, guessing in this manner is the best approach. (It doesn't matter how many questions you hit, it only matters how many you get right, and for some students, they'll maximize their score by spending more time on a smaller percentage of questions. That smaller percentage, of course, should be the easier questions.)

In my opinion, even those shooting for 170+ should work easiest to hardest, as it allows them to warm up for the section, build up momentum, and rack up points more quickly.

really, "definitely"?  even if it fourth passage, which have almost all difficult questions?

julie find more when can, if you not delete already.

[Lindbergh]

Leave it to some guide to hand out the worst advice on this thread. Here are just the first three things I found wrong with this idea.

1. Wouldn't categorizing the passages as easy or interesting entail having to read them?

One can usually briefly skim a passage in a few seconds and get a sense of the subject matter, level of complexity, etc.

2. What happens if you find the law related passage to be the easiest or most interesting? I mean, a) it's pretty subjective, and b)this is, after all, a test for future lawyers.

Then you should definitely do it first.

3. In a 35 minute test, any time spent analyzing which ones are easier before even diving in to the passage is, by definition, wasted time.

Not at all. If this helps you approach the exam in a efficient manner that helps you maximize points (which it usually will), then it's generally very well-invested time.

You're going to have to read them all if you want a good score. Take 'em as they come.

Not necessarily. Most people would probably define "good score" as anything above 160. You could certainly break 160 (or even perhaps 170) while guessing on an RC passage, and/or a game. (You could theoretically guess on 25 questions and get a 160, as long as you nailed the remainder.) For many students, guessing in this manner is the best approach. (It doesn't matter how many questions you hit, it only matters how many you get right, and for some students, they'll maximize their score by spending more time on a smaller percentage of questions. That smaller percentage, of course, should be the easier questions.)

In my opinion, even those shooting for 170+ should work easiest to hardest, as it allows them to warm up for the section, build up momentum, and rack up points more quickly.

really, "definitely"?  even if it fourth passage, which have almost all difficult questions?

julie find more when can, if you not delete already.

1. You first need to support your apparent belief that the 4th passage will always have "almost all" difficult questions.  You may be correct, but we don't know this yet.  If there's any variance whatsoever on this issue (or on the relative difficulty of the remaining passages), that calls your theory (that you should just steamroll through the section) into question.

2.  If you can do so, then the question becomes whether the likely greater ease in reading and understanding the passage (due to the subject matter) will offset any greater difficulty in the questions themselves.  If you know the passage well enough, the difficulty level would presumably have to be substantially greater to offset the natural advantage gained by absorbing the material more quickly.

It should be noted that subject matter interest is just one factor in determining the difficulty of a passage.  As noted, complexity level is another, as are the difficulty of the questions themselves.  None of this contradicts the idea that one should generally work through the passages in order of difficulty if they wish to maximize their points.

[Lindbergh]

you know nothing about julie, except she know more about lsat than you.

Sure you do, Julie! And someday, when you graduate from your special school, maybe you'll actually take one! (Untimed, of course.)

She's so special!!!

bluster not same as knowledge, as we all can see.

Yes, Julie, we can all see your bluster is completely baseless.

hey, preppy, tell us again about those norming data, eh?

oh, wait--you can't!

Have you linked to any alleged norming data yet, my geeky friend? I wasn't aware that you had.

Assuming such data exists, is it still your position that all testtakers find all questions equally difficult? And that there is no individual variance whatsoever in what kinds of questions, passages, and games different students struggle with?

Because if it is, I think you need to consider your position a little more thoughtfully. Or, you could just keep repeating the words "norming data" in a shrill tone, like an OCD parrot. Either way.

julie want watch you twist in wind some more. your ignorance of publicly-released norming data bad enough, now being compounded by your failure/inability locate it.

remember, you postulated that there difficulty pattern in rc, but your "facts" simply wrong. thus, this obviate your attempt cover your tracks through your "personal interest" theory. where your data for either these, preppie?

2. You're the one that postulated there was a difficulty pattern in RC, not me. Are you now claiming "your" facts were wrong?

however, you also claim pattern, such as in next post

Nope, I said that students should do the passages in order of difficulty, in terms of what they find easier / more interesting.  Very different idea.

[Julie Fern]

Leave it to some guide to hand out the worst advice on this thread. Here are just the first three things I found wrong with this idea.

1. Wouldn't categorizing the passages as easy or interesting entail having to read them?

One can usually briefly skim a passage in a few seconds and get a sense of the subject matter, level of complexity, etc.

2. What happens if you find the law related passage to be the easiest or most interesting? I mean, a) it's pretty subjective, and b)this is, after all, a test for future lawyers.

Then you should definitely do it first.

3. In a 35 minute test, any time spent analyzing which ones are easier before even diving in to the passage is, by definition, wasted time.

Not at all. If this helps you approach the exam in a efficient manner that helps you maximize points (which it usually will), then it's generally very well-invested time.

You're going to have to read them all if you want a good score. Take 'em as they come.

Not necessarily. Most people would probably define "good score" as anything above 160. You could certainly break 160 (or even perhaps 170) while guessing on an RC passage, and/or a game. (You could theoretically guess on 25 questions and get a 160, as long as you nailed the remainder.) For many students, guessing in this manner is the best approach. (It doesn't matter how many questions you hit, it only matters how many you get right, and for some students, they'll maximize their score by spending more time on a smaller percentage of questions. That smaller percentage, of course, should be the easier questions.)

In my opinion, even those shooting for 170+ should work easiest to hardest, as it allows them to warm up for the section, build up momentum, and rack up points more quickly.

passages already arranged order difficulty.

discussion over.

Um, no.

For one thing, the difficulty level in RC is generally tied to how interesting the subject matter is for the reader, which is of course inherently subjective.

you just wrong, making it up as go along. all passages better be interesting if you take test seriously. you just misleading people.

but just for fun: what your other alleged "things"?

Given your linguistic skills, I doubt you've ever taken the LSAT. But in my experience, most students find different passages difficult depending on the subject matter, and their personal interest in the subject matter. There's no question that personal interest makes a passage easier to focus on and comprehend, and that personal interest is inherently subjective. (Bio majors will like sciences passage more, etc.)

Not all passages are in fact interesting. You obviously need to focus as much as possible on each passage if you want to do well, but you should also do them in order of personal difficulty, to maximize your points and work most efficiently.

I've never heard anyone claim that RC is laid out in order of difficulty. The LSAT simply doesn't work like this, for the most part -- they prefer to make things as difficult as possible. That's why the easier games questions are usually among the last 3 or so, with the hardest among the first 3 or so. (That's the other thing.)

and here you just as wrong about analytical reasoning!

[Julie Fern]

3. Do you really dispute that given students may find different passages more interesting, and therefore easier to comprehend?

this effect should be minimal, although julie not claim have data support this, as you seem claim.

any lsat-taker who not able be interested in any reading comp passage whatsoever just looking for excuse and already in deep, deep trouble.  "oh, golly, i'm going skip this particularly easy first passage because it about literature, and that icky."  puh-lease.

also, norming data--which, obviously, aggregate--already would reflect such dynamic to whatever extent it exists.

[Julie Fern]

1. You first need to support your apparent belief that the 4th passage will always have "almost all" difficult questions. You may be correct, but we don't know this yet. If there's any variance whatsoever on this issue (or on the relative difficulty of the remaining passages), that calls your theory (that you should just steamroll through the section) into question.

oh, julie know.  in fact, it look to be on order of 73% difficult questions in fourth passage.

you one in dark, preppie.

better give up and hope those tutoring clients you trying impress here forget about this little incident.

[Julie Fern]

2. If you can do so, then the question becomes whether the likely greater ease in reading and understanding the passage (due to the subject matter) will offset any greater difficulty in the questions themselves. If you know the passage well enough, the difficulty level would presumably have to be substantially greater to offset the natural advantage gained by absorbiady said, wrong again.ng the material more quickly.

as already said, wrong again.  to whatever extet this principle valid, it already be reflected in norming data, which simply measure how often test-takers, in aggregate, answer correctly.

so, julie gather this cornerstone of your reading comp "methodollogy."  and how much you charge for this garbage?

[Julie Fern]

you know nothing about julie, except she know more about lsat than you.

Sure you do, Julie! And someday, when you graduate from your special school, maybe you'll actually take one! (Untimed, of course.)

She's so special!!!

bluster not same as knowledge, as we all can see.

Yes, Julie, we can all see your bluster is completely baseless.

hey, preppy, tell us again about those norming data, eh?

oh, wait--you can't!

Have you linked to any alleged norming data yet, my geeky friend? I wasn't aware that you had.

Assuming such data exists, is it still your position that all testtakers find all questions equally difficult? And that there is no individual variance whatsoever in what kinds of questions, passages, and games different students struggle with?

Because if it is, I think you need to consider your position a little more thoughtfully. Or, you could just keep repeating the words "norming data" in a shrill tone, like an OCD parrot. Either way.

julie want watch you twist in wind some more. your ignorance of publicly-released norming data bad enough, now being compounded by your failure/inability locate it.

remember, you postulated that there difficulty pattern in rc, but your "facts" simply wrong. thus, this obviate your attempt cover your tracks through your "personal interest" theory. where your data for either these, preppie?

2. You're the one that postulated there was a difficulty pattern in RC, not me. Are you now claiming "your" facts were wrong?

however, you also claim pattern, such as in next post

Nope, I said that students should do the passages in order of difficulty, in terms of what they find easier / more interesting. Very different idea.

julie believe people can read yur words for selves and decide who right.  you ignorant of norming data, no amount of blustering here can change that.

[EarlCat]

Dude, wtf?

And what happened to my earlier post in this thread???

[HYSHopeful]

Why does this seem to happen on most threads in this Forum? It seems as though 90% of all threads in "Studying for the LSAT" get derailed by Julie Fern and Cliff007.

It is frustrating to post well-considered, thoughtful advice only to realize that it is hidden between pages of nonsensical rambling between Cliff007 and Julie Fern.

Generally, the best strategy is to ignore them as much as possible. Unfortunately, it is becoming harder and harder to do so. There have been threads where I've spent an hour carefully answering the question of someone who legitimately needs advice. I come back a few days later only to find that these two have filled the following 4 pages with their tomfoolery. The thread dies, and the advice is never read by more than a few people who happened upon it before the thread was denigrated. This discourages individuals like me from posting legitimate advice, it makes it difficult or impossible for people in real need of advice to receive it. These absurd digressions are hurting the "Studying for the LSAT" board, and they are hurting the people who come here for help.

Julie Fern and Cliff007: I understand that you two are just having fun, but please consider how your posts are effecting those who come here to give/receive legitimate advice and engage in an actual intellectual discourse about a very difficult exam. Limiting this sort of behavior to Off-Topic boards would be very much appreciated.

Lindbergh: Replying to them only encourages them... and contributes to the pages of text that people have to sift through to finally find any real advice. 

EarlCat: Is there anything that you can do as a moderator to control and/or limit this?

Thanks!
-HYSHopeful