This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - HYSHopeful
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8  10 11 12 13 14 ... 18
« on: August 03, 2008, 12:49:02 PM »
« on: August 03, 2008, 11:36:58 AM »
« on: August 02, 2008, 02:25:13 PM »
I didn't like Ace the LSAT, but found LBG to be very helpful.
« on: August 02, 2008, 02:19:43 PM »
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?
« on: August 01, 2008, 12:06:31 PM »
Snicker: I'm glad to see that you've reconsidered your test date. I believe that someone performing at your level can easily be fully-prepared by the October test date. You may not want to take a prep test on the day before the real test, but I don't think it hurts to save a test for that day, just in case you feel as though you need some fresh, recent material to go through. I probably wouldn't save PT 54 for that day, because you definitely want to be sure to take that one. Consider saving something in the 40s. Sure, you wont LEARN anything that day, but it may help calm your nerves and keep up your sense of pacing. I always noticed that if I took the weekend off, I'd never perform quite as well on Monday. My sense of pacing would get thrown off by a few seconds per question and I'd end up missing one or two questions near the end of the first section that I took. Sure, you don't want to be burnt-out, but you don't want to be rusty either. If you usually score a 175 on Monday after taking a couple of days off, then score a 177 on Tuesday, and a 178 on Wednesday... then perhaps taking a day off prior to the exam isn't such a great idea for you. If, however, you find that you get burnt-out taking exams on back-to-back days, then take the day off. Again, the important thing is doing what is right for YOU, not for the average test taker.
...but I think having that extra pressure will help me to go into it confidently. Hopefully I don't run into an LG problem that gives me trouble early on, since those cause me to lose a lot of confidence and do worse than I normally would.
Confidence is, indeed, very important when going into the LSAT. But, by test day you won't have to worry so much about LG. On October 4th, you will have prepared for that section so thoroughly that it will be a breeze. By practicing over and over, and consistently implementing the same techniques on hundreds of games, you will eventually become comfortable knowing that there is nothing the test-makers could throw at you to that you wouldn't be prepared to handle. I felt the same way about a month before my exam. LG seemed to be the wild card for me. But after reading and implementing the techniques in the LGB, eventually LG just "clicked." By test day, that was the section that I felt most comfortable with. I flew through the LG section, finishing with a few minutes to spare, fully confident that each of my answers was correct. If you continue to work as hard as it appears that you have up to this point, you will feel the same way by test day. I recommend going to the back of the LGB, making a list of all linear games in PTs 1 through 25 or so. Attack each of these games until you have mastered the Linear Game Type. Time yourself on each question. Start working on untimed games at first. Work your way up to trying to complete every game in under 9 minutes. Eventually you will hope to finish nearly every game in under 8 minutes and 45 seconds. Experiment with attempting to finish games in under 8 minutes, under 7 minutes. Had trouble with a game? Review it, go through it again, try a new set-up, figure out where you went wrong. Did you miss/misunderstand a rule? Did you miss an inference in your setup? Could you have diagrammed the rules more clearly/effectively? Could your set up have been better? Did you take too much/too little time on your set up? Where did you make an error in your thinking process? Did the game have a limited solution set that you should've realized and implemented into your setup? Take notes on every game. Keep a log, keep a diary, keep drilling. Repeat this process for each game type: advanced linear, grouping, combination, etc. Logic Games follow a predictable formula that you will be very familiar with by test day. Drill it until you kill it.
The only reason I would have not to take the October test is if I find myself doing noticably worse (that is, out of the 170s) on the more modern LSATs compared to those I've taken thus far (up to October 2000).
Don't be intimidated by the modern tests. I actually felt that the material was easier on the modern tests, which, as a result, had correspondingly tight scales. I'm not sure if the material is actually easier, or if it just felt that way because I'd become more comfortable with it. Modern LG sections have become shorter and more predictable, while Modern RC sections have gotten longer (and therefore slightly more difficult).
Since RC has gotten longer, it is especially important that you don't neglect that section. RC tends to be the most often neglected section both by students prepping, and by authors creating LSAT books. It is also one of the more difficult and time-consuming sections to review. I'd consider it to be the least enjoyable section as well. Don't allow yourself to under-prepare for RC.
Hope this helps! Good luck! Again, PM me or shoot me an email at HYSHopeful@gmail.com
if you'd like to chat sometime.
« on: August 01, 2008, 12:05:43 PM »
I was prepping in the 170-175 range about 2 weeks prior to the exam. The week prior to the exam I bumped up to the 175+ range, with my last three PTs on the Thursday, Friday, and Saturday leading up to the exam: 176, 175, 178. I ended up scoring a 177 on test day - 1 point lower than my best PT, though there was no 178 possible on the June administration.
If you wouldn't mind clarifying, did you only START PTing in the 170-175 range two weeks prior to the exam, or had you been PTing in that range for some time before that?
My first timed diagnostic was on March 1st, and was a 152. This shook me up pretty bad... I have pretty high expectations of myself, and "152" is a number I'd expect to see on an IQ test, not the LSAT. I've always been a good test taker and took for granted that I would perform much better. I knew that I needed to be in the 170+ range if I was going to get into the kinds of schools that I wanted to go to, and I'd never heard of anyone jumping 20 points from their initial diagnostic. I was set on taking the test in June, so I knew that I had my work cut out for me if I was going to stand any chance of getting into a top law school. This really lit a fire under me, and over spring break I spent around 8 hours a day studying for 10 days straight. On March 11th , I took my second timed diagnostic and scored a 170. Believing that this may have been a fluke, I took another test that same day, and scored a 169.
Here is a copy of the spreadsheet that I was keeping... I hope the formatting shows up properly:
Date Test Section 1 Score Section 2 Score Section 3 Score Section 4 Score Raw LSAT SCORE
Mar 1, 2008 49 Analytical Reasoning 10/22 Logical Reasoning 19/26 Reading Comp 14/27 Logical Reasoning 19/25 62/100 152
Mar 11, 2008 20 Logical Reasoning 25/25 Reading Comp 20/26 Analytical Reasoning 20/24 Logical Reasoning 24/26 89/101 170
Mar 11, 2008 21 Analytical Reasoning 19/24 Logical Reasoning 23/25 Logical Reasoning 21/25 Reading Comp 21/25 86/101 169
Mar 14, 2008 23 Analytical Reasoning 15/24 Logical Reasoning 21/26 Logical Reasoning 21/24 Reading Comp 19/26 76/100 164
***Between Mar 14 and Apr 19, I didn't have very much time to study since I was working full time and going to school full time. I tried to squeeze in work on Logic Games as often as possible, since that was my major weakness.
Apr 19, 2008 45 Logical Reasoning 20/25 Reading Comp 22/27 Analytical Reasoning 19/22 Logical Reasoning 22/25 83/99 167
***Between Apr 19 and May 19, I was finishing up school and work, studying for finals, then graduating and moving home from school. Again, I tried to squeeze in work on LG as often as I could, but didn't get more than a few hours a week in. Once I got home from school, I had no job and committed myself full-time to LSAT prep. I was working on LSAT prep 8-12 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week. I tried to take at least 1 PT every day, then focused the rest of my day on reviewing the exam and working on areas that were weak.
May 19, 2008 A Logical Reasoning 24/25 Reading Comp 22/27 Analytical Reasoning 18/24 Logical Reasoning 23/25 87/101 166
May 21, 2008 25 Reading Comp 25/26 Logical Reasoning 22/25 Analytical Reasoning 17/24 Logical Reasoning 25/26 89/101 170
May 21, 2008 26 Analytical Reasoning 18/25 Logical Reasoning 25/25 Logical Reasoning 21/25 Reading Comp 22/27 86/101 169
May 22, 2008 27 Logical Reasoning 25/26 Analytical Reasoning 16/24 Reading Comp 21/26 Logical Reasoning 24/25 86/101 171
***This is all the information that I have in my excel spreadsheet on this computer. The rest of my log was done w/ pen and paper. If anyone thinks it would be helpful, I can type it up for you guys.
Basically, I became fairly consistent around the 170-172 range and plateaued until about 1 week prior to the exam, when I scored my first 176. Then, I dropped back down for a couple days, and finally began prepping consistently in the 175+ range a few days prior to the exam. I took the day before the exam off, but then that freaked me out so I woke up early on the day of the exam and took 2 full LR sections to warm up.
Before I get yelled at by anyone for promoting such an odd prep routine... I should note that I'm not recommending this admittedly unorthodox schedule, and I'm not saying that taking 2 full LR sections in the hours before the test is a good idea. This is just what worked for me personally. This is how I scored a 177 on test day. I'm probably not your average LSAT taker, so these sort of strategies may not work for the majority of people. I just know how to play to my strengths when studying, and I know what works for me. I knew that I had 3-4 weeks to devote my entire life to the LSAT immediately preceding the exam. I knew that I could study for 8-12 hours a day without losing focus. I knew that I study most successfully under extreme pressure. I knew what would work for me, and I think that is the most important thing: Learn what works for you, figure out how to play to your strengths, weaknesses, learning style, schedule, etc. If anyone tells you that there is only one way to successfully prep for the LSAT, or tells you that no one can improve more than 5-10 points from your initial diagnostic, don't believe them. If you are currently prepping in the 170-175 range, then you are in a small minority of high-performing test-takers, and you can't necessarily count on advice intended for the average student. Once you reach that level, you may need to try some unorthodox techniques to bump yourself up into the 175+ range.
« on: July 31, 2008, 09:21:39 PM »
I'd definitely say that your first diagnostic should be timed. This will give you a good baseline score to work up from. It will also give you an idea of just how intense the exam is under timed conditions, which should inspire you to study like crazy.
Within a week following your first timed test, take an untimed test. Take 1 to 2 hours per section. Work very slowly and deliberately through each question, attempting to get as many correct as possible. You'll do much better on this untimed exam, which will help to build your confidence (which was probably crushed by your first timed exam).
Compare the two results. Are you having huge problems with timing? Or are you having trouble with the fundamental comprehension of the material?
« on: July 30, 2008, 02:03:15 PM »
Let me first mention that I've searched all threads pertaining to RC, and have thoroughly read and follow their advice.
Now, the problem I have is with comprehension. I'll read an entire passage, but when I get to the end, I'll forget what I read and can't successfully answer the questions. I've tried slowing down, making notes, etc, etc. Anyways, I tend to get 3 out of the 7 questions right for each passage.
However, I find that if a read a passage 2-3 times in row (before going to the questions), I tend to do very well (6 out of 7 questions correct). Now, obviously there's no time to read a passage 2-3 times on the real LSAT, so does anyone have any tips on how I can improve my comprehension?
I'm very much regretting it now, but as a kid, I barely ever read anything... I was just interested in other things. Mind you, I still do well in school (GPA 3.82), but I'm in a purely technical field (engineering), where we seldom read large text. I'm excellent with LR & LG (just a couple wrong per section), but am dreadful at RC
You don't need to memorize the passage. Try and focus on paying attention to the STRUCTURE of the passage. You don't need to remember the details of the passage, but it is important to remember WHERE those details are located. The passage is right there in front of you when you are answering the questions... you CAN and SHOULD refer back to it on any detail questions.
Experiment with underlining key words and phrases: "First, Second, Third"; "Furthermore"; "On the other hand"; "for example"; "namely"; "for one thing"; "In addition"; "Nevertheless"; "For these reasons"; "proponents believe"; "critics believe"; "But"; "However"; "According to"; "In contrast"; "...claims"; ...goes so far as to claim"; "others argue"; etc. This is far from a comprehensive list. As you work through more RC passages, you begin to develop a sense for where the testmakers are likely to draw questions from. The goal is to anticipate where questions are likely to be drawn from, and remember where that important information is located so that if you see it later then you will know exactly where to refer to.
Be aware of shifts in tone, shifts from support of an idea to rejection of an idea, etc. While you are reading each paragraph, think "why is the author including this information? Does she agree/disagree with the information?"
It probably would take 3 or 4 readings to fully understand and memorize every detail of the passage, but it should be fairly easy to memorize and/or note WHERE the details are located within the passage in only 1 reading. Then, as you go through the questions, you will be able to quickly refer to the passage.
In sum, don't focus on memorization, don't focus on details -- DO focus on Structure, DO focus on Main Idea, DO focus on Author's tone, DO focus on shifts in opinion/tone.
« on: July 30, 2008, 01:17:30 PM »
I think that it really depends on your learning style.
I was the type of student in college who wouldn't retain too terribly much from lectures in-class, but quickly picked up concepts and retained them quite well by reading the text outside of class. I would also describe myself as a "self-starter," who doesn't require much structure in order to keep myself on track. Knowing my learning and studying styles, I chose to self-study and found that to be very successful.
If, on the other hand, you are the type of student who finds lectures to be very helpful, or if you believe that you need the structure of a course in order to keep yourself motivated to study, then perhaps a course would be a worthwhile investment.
There is no right answer for everyone across the board. You have to take a close look at yourself and play to your strengths and your particular learning style and situation.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8  10 11 12 13 14 ... 18