Why am I not progressing with self-study?

[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!

[Julie Fern]

Yes, they've been put on notice that the board mongoloid, who can't even put together a coherent sentence, feels the compulsive need to seek attention when people are asking for help.

Yay, Julie! You so special!!!!

not mock handicapped, racist preppy dipshit.

SHE SO SPECIAL!!!!!!!

yes, so special julie know when you wrong.

[Julie Fern]

Well Julie, Jeffort mentioned to me in a conversation once that he refered tutoring students in socal to Lindbergh, so that's enough cred for me.

and so apparently lindbergh continue to give out at least some patently inaccurate information.

wrong is wrong.

[Julie Fern]

Well Julie, Jeffort mentioned to me in a conversation once that he refered tutoring students in socal to Lindbergh, so that's enough cred for me. And, Lindbergh, Julie can communicate normally. She did so in a thread a few weeks ago. Can we concentrate on flaming the noobs instead of each other? Thanks.

As always, HTH.
What does it say about a thread where just some guy has to be the voice of reason?

Yeah, Jeffort and Lindbergh were friends in posts of the past I saw but proof is all gone now. His posts went poof and vaporized like liquid nitrogen when he took off and ran away with all of them. I tried to search through them again and there are only 2 left. WTF?
Now we just have to have fun fighting and flirting with Julie till somebody starts posting actual explanations again. Lindbergh, you up for it? You could PWN Julie that way ya know.

So where is my darling Julie? Sweetie are you out drinking already today? Do I need to send for a cab to get you home for our evening roll in the hey?

it not like julie can stop this dipshit from handing out his garbage.

[Julie Fern]

that what we already got.

[Julie Fern]

Well Julie, Jeffort mentioned to me in a conversation once that he refered tutoring students in socal to Lindbergh, so that's enough cred for me. And, Lindbergh, Julie can communicate normally. She did so in a thread a few weeks ago. Can we concentrate on flaming the noobs instead of each other? Thanks.

As always, HTH.
What does it say about a thread where just some guy has to be the voice of reason?

I'd be perfectly happy if Julie would stop flaming LSAT related threads, and allow people to actually try to help the OP's without contantly/desperately seeking attention for herself. We'll see how that works out.

if you think attention julie's thing, then stop giving it julie.

[Julie Fern]

Well Julie, Jeffort mentioned to me in a conversation once that he refered tutoring students in socal to Lindbergh, so that's enough cred for me. And, Lindbergh, Julie can communicate normally. She did so in a thread a few weeks ago. Can we concentrate on flaming the noobs instead of each other? Thanks.

As always, HTH.
What does it say about a thread where just some guy has to be the voice of reason?

Yeah, Jeffort and Lindbergh were friends in posts of the past I saw but proof is all gone now. His posts went poof and vaporized like liquid nitrogen when he took off and ran away with all of them. I tried to search through them again and there are only 2 left. WTF?
Now we just have to have fun fighting and flirting with Julie till somebody starts posting actual explanations again. Lindbergh, you up for it? You could PWN Julie that way ya know.

So where is my darling Julie? Sweetie are you out drinking already today? Do I need to send for a cab to get you home for our evening roll in the hey?

1. You do know julie's a guy, right? As long as you do, feel free to enjoy the virtual booty call.

not sniff julie's booty.  and julie understand you have very, very small pee-pee.  prove otherwise, einstein.

[Julie Fern]

Well Julie, Jeffort mentioned to me in a conversation once that he refered tutoring students in socal to Lindbergh, so that's enough cred for me. And, Lindbergh, Julie can communicate normally. She did so in a thread a few weeks ago. Can we concentrate on flaming the noobs instead of each other? Thanks.

As always, HTH.
What does it say about a thread where just some guy has to be the voice of reason?

Yeah, Jeffort and Lindbergh were friends in posts of the past I saw but proof is all gone now. His posts went poof and vaporized like liquid nitrogen when he took off and ran away with all of them. I tried to search through them again and there are only 2 left. WTF?
Now we just have to have fun fighting and flirting with Julie till somebody starts posting actual explanations again. Lindbergh, you up for it? You could PWN Julie that way ya know.

So where is my darling Julie? Sweetie are you out drinking already today? Do I need to send for a cab to get you home for our evening roll in the hey?

2. I would have no problem with julie actually trying to help someone. The question is if she/he can get past her/his pathological need for negative attention long enough to do so. My fingers are crossed.

that funny, because julie give out accurate information and you give out bull.  your fingerts not crossed, they up your heinie.

[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?

[Julie Fern]

Well Julie, Jeffort mentioned to me in a conversation once that he refered tutoring students in socal to Lindbergh, so that's enough cred for me.

and so apparently lindbergh continue to give out at least some patently inaccurate information.

wrong is wrong.

Let's see, I believe that students should tackle the reading comp passages/questions (and all other areas) in order of perceived difficulty, and julie feels they should all be done in order, because she feels the LSAT has graciously already set them up in order of difficulty.

Doing them in order of difficulty clearly makes sense, as this is the most efficient way to get through the exam and maximize your points, given that all questions are worth the same amount of points, and time is limited.

The only real question, therefore, is whether the LSAT does in fact generously set up all questions, passages, games, etc, in order of difficulty. I have seen no evidence that they do, and, in fact, according to my own experience, and the experience of the students I have worked with, this is not in fact the case.

Even if it were the case that the LSAT set up all questions in order of difficulty, in terms of how most student perform on the questions, there would still be individual variance in terms of what types of questions different students have trouble with. (I know students that love parallel reasoning questions, generally considered the most difficult, but have trouble with other LR's.) So even if julie's belief is somehow correct, it wouldn't change the fact that individual students should ideally approach questions/passages/games in order of subjectively perceived difficulty if they want to maximize their score. This not only allows them to get through the maximum number of questions before time expires, but it allows them to warm up within each section, helps reduce stress levels, etc.

This all seems pretty self-evident, and is based on years of helping students improve their LSAT performance. That said, I can also see how someone, particularly those especially strong in all areas, might not want to take the time to attempt to identify more difficult questions, and might instead choose to simply steamroll through every section. I can even see why such a person might advocate such an approach for all students, especially if they haven't spent much time trying to help others with different abilities improve their score. And I wouldn't attack such a person for doing so, I would simply note my disagreement, and why.

What I can't understand is someone vehemently claiming that the above recommended approch is "patently inaccurate", or "wrong", especially when accompanied by angry, childish attacks. People come here looking for assistance, and everyone should feel free to share their views about why a particular approach is helpful, or not helpful, without it turning into a bitter expression of someone's deep-seated, personal unhappiness. It's clear that julie is an unhappy person, and comes here looking for negative attention -- I just wish she'd leave that stuff on the other boards, where people aren't actually looking for help.

But again, if julie wants to express and support her position on why people should simply do the questions in the order listed, she's welcome to do so, and I won't attack her for it (though I might disagree, and explain why.). The same goes for any other honest advice she wants to give. I would expect the same courtesy be extended to all posters.

julie agree you seen no evidence because you ignorant its existence.

if you not like what julie say, always free ignore her...if can.