Disappointed with my score. Looking for short-term prep alternatives. HELP?

[EarlCat]

Well I got that information from members on your forum.

If you don't mind, send me a link to those posts so I can inform said members that they don't know wtf they're talking about.

Even during the first session I learned some stuff that 9 months of previous self-self study didn't provide me.

That was my experience the first time in front of a good instructor.

My main point in increasing my score is so I can try to better my chances of getting into my number 1 school. I have the numbers for all my other schools I wish to go to and increasing my lsat score will only help me more with them but isn't necessarily needed.

Is a short-term study method to improve one's score really that bad? I don't have a lot of time but I can make enough to study. And I'm not going to delay going to law school for an entire year just for the slight chance of improving my numbers enough to get into my number 1 choice. So I can't see the harm in it.

Do you think it will screw me up or something?

Haha.  It won't screw you up.  It just won't let you grapple with the material as much.  I'm very much in the minority here, but I don't see the need to rush to go to law school.  So I'm in the camp that see a lot of value in extended prep, and the doors it opens once that higher score is achieved.  Granted, there's a point of diminishing returns, but if you're still in undergrad, life is just starting and there's plenty of time ahead of you.  To each his own.

[jollyrog]

Busy schedule + short-term pre is a formula for disappointment.  I understand scheduling conflicts, but I'm also concerned about the overall amount of time you have to dedicate to studying the LSAT.  If the problem is truly scheduling, and not an overall lack of time, you should consider hiring a tutor.  That'll give you more comprehensive prep and a flexible schedule.

Re: Courses
While I'm a strong advocate for taking prep courses, but I'm not a big fan of taking abbreviated courses.  I've taught Princeton Review's accelerated course, and I'm not a big fan.  The course simply moves too quickly to get into any real deep discussion of the materials.  The longer Hyperlearning course is gold.  Unfortunately I don't know anything about Powerscore's virtual course, but it appears to have just as few hours as TPR Accelerated.  Again, tutoring is probably a better option.

Earl, you've swerved into my thinking. I got so buried at work (50+ hour weeks/only one day off all of August), that my prep really suffered. My planned 20+ PTs became 7. I could never get past the 160 wall, including on the real thing. Considering I have a train wreck GPA (although it's decades old), I really was hoping to get into the 170s, so I was thinking I might get more benefit from the same (or even less) amount spent on tutoring vs. an online course (no live courses available in my area). What are your thoughts?

[EarlCat]

Absent any other info, I'd pick tutoring over an online course.  But tutoring is like taking piano lessons--they only tell you what to practice and how to practice it, and when you come back, they're going to tell you what you've been doing wrong.  The vast majority of the practice is done on your own, which means your results are largely a product of how much time you set aside for it. 

Lots of people prep with full-time jobs, so don't think that you can't.  But just about everything else gets sacrificed to get those last 4-5 hours of awake time in every day.