4 ms·

the only secret to the LSAT is to grind practice tests. back in the day (~10 years ago) i torrented all the available tests (~70) and all the practice books. I

the only secret to the LSAT is to grind practice tests. back in the day (~10 years ago) i torrented all the available tests (~70) and all the practice books. I did one of the books to learn the "tricks" and then just took all the tests. scored a 178 (and then never went to law school lol).

gowld 1y ago
Did you track your progress across practice tests? Did you need 70 tests to reach 178 performance?
- lyrrad 1y ago
  I think 70 tests is overkill. As long as you are able to analyze and learn from your mistakes, you should be able to improve doing a fraction of the tests. My experience was from almost two decades ago and is atypical. I had decided to write it only just a month before the LSAT, and so I started prior tests only four weeks before the test date. In that time, I did 27 official practice tests. I also read a couple books and tried two unofficial tests. I tracked my results in a spreadsheet and had a marginal improvement from 173.4 to 176 for the first five and last five tests. But, essentially all improvement happened after just ten tests. In all practice tests, I did best in logic games, answering 98.1% correct, compared with 93.5% for logical reasoning and 91.4% for reading comprehension. I was somewhat lucky and got 97/99 on the actual test, enough for a 180 that time (2 incorrect in logical reasoning). I had only got that twice in the practice tests with an expectation between 174 and 180 with a median of 176. After each test I analyzed every incorrect answer as well as the ones I was less sure about. There were online forums where I could ask about, or see other people's analysis of the problem questions. I think a strategy aimed understanding wrong answers in your weakest area can be a more efficient use of preparation time.
  - giantg2 1y ago
    "I think a strategy aimed understanding wrong answers in your weakest area can be a more efficient use of preparation time." This is how I study. I don't need to review my strong areas, I need to learn the weak ones. I can cruise through tech certs very quickly this way. People are always surprised when I can learn earn a cert after studying only 2-10 hours for it.
- almostgotcaught 1y ago
  Not with intent - I remember that I was excited the first time I got a 180 (maybe half-way through?) but I didn't stop at that point. Each test only took about two hours (I didn't practice the essay section because it was well-known it didn't matter) so it wasn't such a huge investment to do them all. Including the practice book it took me about 2 months of 1-2 practice tests a day.
giantg2 1y ago
That's a good score. I took a practice LSAT once. I think I got a 148 or a 152. I thought that was pretty good until I looked it up. Not terrible for not studying, but it was only the 40th percentile haha.
graeme 1y ago
This works if you're already smart. Have seen plenty of people grind through all the tests while barely improving their score or ending well below their goals.
- almostgotcaught 1y ago
  Anecdotes abound <shrug>. My only advantage going into it was 1) I was a good reader 2) I was well familiar with logical fallacies from a childhood of trolling/debating people online. But it's a standardized test that covers a very small set of skills. So just like any other standardized thing it's trainable.
  - dhosek 1y ago
    It seems to me that if you’re not a good reader, law school is probably not for you. I would guess that while doing well on the LSAT doesn’t necessarily mean you’d do well in law school, if grinding practice tests doesn’t get you a good score on the LSAT, then you probably won’t do well in law school. (Which is not to say that you couldn’t get into some law school somewhere and pass—University of American Samoa anyone?—just that having got your J.D., you might find it a challenge to pass the bar, and if you do you might find it a challenge to get a job that’s not handling bankruptcies for a storefront practice that advertises in the Pennysaver.)
  - graeme 1y ago
    The test pretty much only tests: 1. Raw reading skill 2. Precision 3. Working memory. (Less of this now that LG are gone) You've got #1 and #2 covered it sounds like, and presuming you're a programming you're likely also top 10% in working memory, bare minimum. There's lots of specific stuff you can teach that helps bridge deficits in those three skills, but they're serious bottlenecks if you don't come into LSAT studying already having them. A lot of people read poorly, aren't precise, and get easily distracted/have low working memory. Including college graduates.
    - graham2000 1y ago
      I think the LSAT has lots of overlap, skills-wise, with programming. My undergrad math classes were way more helpful than my political science classes for LSAT prep. But I think the relevant skills are actually (1) pattern recognition; and (when logic games were still a thing) (2) being able to follow rules methodically one-by-one. A good memory can help on the reading section for sure. But a lot of students get tripped up trying to memorize all the details of long passages, when they should actually zoom out a little more so they can get the gist of the passage, and then use that bigger picture understanding to contextualize the details.

gowld 1y ago

Did you track your progress across practice tests? Did you need 70 tests to reach 178 performance?

lyrrad 1y ago
I think 70 tests is overkill. As long as you are able to analyze and learn from your mistakes, you should be able to improve doing a fraction of the tests. My experience was from almost two decades ago and is atypical. I had decided to write it only just a month before the LSAT, and so I started prior tests only four weeks before the test date. In that time, I did 27 official practice tests. I also read a couple books and tried two unofficial tests. I tracked my results in a spreadsheet and had a marginal improvement from 173.4 to 176 for the first five and last five tests. But, essentially all improvement happened after just ten tests. In all practice tests, I did best in logic games, answering 98.1% correct, compared with 93.5% for logical reasoning and 91.4% for reading comprehension. I was somewhat lucky and got 97/99 on the actual test, enough for a 180 that time (2 incorrect in logical reasoning). I had only got that twice in the practice tests with an expectation between 174 and 180 with a median of 176. After each test I analyzed every incorrect answer as well as the ones I was less sure about. There were online forums where I could ask about, or see other people's analysis of the problem questions. I think a strategy aimed understanding wrong answers in your weakest area can be a more efficient use of preparation time.
- giantg2 1y ago
  "I think a strategy aimed understanding wrong answers in your weakest area can be a more efficient use of preparation time." This is how I study. I don't need to review my strong areas, I need to learn the weak ones. I can cruise through tech certs very quickly this way. People are always surprised when I can learn earn a cert after studying only 2-10 hours for it.
almostgotcaught 1y ago
Not with intent - I remember that I was excited the first time I got a 180 (maybe half-way through?) but I didn't stop at that point. Each test only took about two hours (I didn't practice the essay section because it was well-known it didn't matter) so it wasn't such a huge investment to do them all. Including the practice book it took me about 2 months of 1-2 practice tests a day.

giantg2 1y ago

That's a good score. I took a practice LSAT once. I think I got a 148 or a 152. I thought that was pretty good until I looked it up. Not terrible for not studying, but it was only the 40th percentile haha.

graeme 1y ago

This works if you're already smart. Have seen plenty of people grind through all the tests while barely improving their score or ending well below their goals.

almostgotcaught 1y ago
Anecdotes abound <shrug>. My only advantage going into it was 1) I was a good reader 2) I was well familiar with logical fallacies from a childhood of trolling/debating people online. But it's a standardized test that covers a very small set of skills. So just like any other standardized thing it's trainable.
- dhosek 1y ago
  It seems to me that if you’re not a good reader, law school is probably not for you. I would guess that while doing well on the LSAT doesn’t necessarily mean you’d do well in law school, if grinding practice tests doesn’t get you a good score on the LSAT, then you probably won’t do well in law school. (Which is not to say that you couldn’t get into some law school somewhere and pass—University of American Samoa anyone?—just that having got your J.D., you might find it a challenge to pass the bar, and if you do you might find it a challenge to get a job that’s not handling bankruptcies for a storefront practice that advertises in the Pennysaver.)
- graeme 1y ago
  The test pretty much only tests: 1. Raw reading skill 2. Precision 3. Working memory. (Less of this now that LG are gone) You've got #1 and #2 covered it sounds like, and presuming you're a programming you're likely also top 10% in working memory, bare minimum. There's lots of specific stuff you can teach that helps bridge deficits in those three skills, but they're serious bottlenecks if you don't come into LSAT studying already having them. A lot of people read poorly, aren't precise, and get easily distracted/have low working memory. Including college graduates.
  - graham2000 1y ago
    I think the LSAT has lots of overlap, skills-wise, with programming. My undergrad math classes were way more helpful than my political science classes for LSAT prep. But I think the relevant skills are actually (1) pattern recognition; and (when logic games were still a thing) (2) being able to follow rules methodically one-by-one. A good memory can help on the reading section for sure. But a lot of students get tripped up trying to memorize all the details of long passages, when they should actually zoom out a little more so they can get the gist of the passage, and then use that bigger picture understanding to contextualize the details.