Law School Admissions + Teach For America

Answering a law school applicant's question about how strong a soft factor Teach For America would be:

It's always hard for me to answer "how" questions. This sort of thing isn't really quantifiable. I suspect that it definitely helps, in large part because it's so difficult to get accepted into Teach For America (so you show you passed through another "filter"), and even harder to stick with (which shows perseverance in difficult circumstances - teaching's hard!)

Softs pale in comparison to LSAT+ GPA, but Teach For America is incredible work experience and could likely provide material for a great law school personal statement.

Why I'm Not Wishing You Good Luck on the LSAT

I don't like wishing people good luck. Why think of ourselves as slaves to chance? Instead, we should trust in our abilities.

"In bocca al lupo" is an old Italian proverb that literally translates to "in the mouth of the wolf." The customary response is "crepi (il lupo)," which literally translates to "kill (the wolf)."

The idea is that when faced with adversity, you should have the mindset that you will overcome it. Luck is not a factor. You will destroy whatever obstacles get in the way of achieving your goals.

So, rather than wishing you all good luck, I'm going to remind you that when you encounter the LSAT, kill it.

LSAT Test Day Advice

LSAT Reading Comprehension: Staying Engaged

For staying engaged in LSAT Reading Comprehension, I like to caricature the viewpoints to be more extreme than they actually are - in other words, sensationalizing them. I also like to read from the author's perspective - why did they lay out the passage the way they did?

I read for the flow of the presentation of information - how they go about explaining the topic, why they included a particular piece of information where they did, etc. I'm critiquing their writing from an analytical perspective. Most of this is done untimed while studying/reviewing, but it can help to increase your understanding when you do other passages timed later.

LSAT Logical Reasoning: Speeding Up

On speeding up at LSAT Logical Reasoning - in part, you get faster by deepening your understanding, which comes from continued LSAT prep practice and detailed review of all LSAT questions that give you trouble.

However, pacing is an element as well - having the mindfulness to let go of a question where things aren't clicking, and continuing to move forward. If you want a 165+ LSAT score, I'd aim to complete the first 10 LSAT Logical Reasoning questions in 10-12 minutes at most. You don't want to invest time increasing your confidence level on an easy question from 75% to 99% at the expense of getting to 5 questions later in the section.

Trust that you'll get the easy questions right anyway, and save that time for questions you're not even getting to later in the section. By being less of a perfectionist, you can actually increase your LSAT score by getting to more questions and spending more time on the ones that need it.

Improving LSAT Reading Comp Strategy

I don't know exactly how you approach LSAT Reading Comp right now, but there are lots of ways to improve your LSAT reading Comp strategy.

Some quick thoughts:

Minimal note-taking

2:30-3 minutes on initial passage read

Order of approach:

1st: Main idea/primary purpose/general Qs 

2nd: Detail questions 

3rd: Inference questions

Process of elimination - here more than any other section, instead of prephrasing, look for the ones that don't work and eliminate them one-by-one. You may not love the correct answer, but it's "the best of the worst."

Recent LSAT Trends

The biggest and most obvious trends would be in LSAT Logic Games - Weird/Curveball Logic Games, as well as LSAT Rule Substitution / Equivalency questions.

There have been curveball games in the past that don't fit the mold of classic game types, but they've become increasingly frequent. And rule substitution questions started with LSAT PrepTest 57 and have appeared consistently since then.

I think the exam as a whole has gotten more difficult in recent years likely due to increased/better prepping. What this means for you is that you should make sure you especially focus on the recent exams (LSAT PrepTests in the 70s and 80s). 

If you only do exams from the 30s and 40s, you'll likely get inflated/unrealistic scores. (You can see that the raw score conversions are different on the older exams as well.)

Applicants with 170+ LSAT Scores Increase - Why?

Could be due to an increase in permitted LSAT retakes.

However, I do think a recent increased stealth factor might be more applicants getting LSAT test accommodations - getting 50% extra or double-time, etc. could lead to significantly increased scores.

I also think there are probably more 170+ applicants since the legal market (and news about it) has somewhat improved in the past few years.

I don't think the LSAT has gotten easier. If anything, I think it's gotten harder in the past few years (probably due to increased/better prepping).

170+ LSAT Score: What Separates Top Scorers from the Rest

What does it take to achieve an LSAT score in the 170s?

A couple of things:

1. Working not only to consistently apply LSAT prep strategies, but to understand why the strategies work. I consider this equivalent to reading the beginning of a chapter in a math textbook where they explain how the formula is derived in the first place.
2. For LSAT Reading Comp, consistently find the exact lines supporting a given answer choice in the passage. The answer is always in the passage - inference questions don't actually give you a license to go beyond the text.
3. Seeing the exam more from the LSAT test-makers' perspective. Patterns in tempting wrong answers and discouraging correct answers.

(For more on the test-makers' perspective, check out this book of interviews I did with a former LSAT question-writer.)

One more thing - at this point, you should have a strong foundation, so it's time to work on pacing and endurance. You also want to be ruthless in skipping tough questions to come back to at the end of a section. Avoid getting bogged-down in any one question. At this point, it's probably more mental than anything else.

LSAC removing LSAT Logic Games? Binno Lawsuit Plaintiff's Attorney Jason Turkish

It looks like things are a bit more ambiguous than the plaintiff's attorney indicated.

Since I spoke with the attorney, LSAC released a statement indicating they are simply planning further research and development, but are not committing themselves to actually removing the section.

The plaintiff's attorney publicly asked them to clarify, and that's the last we've heard.

The language in the joint press release is extremely open-ended. The settlement language is likely more specific, but since it's confidential, this press release is all we have to go on.

I taught a class where I analyze the various statements in more depth here ----->

***

When speaking with the plaintiff's attorney, re: "enabled," he referred back to the settlement agreement and said it’s unambiguous that LSAC must make available a test for all without Logic Games.

The idea of enabling it, i.e. making it available for all (not requiring it for all) is derived from the fact that the lawsuit is about giving Binno equal opportunity to take an exam that does not discriminate due to disability, i.e. he must be allowed to take an exam without Logic Games.

Plaintiff's attorney was never directly concerned with fundamentally changing the exam for everyone - that was a side effect of the settlement. Rather, he's concerned with LSAC providing an equal playing field for Binno and others - that seems to be why he used the word "enabled" specifically.

I guess the question now is how LSAC acts moving forward - whether they act in accordance with the plaintiff's attorney's interpretation of the settlement agreement.

He did say outright that according to the settlement, LSAC must make available a test for all law school applicants within 4 years (by October 2023) that does not have the current Logic Games section.

I directly asked him about that also - could LSAC spend the next 4 years researching, then change the exam at some undefined point after that?

He said they must actually offer a new test without the current Logic Games section within 4 years, not just research potential changes during that time.

Again, we'd have to refer back to the settlement for clarification, but we don't have access to it.

The press release is frustratingly ambiguous! And there's no question that the attorney's comments differ substantially from the press release with regard to exactly must happen within the next 4 years (research vs. actual changes within that timeframe).

What confuses things further is that LSAC's emailed statement also differs from the joint statement; it only discusses research and does not reference any commitment or obligation to change the exam content at all:

"Should there be any significant changes to format...."

It seems to me that LSAC's statement is more open-ended and less committed than the joint statement (could just be spin/fluff), while the attorney's seems to indicate that LSAC is more committed with regard to tangible outcomes.

Only time will tell...

The plaintiff's attorney was quite adamant that LSAC's email announcement contradicted the press release - in LSAC's email, they indicate that they've only committed themselves to researching potential changes to the exam, rather than actually committing themselves to making changes, i.e. removing Logic Games.

And I'm inclined to agree that the tone of the LSAC's email and that of the PR statement differ substantially.

LSAC's emailed statement says only:

"Should there be any significant changes to format...."

Rather than that there WILL be significant changes, i.e. "will enable all prospective law students to take an exam administered by LSAC that does not have the current AR section..."

Enabling all students to take an exam without AR vs. requiring all students to take an exam without AR...that's another question altogether... :)

Former LSAT Question-Writer Interview

My interview with a former LSAT question-writer is on the LSAT Unplugged YouTube channel and podcast here ---->

Topics we covered:

* How he become an LSAT question writer

* LSAC's level of strictness on accepting draft LSAT questions

* How LSAC trains LSAT question-writers

* LSAC reusing LSAT questions

* Recent LSAT changes

* The LSAT's consistency and frequency

* Digital LSAT

* Tricks - how to make "good" LSAT questions more difficult

* Doing every LSAT PrepTest

* GRE vs LSAT in law school admissions

***

In order to preserve our relationship (and be able to get future interviews), I did NOT ask him how he sleeps at night. I want to get at least a few more interviews before I burn that bridge. (Or use it as an icebreaker next time.)

I didn't get to all the questions folks suggested, but I'll try to work them in next time.

Thanks for understanding, and hope you all enjoy.

Former NYU Law School Admission Officer Interview

Former NYU Law School Admission Officer Interview -

Didn't realize people were going to be so interested in our discussion! Posted it on the LSAT Unplugged YouTube channel and podcast ---->

Some takeaways:

• keep addenda short and sweet, not 7 pages, ~200 words for a low LSAT score
• feel free to write an addendum whenever you like, even if it's something like the digital LSAT not going well
• don't repeat yourself in your application
• lots of ambiguity about the future role of GRE, but doesn't seem as compelling as applying with LSAT
• a school as popular as NYU doesn't necessarily obsess over rankings the way others might

Anyway, Christina had plenty of good advice to share, so check it out for more.

Note: Her advice on addenda is in direct opposition to Law School Expert Ann Levine's advice on LSAT addenda, which is just to retake, rather than explaining it. (Ann Levine podcast, YouTube).

(Anyway, if you prefer to listen and would enjoy other discussions like this, subscribe to the LSAT Unplugged podcast - I'll release the recordings there as well.)