LSAT Test Day Length in Hours

UPDATE: I've put together a GINORMOUS list of free LSAT Test Day advice and strategies. The below tips are a good start, but click that link for much, much, more.


The LSAT is a long exam, totaling just over 4 hours from start to finish, if everything goes according to plan.

Here's how I got that number:

Getting started (housekeeping stuff):
Listening to rules
Bubbling-in name and address
Filling out "Certifying Statement" in cursive (stating you won't cheat):

Total: 30 minutes


4 scored 35-minute sections:
2 Logical Reasoning
1 Logic Games
1 Reading Comprehension

Total: 140 minutes - 2 hours, 20 minutes


2 unscored 35-minute sections:
1 Experimental (could be any of the 3 scored types above and can be any one of the 5 LSAT sections you'll take)
Writing Sample (taken after the 5 regular parts of the LSAT - LG, LR, and RC)

Total: 70 minutes - 1 hour, 10 minutes


Break between 3rd and 4th sections:
10-15 minutes


Altogether, this is about 4 hours and 15 minutes.

(Your mileage may vary - sometimes the proctors don't know what they're doing, can't find the booklets, etc. If this happens, you might be there much longer.)

Even if everything goes according to plan, this is still a long time, especially for smokers and other drug users.

It can be difficult to get through such a long period without a fix, especially when the first section begins at 9AM (February, September/October, and December). The June exam is the only one that begins at 1PM.



Want more LSAT Test Day Tips?

Of course you do.

Here's LSAC's policy on bringing cigarettes, gum, nicotine patches, and coffee to the test center.




Photo by molinarius

Logic and Games

* These LSAT Cheat Sheets won't actually help you cheat, but they'll help you so much that you won't feel like you have to. [LSAT Blog]

* University of Illinois Law School may have inflated the LSAT scores and GPAs of this year's incoming class. [Chicago Tribune, Above The Law]

* How to avoid being called on in law school. [Mr. Law School]

* Woman "punked" by stupid Toyota viral campaign sues for $10 million. [Gawker]

* How to get a complete workout with nothing but your body. [Lifehacker]

* Kodachrome photos of NYC in the 1940s. [Daily Mail]

LSAT PrepTest Question Explanations for Reading Comprehension (a free sample!)

I've written explanations for over 1,000 LSAT questions and joined forces with other awesome LSAT tutors to write even more. Below, I'm including a small free sample of the Reading Comprehension explanations just so you can see what they're like.

Get the full LSAT PrepTest explanations for LSAT PrepTest 52 (and TONS of other exams) HERE.


These are just for the second Reading Comprehension passage of LSAT PrepTest 52:

Section 4 (Questions 7-12)

These are comparative reading passages. It is important to focus on the general topic of both, the specific topic of each, and how they relate.

Passage A opens with a discussion of the joy of reading in general, and contrasts this with the lack of joy created by academic historians. The author follows with a colorful description of how these historians “sap the vitality of history.”

The second paragraph discusses the trend towards change in the writing style of historians, specifically towards narrative. The author then says that most historians still fail at accomplishing the goals of narrative.

Passage B is also about narrative, and criticizes legal writing in the same way that the author of passage A criticizes the writing of academic historians. The sentence in lines 34-36 is similar to passage A’s criticism of how academic historians “leave little to the imagination.”

The second paragraph discusses the tradition of legal writing; how “lawyers write as they see other lawyers write,” in much the same way that passage A discusses how historians “visit on students what was visited on them in graduate school.” This is followed by a description in a trend towards narrative, just as in passage A.

The third paragraph here diverges from passage A in that it provides hope for the future of narrative and implies the legitimacy of the movement towards narrative, whereas passage A lacks such hope.

7. Tests your ability to find attitudes justified by each passage.

A) The effectiveness of teaching methods isn’t really mentioned in either passage.

B) This is also unmentioned in either passage.

C) Too extreme to be justified by either passage (“cannot be”.)

D) Correct. This can be inferred from the second paragraph of passage A, and can be inferred from the last paragraph of passage B.

E) Quite the opposite. Both passages look to narrative fiction, another discipline, as a way of rectifying the problem they see in their respective fields.

8. An inference question about both passages.

A) “I started teaching,” in line five of passage A is enough to negate this choice. The term “we” in passage B would also be enough to negate this choice.

B) Correct. For the same reasons choice A was wrong, choice B is right.

C) This choice is half right, but we already found justification for the author of passage B being a member of the profession he discusses.

D) Passage B is about law, passage A about history. While these disciplines are related, they are certainly different.

E) Passage B does not even mention history, the topic of passage A.

 9. This question requires you to understand the tone of both passages. In addition, it tests vocabulary. It is not an easy question.

A) Correct. “Abstract” is mentioned in line 10 and again in in line 49.

B) Hyperbole is a literary technique employed in narrative fiction.

C) “Subversive” is mentioned in passage B, but as referring to the movement toward narrative. It is not in passage A.

D) Narrative is discussed as atypical, not typical.

E) Imagination is currently lacking in both disciplines discussed.

10. This question asks about the difference between the two passages.

A) Passage A does not do this.

B) Both passages make evaluative claims.

C) Correct. See lines 20-25 in passage A; there are no examples in passage B.

D) Both passages criticize the writing in their respective professions.

E) Both passages discuss narrative theory.

11. Method of argument.
You need to find the correspondence between two lines in analogous arguments. “Sap the vitality,” is a criticism of the current standard of writing in the author’s profession. The author of passage B discusses the same topic with regard to his profession in lines 34-38. Let’s look for a choice that quotes something in those lines.

A) Not a criticism.

B) Correct. This choice matches what we were looking for.

C) In the right area of passage B, nonetheless the criticism of this trend is later in those lines.

D) This is analogous to a completely different part of passage A.

E) This indicates hope for the future, not criticism of the present.

12. Inference.
We are asked to infer the author’s expectation of the current prevailing standards of legal writing. This is discussed in lines 34-36; let’s look for something similar to that.

A) Poorly written perhaps, but that would be according to the professors’ advice.

B) Quite the opposite according to the lines we reread.

C) “Well crafted” contradicts “write badly.”

D) Correct. If you join the lines referenced above with lines 48-49, the choice becomes clear.

E) This may actually be true of legal writing.


Authored by Robert Brind

If you want complete LSAT PrepTest explanations, go HERE.

LSAT Logic Games Solutions Ebook

I've written explanations for over 1,000 LSAT questions.

You can get the full LSAT PrepTest explanations for TONS of exams HERE.

Preparing for the October 2011 LSAT Experimental Section

Did you take the October 2011 LSAT? Check out previous October LSAT score release dates and predict the curve!

***

In my LSAT study schedules, I recommend that you include extra sections in your practice exams. Why would I recommend such a cruel and difficult task?

Because LSAC uses test-takers as lab rats (like many organizations that administer standardized exams - think back to the SAT). LSAC includes an unscored experimental section on the LSAT and doesn't tell you which one it is. If you knew which one it was, you'd probably take a nap to recuperate between the sections you care about - the scored ones.

To LSAC's credit, this practice increases the validity of the scored sections of future LSATs. The experimental section allows LSAC to pre-test questions with several thousand applicants, helping LSAC determine which questions deserve to make it into future scored sections.

On the other hand, not knowing which section is the experimental can make it difficult to decide whether or not to cancel your score. If you bomb the experimental section, it may affect your performance on the other sections. Additionally, being forced to "donate" 35 minutes of free research for LSAC after paying to take the LSAT hardly seems fair.

Regardless, because you'll see a 5-section exam on test day, rather than the 4 you're used to seeing in your LSAT PrepTests, it's essential to prepare.

I decided to write this post after blog reader Katie wrote to me with the following question:

I have been taking 4 section timed tests for a while now but am starting to take 5 and 6 section timed tests as you suggest. I have two questions:

1. I assume that the type of "extra" section(s) I include should vary from test to test. For example, on one day, I would add a logic games section and the next day either a reading comprehension or a logical reasoning section. Is this what you would recommend?

2. What is the best way to score these tests? Which section do I omit? I took a test last night and did an extra logical reasoning section. The scoring for the test I took the extra section from was very different from the full test I was taking - does this make sense? I want to make sure I'm getting an accurate read of my performance.

Varying extra sections
There are two main approaches I'd recommend:

-You can rotate the type of "extra" section(s) that you use.
-You can make the extra section(s) the one that you like the least.

For most people, a combination of the two is probably ideal. Figure out which type of section you dread the most, and include it more often than the others.


Which section to omit
This makes perfect sense, Katie. To get the most accurate score reading, omit the section(s) that are not from the original exam. Different exams have different scales.


Another tip on preparing for the experimental section:

Mix up sections.
As I said earlier, on test day, you won't know which section is the experimental. For this reason, you may want to lay out the sections from each PrepTest beforehand. Take two from the "scored" exam and one "unscored" experimental, and mix them together.

This way, you won't know which ones are scored and which ones aren't, and you'll be forced to put the same effort into each.

Photo by happysteve

LSAT Diary: Preparing for Test Day

LSAT Blog reader Ellen has written 2 LSAT Diaries about her experience preparing for the LSAT while using my day-by-day LSAT study plan.


She ended up with a 174 on the June 2011 LSAT and got into Harvard Law!

@LSATBlog It's official. I just got admitted to Harvard Law School. Thank you, Steve! I owe you a great debt!

— Ellen Cassidy (@ellencassidy) April 6, 2012

This is the 2nd of a 2-part series containing her story. Here's the 1st part.

If you want to be in LSAT Diaries, please email me at LSATUnplugged@gmail.com. (You can be in LSAT Diaries whether you've taken the exam already or not.)

Thanks to Ellen for sharing her experience and advice, and please leave your questions for her below in the comments!

Ellen's LSAT Diary, Part 2:

Logical reasoning wasn’t nearly as dramatic. This section came extremely easily to me. I don’t think I ever got more than four problems wrong on the two sections combined, even in the beginning of my prep. I would do two or three logical reasoning days in one day because they were just so fun and came so naturally. After the games, the core concepts you need to do well in LR are really ingrained. I think this was around the time I read A Rulebook for Arguments, which I really enjoyed even though I knew most it already. I wish this were required reading in high school, since a lot of my college freshmen would have greatly benefited from reading it.

I wish I could give better advice on logical reasoning, but The Logical Reasoning Bible was stellar on that. In my head, I would just read most of the logical reasoning answers as “stupid.” Like I’d read the stimulus then as I’m reading the answers my internal monologue would be, “Stupid, stupid, slightly less stupid, really really stupid, not stupid at all! Circle E. Next question.” Sometimes I would get torn between two possibilities, and I would make my best guess and then circle the problem to go back to it once I finished the rest of the section. I always had copious extra time on this section so I could spend two or three minutes on one problem if I had to, but only after everything else was finished.

At this point I was scoring between 176-178 on tests with just the LR sections and the LG section. I was pretty happy with this because I didn’t think Reading Comprehension would be a problem for me – I was an English major and then a writing teacher, after all. I don’t think I’d gotten a reading comprehension problem wrong on any standardized test in my entire life (and my dad put me into all kinds of extra standardized tests as a child). I was basically on cloud nine at this point in my prep. And then I did a RC section.

When I was doing the first RC section, I thought it was going fine, and then I graded it and got six questions wrong. I think I wrote, “WTF” in really big letters all over the page. I looked at all the questions I got wrong, and thought that my answers were more correct than the right answers in most cases – this is when you know you have a real problem because you have to know why you’re getting questions wrong or else you can never learn how to get them right. I thought I just wasn’t annotating enough, then I thought I was going too fast, then I got into arguments with my friends about how I know better than the LSAT.

None of these things helped my RC score. I went into total panic mode for about a week. Finally, I was arguing with my boyfriend about a question about the tone of a passage. It was the one where the author is seething about modern art or something. My boyfriend finally told me that I need to stop judging the essay and picking the answer that I think is the most correct and just go with the answer that is less of a stretch and more of a given. Like if I think the author is seething, he’s probably more displeased than obstinate. He’s definitely at least displeased and maybe kind of obstinate, even if he’s closer to obstinate on the scale of displeased to obstinate. This revelation completely changed the way I approached the section and brought my wrong answers down to a more acceptable range of 1-2 (sometimes even 0!) on the RC section. Crisis averted.

At this point, I started doing full practice tests almost every day. Getting back into the mindset for games after concentrating so hard on RC was difficult at first, but games seem like going to the gym. You have to do them at least every other day if you don’t want them to be painful. I enjoy games when I get them right – kind of like I enjoy the gym when I move up to a higher weight (damn, I should be at the gym right now…). There’s really no secret to doing practice tests besides always getting a note card to transfer your answers onto so that you can compensate for the amount of time you’ll use for transferring answers onto the scantron on the day of the test. You can even rip out the scantron paper from the practice tests if you’re feeling ambitious, but you should always include that administrative time so you don’t get ambushed on test day with a lost minute.

At one point I got a 180 on a practice test and it may or may not have been one of the high points of the past year. My range was 170-180. In light of that range, I’d like to address the myth that your score will always drop 5-10 on the actual test from what you’re getting on practice tests. This is not true. If this were true 100% of the time, how would anyone ever get above a 175? As long as you don’t have a fit of some kind on test day, you can score within your range if you come into the test day with the right attitude.

I took my test at Alameda Community College near Oakland, CA, which I highly recommend given the large desks and lenient proctors. I got there about three hours early, and was more or less the first person at the test center. I recommend this because it gives you time to focus on you and your mental well-being. I sat on the ground and ate a nectarine, banana, and granola bar for breakfast/lunch. Then I did some light exercise. I also brought my favorite logic game to do in the car, which Steve recommends and I found really helpful. My favorite was the one with Olyphant, Ferrara, Gallagher, and the excavation sites in the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries, and when I told that to another test taker he recoiled at how hard that problem was which gave me a confidence boost.

As more people started pouring into the test center, I struck up conversations with them. When you get other people talking, you start to forget about yourself and your problems. This kept me really calm and jovial. You definitely want to be the least stressed out person at the test center – you have to play this mental trick on yourself. LSAT test day is not the most important day of your life. This test you’re about to take is just like every other prep test you’ve ever taken, and by this point in your prep you should be really tired of prep tests because they’ve become so routine. I took every prep test after 19 (except for 61), and they had become old hat for me at this point (Sidenote: Taking prep tests in coffee shops is like training with weights on – do it).

Once I got into the test room, I tried to befriend the people next to me and behind me as we were waiting for the tests to be passed out, but no one was game by this point. Everyone around me was clamming up and getting really nervous, but I didn’t let it get to me. Then I took the LSAT. It was exactly like every other prep test.

I was too nervous to open the e-mail when it came so my boyfriend came home from work (It’s only a few blocks away! I’m not that needy!) and read it for me. I got a 174. My average score on the practice tests was a 175. There is no reason your score has to vary from your average by more than a point or two.

I love to talk about the LSAT, so I’m asking you to please e-mail me for any further discussion or if you’d just like a kind ear to vent to. I’m on Gmail and Gchat at ellenwcassidy.)

Finally, I’d like to get to why I even asked to write this diary at all. Steve is a fantastic person and resource for our community, and I want to give him as much good PR as I can. The mere idea that one can avoid a thousand dollar prep course with a $20 study schedule is unreal to me. Actually, the idea that more people don’t take advantage of this is unreal to me. You know you better than any half-baked Kaplan instructor ever will, and you can cater to your own needs far better than they ever will. The books Steve recommends will give you better tips and tricks than they will, and self-discipline is basically required for being a lawyer; so if you don’t have that, why are you taking the LSAT anyway? Buy an LSAT study guide and werq, girl.

Best of luck internet friends… and don’t forget that the LSAT really can be fun.

Photo by bdorfman

Logic and Games

* Court rules that telling employees to stop talking about their dead kids is okay. [Gawker]

* Aman Ali says Muslims should stop apologizing for 9/11. [CNN]

* Israeli columnist fired for writing that Palestinian terrorism is justified. [NYTimes]

* Being a jerk in the workplace means you get paid more. [Chronicle of Higher Ed]

* Live a simpler life by being more selective in your media consumption. [Bleeding Espresso]

LSAT Logic Games Solutions PDF

I've written explanations for over 1,000 LSAT questions.

You can get the full LSAT PrepTest explanations for TONS of exams HERE.

Law School Personal Statement Artist | Interview

I recently interviewed Michelle Fabio, Esq. of Personal Statement Artist via email.

Our discussion follows.

***

1. Is it possible for an applicant to write a successful personal statement about why he or she wants to be a lawyer? If so, how?

The wording of this question implies that writing such a statement is a usually bad idea. I'd say that's correct, especially if it's a "save the world" theme (it's difficult for it to come off as sincere and credible -- sorry!). Also the topic is simply overdone *but* if you've had a particularly formative, recent experience that has stirred your passions for practicing law, sure, it can work.

Just about any topic can work, in fact, so long as you always focus on your "law school qualities" that you exhibited and or learned from that experience -- focus, dedication, organization skills, leadership, thoroughness, attention to detail, hard-working, etc. Regardless of your topic, those qualities should be the theme of your essay.

That said, anything such as high school or worse, elementary school, moot court and the like should be avoided at all costs. And the "my parents always told me I should be a lawyer because I like to argue?" Yeah, don't go there either.


2. What about a personal statement about a traveling experience or time abroad? If so, how?

Interesting travel experiences and/or time spent abroad can also be good topics, but again, you have to zero in on *your* qualities that you brought to and/or learned from the experience -- and usually, a very specific experience within the broader experience.

Being exposed to different cultures and languages (if you've studied abroad, for instance) as well as showing compassion for and a desire to help others (if you've volunteered abroad, for example) are certainly positive characteristics and make for an interesting, well-rounded candidate, but on their own, those experiences just aren't going to convince an adcomm that you deserve a place in the 1L class.

You really need to hammer home what a great law student you'll be as illustrated through a particular experience, whether it's traveling abroad or starting your own business -- and so we're back to those "law school qualities."

Sensing a theme here? ;)


3. What are some examples of successful "diversity statement" topics you've seen from applicants who are not traditionally classified as being racially diverse?

This is an excellent question because many applicants think only race is an appropriate topic for a diversity statement, but there are many others; now is a great time to start thinking outside of that proverbial box you'll be hearing a lot about during law school.

Some of the best diversity statements I've seen come from students who grew up in low-income homes/communities, maybe are the first to go to college in their family. I've also seen some good ones that focused on non-traditional childhoods such as being raised by grandparents because parents were out of the picture for whatever reason and even being homeschooled. Overcoming a disability is another "diverse" diversity statement topic that can work as well.

Just as with personal statements, though, it's all about how you present your law school qualities vis-à-vis that experience.


4. What are some of the most common / funniest mistakes you've seen in students' personal statements?

You might have thought I was joking in #1 about applicants' writing about people who said they were good at arguing, but I've seen that in more than one rough draft. It's never good. Ever.

Another common mistake is what I call the "resume rundown," where the applicant simply restates his or her resume from college on through every job. Aside from being boring, the resume rundown wastes the only opportunity applicants have to present the more human side of themselves to the adcomm. The personal statement should round out the application and show the adcomm the full person, highlighting qualities that exist between the lines of the resume and that deserve to be emphasized, so don't throw away that chance by repeating things that can be found elsewhere in your application.


5. What are some examples of addendum topics that applicants should avoid?

I've had several people write to me and ask about whether they should write an addendum about a low LSAT score, and generally I say no -- especially if you're going to explain that you're not good at standardized tests since law school is all about one-and-done tests. If it was because of testing conditions that day or something outside of your control, the question that comes up in the adcomm's mind is, "Why didn't you take the test again then?"

A low GPA can be an OK topic if you've shown marked improvement over the course of college, while a low course grade may also be an acceptable topic under certain circumstances, e.g., the death of a parent or someone extremely close to you. This should go without saying, but don't lie when you're writing these kinds of explanations -- adcomms do go back and look at transcript and make sure your dots connect, so to speak.

If you do decide to write an addendum, make it as short and to the point as possible, and accept full responsibility where appropriate. The worst addenda end up looking like the applicant is scrambling to make excuses and that doesn't reflect well on a candidate for law school and could even harm the application.

***

Michelle Fabio, Esq. is a professional writer and editor, law school survivor, attorney, and former About.com Guide to Law School. After helping hundreds of applicants with essays through About.com, she has started Personal Statement Artist, a review and editing service dedicated exclusively to law school applicants. At PSA, Michelle offers several different levels of assistance, including brainstorming help, to help future law school students turn their applications into works of art.

Deciding Whether To Go To Law School

The below excerpt is from Thane Messinger's Law School: Getting In, Getting Good, Getting the Gold.

Why Law School?

There are almost as many reasons for wanting to attend law school as there are applicants. There isn’t so much a right or wrong reason—although many (including admissions committees) will judge you on just this basis. Some will say that the “right” reason is to right wrongs, fight for justice, and so on.

Others—belonging to a more cynical group—assume that any statement along those lines is just pretend (or, worse, naïve); they tend to believe that the “real” right reasons are practical: a job, a career, a fancy house and car, and lots and lots of money. Many attend because others believe they should. Some attend because others believe they should not. Still others attend because they don’t know what they want—but they know it’s not flipping burgers. Were we attorneys to be honest, our reasons for having gone to law school would likely be less honorable than what we had originally professed. In other words, our real reasons were quite different from the ones we spoke so loudly and often before entering.

The answer? Don’t focus on what others believe you should want, or on what you think you should want, but rather on what you really want. Ask what your real compulsions are.

If it’s parents, grow up. Sure, parents are important, and their views are rarely given the weight they deserve. (You’ll likely not agree as strongly as when you have children of your own.) Yet it’s your life. Live it. Be respectful—even if you don’t want to be—but don’t bend to their will if it’s not your will too. One test of adulthood is the ability to say “No”…for the right reason. This, ironically, is one of the tests in the law, and in law school. Also, if in thinking about law school you listen to various advice and end up taking whichever is easier—a bit like asking one parent when the other gives you the wrong answer—that’s not making a decision. It’s a cop-out. You should consider the options, and do what attorneys and judges must do every day: decide.

If it’s the fear and hassle of getting a job, grow up. Sure, getting a job is a hassle, and quite frustrating. Yet, as I will get into, there are practical reasons in law school that this is important. And if you’re fearful and annoyed now, that’s not ten percent of how fearsome and annoying it will be once you’re in law school. Take advantage of the time when an employer doesn’t expect all that much out of you (really!), and endeavor to wow them. If it’s a law firm you’re wowing, so much the better.

If it’s to make a difference, this is a terrific reason. But…

But you’ll need to be especially sensitive to the pace at which you will be able to make that difference, and to whom. This is not to give up anything, but to put yourself in a position where you can make a difference. More on that later.

If it’s to increase options, for glamour, or to enter a mythical genteel profession (complete with bowling hats), be careful. This is yet another reason to work in a law firm, even part-time and even for just a short while. There’s not quite any other way to get a taste of what the law is really all about.

If it’s money, stop. Law school is the wrong choice. Or, more correctly, if it’s just money, stop. You will almost certainly be unhappy, and you will almost as certainly not obtain your goal: only a small percentage of attorneys make as much as most believe all attorneys make.

I once had an English professor who started his first class by asking us what we wanted in life. Rhetorically, he asked “Money?” Most of us were silently responding “You bet!” He waited a moment and said, “If so, you should…leave.”

Taken aback, we waited for the explanation. He proceeded to let us in on a secret—one that is well known in the aphorism that “the A’s teach, and the B’s work for the C’s.” This saying was from the days before grade inflation, by the way, when the curve was set so that an “A” meant the top 6%—not 10%—and the “C’s” were about half of the class. Thus the phrase the “gentleman’s C.”

He told us that sitting as we were in English class, while of value to him and to us in ways we probably wouldn’t appreciate for years…was not on the path to money. He was right, in an important sense. If you want to make money—lots and lots of money—then don’t go to school. Even business school is a huge investment that rewards only a relatively small percentage.

Moreover, business school is of a vastly different character than law school, which focuses, essentially, on the allocation of risk. Business, alternatively, focuses on the creation and use of risk. Engineering might focus on the refinement of risks in ever-more sophisticated ways. Every other academic endeavor is fine if appreciated for what it is—and if appreciated for what it is not. One of the things that academics is not is a path to lots and lots of money.

If lots and lots of money is your goal, entrepreneurship is the path. And, by the way, this is not the dream of entrepreneurship that is sold in magazines; it is, instead, years of hard work. One successful entrepreneur once told me that the magic number was 20: it took that many years for a business to “suddenly” flourish. Having run a few businesses, I’d say that’s not too far off the mark. In most cases, it is years of work harder than in a corporate environment. It is, almost always, years and years of work in addition to a regular job.

For attorneys at top firms (either national or local), the J.D. does open doors into the corporate world, in both legal and business suites. There are a number of reasons for this—chief among them the analytical skills honed first in law school and then in practice and the on-going connections with business clients—yet this too only reinforces the importance of getting into the right school and getting good. So, if you’re interested potentially in the corporate world, or are considering an MBA/JD, this can be a path (even without the MBA), but again only if you place well.

This too is not meant to dissuade. Yet if making money is your real goal, then don’t go to law school. It’s fine to want money. It’s even okay to want a lot of money. But for law school you need a better reason. Wait until you have one, or find a different path closer to your true self. If you gloss over this in your search for success and happiness and do go to law school for this reason, chances are high that you will achieve neither.


Doubts

In a sense, this too is almost a requirement for going to law school. Many have doubts: sometimes secret, sometimes not. Often, the more boisterous the student, the more intense (and secret) are those doubts.

Doubts are fine, as long as those doubts relate to ancillary issues—“Which school?” “Should I buy Emmanuel’s or Gilbert’s?” “Will I really do well?”—and not to core issues—“How can I convince so-and-so that I really want to go?”

As the Oracle relates in The Matrix, you must know this at your core, “through and through, balls to bones”: a sense that law school is for you and you are for law school. It’s not for someone else to tell you.

Excerpt/interview for LSAT Blog / © Thane Messinger 2008-2011

Photo by zaniac

LSAT Diary: Getting Past Frustration

LSAT Blog reader Ellen has written 2 LSAT Diaries about her experience preparing for the LSAT while using my day-by-day LSAT study plan.

She ended up with a 174 on the June 2011 LSAT and got into Harvard Law!

@LSATBlog It's official. I just got admitted to Harvard Law School. Thank you, Steve! I owe you a great debt!

— Ellen Cassidy (@ellencassidy) April 6, 2012

This is the 1st of a 2-part series containing her story.

If you want to be in LSAT Diaries, please email me at LSATUnplugged@gmail.com. (You can be in LSAT Diaries whether you've taken the exam already or not.)

Thanks to Ellen for sharing her experience and advice, and please leave your questions for her below in the comments!

Ellen's LSAT Diary, Part 1:

So a little about me…

I’m a 24 year old who’s undergoing serious life revisions. I graduated from Stanford with an English degree two years ago, and interned for a big theater in San Francisco in writing and research. This was fun, but I really thought I was a playwright at this point. I had started my own theater company, and written and directed my own work a couple of times. This felt like my thing, and since I have very little patience with myself, I won’t pursue something unless I feel like I’m good at it.

I started an MFA program in playwriting at Rutgers University in fall of 2010. This was one of the biggest disasters of my life. I didn’t connect with anyone, cried all the time, hated the program, my house was broken into twice with my computer stolen both times; basically, I was just miserable. The only bright spot was teaching expository writing to undergraduates, which was a saving grace. I left after a semester to return to my boyfriend and our home in Palo Alto, CA.

Once I got back, I was hopeful about my prospects, but the market sucks for anyone with a humanities degree right now, even if it is from Stanford. So I would apply and apply and apply and get rejected and get rejected and get rejected. I even got rejected from a job at Anthropologie. The clothing store. Seriously.

My entire life I’ve been told I should be a lawyer – basically because I’m smart and can speak well. I’ve received significant pressure from my dad, but have always pushed back because “only assholes go to law school.” While that may still be the case, it’s not a 100% rule, and I eventually realized at a party that I shouldn’t limit my opportunities based on this generalization. I was talking with a public defender at this party, and she had really fun stories so I decided to study for the LSAT in my ubiquitous spare time. I know; I heard fun stories so I decided to study for the LSAT. I’m kind of crazy.

One of my favorite things to do in life is research. I have an obsessive personality so I’ll just go into a bit of a state for like five hours and learn everything I can about a subject. The day after the party I got this way about the LSAT and found Steve’s blog. This made all my researching a lot easier, as I could tell how absurdly competent Steve was immediately. I bought the three month study schedule, every PrepTest after #19, SuperPrep, The Logic Games Bible, The Logical Reasoning Bible, and A Rulebook for Arguments. I only had two and a half months to go through the three month schedule so I was ready to be hardcore until the LSAT.

I didn’t take a diagnostic because I knew I didn’t know enough to do well, and I knew I would freak out and get angry with myself if I deemed my score too low. At first, I was really scared of the games because I haven’t done much quantitative-type stuff since high school, and they looked really intimidating. I was really glad my schedule started with pure sequencing games, and I quickly caught on to them. I started with Steve’s method of diagramming the pure sequencing games, but once I got into timed situations later on I found myself inexplicably getting one question wrong on the pure sequencing games so I switched to the system described in the Logic Games Bible. This worked out a lot better for me and I stopped getting questions wrong on this game type while still completing the game in 5-6 minutes. You need to get to the point where you can do pure sequencing games this fast if you’re trying to get a perfect score (or minus 1 or 2) on the logic games section. There will typically be other games in that section that need more than the 8 or so minutes you’re shooting for.

Linear games took a little longer for me to catch onto, but before I had to start timing things, I just followed the system in the Logic Games Bible (seriously, the best book of all time), and it worked out alright. I would get pretty frustrated when Steve would assign a game type on the schedule before the schedule told me to read about how to solve the game. I would complain to my boyfriend because whenever I find myself not doing well at something I get very upset. He’d calm me down, and then the next day he’d ask me how the linear games were going and I’d say something akin to, “Bitches going down.” He’d then point out how much easier I found the games after struggling so hard the day before. This was when I realized Steve was playing with my mind, and the psychological manipulation was definitely working. I was so much more confident when I was comparing my performance to that of the day before.

It was around this point that I began to really love the LSAT. I know. Crazy, right? I’m one of the only people I know that actually loves the LSAT and misses it now that it’s over. In a way, I feel like the LSAT saved my life. I was stagnating and feeling like I had no control over my life. Rejection is really hard for me since I’m used to working hard and getting what I want. If I’m not perfect at something that I want to be perfect at, I get very upset with myself; so feeling like I’m failing at getting a job and have basically no control over how to better my situation was very unhealthy.

The LSAT was the best thing that could have happened to me. I worked hard and saw tangible results. I could measure them. I could see that I was kicking ass and taking names. I was back on track to who I wanted to be after months of feeling like I didn’t belong. I was back in Palo Alto, my mind was getting exercise, and life was getting better. The LSAT made that happen for me.

This narrative continued through grouping and combination games. Then I started timing myself. This was a bad day. It was taking me 40-45 minutes to get a game section done. I would write down how long it took me to do each game as I went through the section, and then when I would go back and score I would write unhealthy notes to myself like, “Not even close,” “What is wrong with you?” or “COME ON, ELLEN!” I went back over every wrong answer (this applies to every time I would answer any question throughout my entire prep experience) and wrote down why I got it wrong.

I sat at that coffee shop table for a good 4-5 hours doing section after section – way past what Steve had planned for that day. Because I just couldn’t stand up until I got this situation under control – I couldn’t let myself fail. So then on my 6th or so game section of the sitting, something magical happened. I got all the problems right and finished with five minutes to spare. Then I did that again. And again. I actually cried on that 6th game section after I scored it. I called my boyfriend and just cried at how happy I was that I finally figured it out.

Photo by bobaubuchon

Logic and Games

* As you begin your full-length practice with recent LSAT PrepTests, be sure to get these Logic Games explanations for PrepTests 52-61. [LSAT Blog]

* How to argue on the Internet. [Measure of Doubt]

* Spoiled adult children sue mom for failing to buy them toys when younger. [Chicago Tribune]

* How to live in a 78-square-foot apartment and still have it all. [YouTube]

* A compilation of TV commercials featuring goats. [Goat Berries]