Top Law Schools

Hi all,

long-time lurker here with some general questions about URM admissions and the LSAT.

Stats:
AA Male
LSAC GPA: 3.88
History degree from liberal art's college (Vassar)
Mediocre softs & work experience

First, does anyone have any info on what LSAT typically gets URMS admitted to Harvard Law with my GPA?

I've tried looking on MyLSN and the sample seems to be so small that it isn't very helpful. It looks like anything above a 160 makes me competitive -- is this generally correct? Of course, I am aiming for a 180, but I'd like to know what score makes sense to apply with assuming I score lower than I expect.

So, I am beginning to prep this week and was wondering what advice you guys have on how LSAT prep?

I took a PTJune07 as a diagnostic and wrote an atrocious 150's score. So I have a long, uphill battle.

I have signed up for a 7Sage course and purchased The LSAT Trainer and every PT.

Courses, books, strategy recommendations?


Thanks in advanced

check out this thread on urm's and lsat data

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=195443

i think a 165 will make you a strong contender and a 167 will probably guarantee you admission with your GPA

Just a quick word of encouragement - my first LSAT diag was in the 150s and I ended up deep in the 170s. My GPA was a fair bit lower than yours. If you can get a GPA like that I think it is pretty likely that you have the aptitude for at least a 170. I don't want to make it seem like it wont require hard work, but I don't want you to be at all discouraged by a 150s diagnostic score. Not an uncommon place for an eventual LSAT ninja to start.

uhwrestler wrote:check out this thread on urm's and lsat data

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=195443

i think a 165 will make you a strong contender and a 167 will probably guarantee you admission with your GPA

Very informative thread! Thank you very much!

schmelling wrote:Just a quick word of encouragement - my first LSAT diag was in the 150s and I ended up deep in the 170s. My GPA was a fair bit lower than yours. If you can get a GPA like that I think it is pretty likely that you have the aptitude for at least a 170. I don't want to make it seem like it wont require hard work, but I don't want you to be at all discouraged by a 150s diagnostic score. Not an uncommon place for an eventual LSAT ninja to start.

Appreciate that more than you know. Congrats on your 170's score!

My diagnostic was even worse than yours, I got a 147, ended scoring a 171 on the lsat after 3 months of good prep. If you work hard you'll improve by a lot, trust me, good luck!

drumpf wrote:My diagnostic was even worse than yours, I got a 147, ended scoring a 171 on the lsat after 3 months of good prep. If you work hard you'll improve by a lot, trust me, good luck!

That's quite inspiring! From lurking on here for several years I was under the impression that a low diagnostic would hinder me from ever achieving a good score.

Edit.

Justtrying2help wrote:One of my aa male friends got into Columbia with a 3.9 159 and got 90k in scholarship money. An aa girl whose dad I'm cool with and basically has your same gpa and a 162 got all 3 of HYS... I had a 159 and a ~3.3 gpa and I got accepted into a couple top 14 schools and got a 1/2 tuition offer (after some legwork) from one. Shoot for the 180 and maintain your gpa, but don't go crazy if you somehow fall short. You are in a good place.

Definitely going to shoot for a 180, but knowing I still have a good chance at the T14 without hitting the 170 mark helps me to take a little stress off myself.

Also, that is amazing about the girl who got in with a 162. She must have had some damn good softs I'm guessing.

congrats and thank you!

BlackWillHunting wrote: That's quite inspiring! From lurking on here for several years I was under the impression that a low diagnostic would hinder me from ever achieving a good score.

Thanks, and yah don't worry about a low diag score, that just means you have that much more room for improvement. Your diag score is not at all indicative of how well you can or will score after good prep.

drumpf wrote:

BlackWillHunting wrote: That's quite inspiring! From lurking on here for several years I was under the impression that a low diagnostic would hinder me from ever achieving a good score.

Thanks, and yah don't worry about a low diag score, that just means you have that much more room for improvement. Your diag score is not at all indicative of how well you can or will score after good prep.

Thanks, brother! I like that way of seeing it.

.

Hi-So - ArshavinFan wrote:

BlackWillHunting wrote:

drumpf wrote:My diagnostic was even worse than yours, I got a 147, ended scoring a 171 on the lsat after 3 months of good prep. If you work hard you'll improve by a lot, trust me, good luck!

That's quite inspiring! From lurking on here for several years I was under the impression that a low diagnostic would hinder me from ever achieving a good score.

It wont hinder you, it just makes it significantly harder, depending on the sections where you get the lower score.
Generally you want to get a lower score in a section like LG or RC. Getting a lower score in a section like LR can be overcome, but its fucking difficult, as its 50 percent of the test and a lower diagnostic in that would signify that you really just dont have the fundamentals of critical thinking down yet ( this is what happened with me)

When peolpe say they improved in three months and etc, ( Most of the times I have found they were pretty decent in LR.)

Well, hinder = to make harder, so I guess you're saying it kind of will? But I totally understand your point. On my diagnostic test, the errors were pretty evenly distributed: I missed about 8-9 on each LR section, 8 on RC, and 10 on LG. I've been prepping for a little over a week and have already seen some great improvements while going through the 7Sage curriculum. I kind of disagree that you'd want to get a lower score in RC as opposed to LR/LG. Reading comprehension seems like it is going to be the hardest to improve on, at least consistently, because it isn't like LG/LR where I didn't know what the hell I was doing for a lot of the section, lol. On the contrary, with RC, I did know what I was doing and still managed to miss a third of the questions.

Thank you for your comment, though, dude! My feelings towards this test have taken a 180 (pun intended) since learning about the abundance of high scorers that started in the 150s! I'm hoping by the June test that I'll be comfortably in the 170s. If not, there's always September, lol.

Hey can you guys describe who scored high describe the process by which you improved on timing/accuracy in LG and RC? When you did timed test (especially as you begun full-timed tests) how did you approach it? Did you just try to get as many correct as possible, working slowly and making sure your answers were correct? Or did you try to get to as many questions as possible? I've been at this for a while, and I'm finally feeling comfortable with LR on timed tests, but still have a lot of work to do on RC and LG.

Start off working for accuracy, only once you are consistently hitting -0/-1 on untimed sections should you start working under time constraints.

BobBoblaw wrote:Start off working for accuracy, only once you are consistently hitting -0/-1 on untimed sections should you start working under time constraints.

Def. understand that, but once you actually begin timing was that still the number one consideration, accuracy, at least early on?

ltowns1 wrote:

BobBoblaw wrote:Start off working for accuracy, only once you are consistently hitting -0/-1 on untimed sections should you start working under time constraints.

Def. understand that, but once you actually begin timing was that still the number one consideration, accuracy?

Personally, with RC and LR I found my scores started to drop off as soon as I started timing my sections. I eventually figures out that I was pressing myself to read quickly, and so I wasnt really absorbing the passages first go around, I would have to reread or Id just get confused and pick the wrong answer. Oddly enough, once I slowed my reading down, my accuracy came back up and I would still have maybe 2-3 minutes left over at the end of the section instead of 6 minutes.

So, time management is essential for good accuracy, but Id say that, yes, you need to keep focus on accuracy and make sure yours doesnt go down once you start doing timed sections. You have to be comfortable enough with your timing to be able to take your time and understand everything on the first read, otherwise you get flustered and start feeling pressured and get thrown off your game.

Id say this goes double for RC. I found that if I read slowly and concentrate, I dont really need notes or highlights because I can absorb and retain the information. BUT, if I am reading quickly or feel pressured to hurry, you get F U C K E D because trying to go back and reread RC passages after the fact to find things you missed is SUCH a time suck.


LG is another beast entirely, I was still having problems finishing timed LG sections when I took the LSAT in December, so Im not even going to pretend to give you advice on that.

BobBoblaw wrote:

ltowns1 wrote:

BobBoblaw wrote:Start off working for accuracy, only once you are consistently hitting -0/-1 on untimed sections should you start working under time constraints.

Def. understand that, but once you actually begin timing was that still the number one consideration, accuracy?

Personally, with RC and LR I found my scores started to drop off as soon as I started timing my sections. I eventually figures out that I was pressing myself to read quickly, and so I wasnt really absorbing the passages first go around, I would have to reread or Id just get confused and pick the wrong answer. Oddly enough, once I slowed my reading down, my accuracy came back up and I would still have maybe 2-3 minutes left over at the end of the section instead of 6 minutes.

So, time management is essential for good accuracy, but Id say that, yes, you need to keep focus on accuracy and make sure yours doesnt go down once you start doing timed sections. You have to be comfortable enough with your timing to be able to take your time and understand everything on the first read, otherwise you get flustered and start feeling pressured and get thrown off your game.

Id say this goes double for RC. I found that if I read slowly and concentrate, I dont really need notes or highlights because I can absorb and retain the information. BUT, if I am reading quickly or feel pressured to hurry, you get F U C K E D because trying to go back and reread RC passages after the fact to find things you missed is SUCH a time suck.


LG is another beast entirely, I was still having problems finishing timed LG sections when I took the LSAT in December, so Im not even going to pretend to give you advice on that.

Yep, I felt that way all the time on RC. On LG, I think I just need to slow down on that too. I've been studying for a loooooong time, took a break, and picked it back up again. I realized at some point that I never really just slowed down and focused on accuracy. I was always trying to keep pace, and I was not improving, especially on LG and RC.