Episode 72: For Whom the LSAC Screws

A quick update on last episode’s story of the student who went one second over time on his test day Writing Sample. The LSAC’s characteristically cagey response to him leaves us plenty of room for speculation. (1:00)

Two listener emails describe separate but nearly identical issues with their proctors from the September LSAT. Each student took the test with accommodations and neither was allowed by their proctor to take the fifth section of the test. This administrator error led to their scores being canceled by the LSAC. Hear our response to what the LSAC is offering these students for their trouble. (3:40)

Rebecca, a wife, mother, and law school hopeful, is quite embedded in her community. She is applying to the law school closest to her home, however she is worried that the program won’t offer her a scholarship because it is clear she means to stay in the area. We discuss the pros and cons of her community involvement to her application and encourage her to also consider programs further away. (15:30)

Spicoli asks the dudes for advice on writing his personal statement and whether or not he should write about the specific type of law he wants to practice. Surfboard law, perhaps? Ben recommends making an audio recording before putting pen to paper, while Nathan suggests the Ernest Hemingway method- have two drinks then get to writing! (24:40)

High school senior Jimbo is a high-achieving student who is looking at a dual program that would allow him to complete his undergrad and law school in only six years total. We question the huge commitment this would be for someone in his position and suggest other options for Jimbo, ranging from Alaskan metalsmith apprenticeship to just going to college and trying out a variety of classes. (44:20)

We work on two Logical Reasoning questions from the June 2007 LSAT. To play at home just download the free test, work through Section 3, Questions #6 and #7, and listen in as we discuss each problem in detail. (55:00)

Got questions you want us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email! Follow us at @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question!

Take a listen and let us know what you think.



  1. Haven’t listened to 72.5 yet, so I still have hope this was a one-time problem: Nathan’s volume varied from barely audible to easily audible, but the former was more frequent. Ben was always easily audible.


    1. Elaboration: “barely audible” refers to when I’m on a Stairmaster, or in a car. In a quiet environment there’s no problem. For an example of the problem — variation in Nathan’s volume — listen to 29:46 to 30:34.

      72.5 was much better.


      1. Thanks, Steve! We’re looking into it.

        Between you and me: As you know, Nathan tends to be a little shy on this show. He was probably just a little hesitant about whatever he was saying at the time. I’ll try to encourage him to speak up and not hold back in future shows. 😉


        1. I’ve been trying to come out of my shell. Sometimes I’m better at it than others.


  2. It would be interesting to see how many LSAT proctors across the nation mess up on LSAT day four times a year.

    From an economic standpoint, do you think eventually LSAC will decide to increase the $175 LSAT registration cost to pay the proctors more $ in hopes of getting better qualified applicants??

    Just a thought.



    1. I have my doubts. To be sure, they’ll raise their rates, but for other reasons. 🙂

      Unless the mistakes cost them more than paying their proctors more (which seems unlikely given the number of proctors), they’ll probably just raise the rates to cover “other” costs.

      Ah, the joys of being a monopoly.

      Now if only The Thinking LSAT could become a monopoly. Mmm… that would be nice. Each episode could cost $175, and if the sound quality wasn’t so good, we could invite you to listen to the next one… when it comes out, two or three months later.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *