Episode 73: Accomapocalypse

Nathan introduces a new Thinking LSAT feature: Really Dumb Move of the (September 2016) LSAT. A tutoring student of his receives the honors this time for discussing the test’s difficulty with a friend during break and then letting that discussion throw off her performance later. Honorable mention is awarded to a really loud wrist watch. (6:28)

Nathan recommends a Rolling Stone article, Why We’re Living in the Age of Fear. The piece discusses the discrepancy between how safe we feel and how safe we actually are in the world today. Check it out, especially if you’re feeling nervous about the outcome of today’s election. (18:40)

Ben, on the other hand, isn’t afraid of this election or guns or even of taking LSAT practice tests! We both urge listeners to take them early, take them often, and take your test prep to the next level. (24:15)

Listener questions include asking for advice on how to best use the time-and-a half accommodation, why we suggest planning for two test dates, and how to best write an addendum- what to include and what to leave out. We hear a happy update from Episode 62’s Overwhelmed Dad (39:00) and a sad update from listener Tom (46:50), hang in there, Tom!

Ben recommends two books that discuss some underrated traits, being messy and being a quitter. Messy presents the idea that some of the most successful and rewarding times in a person’s life happen when they aren’t planning and organizing perfectly. In Choose Yourself! Be Happy, Make Millions, Live the Dream, author James Altucher suggests quitting strategically and how it can improve your life. (1:02:00)

Cam asks about LSAT India’s prep tests and almost makes Ben swear. (1:23:00) Grace needs motivation to keep studying for her second LSAT attempt. (1:27:16)

We wrap up the episode with some stats on the podcast, a big thank you to all the listeners, and Ben speaking Japanese. Domo arigato Ben’s high school Japanese teacher! (1:35:00)

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.

8 Comments


  1. In my listening, I’m up to only the start of the “sad update.” But I heard no “why we suggest planning for two test dates” which is advertised above to be before that. I was hoping to hear that because it’s similar to, or is, the question I asked in the comment section on Episode 71 and which did not garner a response there.

    Reply

  2. I’m sorry that I jumped the gun, above, before I finished listening! You did get to my Ep. 71 question (thanks!) and I have followed up there (http://www.thinkinglsat.com/blog/episode-71-who-killed-the-electric-lsat/#comment-4726). I was misled by the synopsis above, which has your answer out of order. BTW, I’ve also often found the timestamps in synopses to be useless.

    In the context of taking multiple tests and possibly postponing admission for a year, Ben implied that we all have 40-year careers ahead of us so one additional year is no biggie, and Nathan suggested that there are many fulfilling things to be done with a year off. It’s strange that Ben chose to say “40 years”: in December I will take the LSAT for the second time; the first time was — do the math! — in Dec., 1976.

    Reply

      1. I don’t make typos.

        Well I made *one* — it was the spring of 1962… a warm spring as I recall, with more rain than usual…

        Reply

      2. By the way, here’s a question for you — this is not a test, as I don’t know the answer:

        When did the LSAT score scale change from 200-800, which it was for the Dec. 1976 test, to the current 120-180? And for extra points: –why the change — why was one-tenth the granularity considered an improvement?
        –why is the range of both scales 6 times a power of 10?
        –why don’t both scales start at 0, or 100, rather than 200 or 120?

        Reply

        1. Mmm… I have no clue. If you find out, let us know! We’ll gladly report.

          Reply

        2. These are exactly the super nerd questions that indicate a likely future lawyer. The Force is strong with this one.

          Reply

  3. The Chris Farley reference still get me every time when I listen to this. Nice work, guys.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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