It’s a little less than two weeks until the Spring 2019 LSAT and the guys talk LSAT FUNdamentals for the final weeks of your test prep. They share how to taper off your studies and get in the zone for the test. Plus, it’s been a busy week in the world of academia, and the guys kick off the show musing about the largest college admissions scandal in history. You’ll also hear about upcoming events where you can connect with Nathan and Ben, and the guys answer a few listener emails.
As always, If you like the show and you want to get more from the Thinking LSAT community, check out the links below. You can connect with other folks studying for the LSAT, and get more useful resources from Nathan and Ben.
6:12 – Upcoming Events
Don’t miss your chance to connect with Ben and Nathan at upcoming events at your school or in your neck of the woods.
30 March – Y’all test preppers know it’s the March LSAT
14 April – Nathan and Ben will be at UVA to talk about changes coming to the LSAT
23 April – Nathan talks changes coming to the LSAT at Seattle University
7:14 – LSAT Demon Update
Ben’s been working on the Demon more than ever. But the changes are getting super granular. You might notice the text is darker and easier to read. You might notice the performance is a lil’ snappier. You can now access explanations on tests 1-18. And when you take a timed section, the ways to review have been refined. The best AI platform for LSAT prep just keeps getting better.
11:15 (46:11) – LSAT FUNdamentals: The Home Stretch
There’s just two weeks until the next LSAT. In today’s LSAT FUNdamental, the guys recommend how to spend these last two weeks in your final push toward the test. And instead of ramping up? The guys suggest ramping down, or just doing more of the same. Here are the key takeaways:
46:17 – Email 1
One of Ben’s former students writes in with some great news out of Canada. The student applied to schools that averaged LSAT scores, so taking the test multiple times wouldn’t help if the student bombed. The student studied until their practice test scores were above their target score and then sat for the test. Now they’re looking at a full-ride situation going into the law school next year. Badass! They also suggest checking out the Canadian law student forums, noting that there’s a lot of helpful info there about applying to law school in Canada.
50:22 – Email 2
Matt writes in with an admissions horror story. Matt applied to a TOP SIX school in November but even as we get into spring, his application has yet to be considered. After sending many emails to no avail, Matt finally picked up the phone and called the school. They told him that there was an unfortunate “administrative error” that had held his application up, but that they would resolve the issue. But guess what. They didn’t resolve it yet. And Matt is freaking out. He wants to know if this is just his lot in life or if he should fight the good fight and risk annoying the shit out of the prestigious law school that has fucked up his application. The guys offer advice and Nathan recounts an admissions horror story of his own.
1:02:11 – Pearls vs. Turds
Ten turds. Four ties. And just one pearl in the history of Pearls vs. Turds. This week the guys put another piece of LSAT lore under the microscope to determine its luster or its stink. Today’s consideration is about bi-conditional statements in the games. The tip suggests that bi-conditional statements in the games can be considered as “or” situations, like “Nathan will eat Halo Top if and only if Ben does not eat Halo Top.” This could read as—Nathan will eat Halo Top or Ben will eat Halo Top—but both will not eat Halo Top. I think we know how that scenario would play out… The guys note that while this is concept holds up, it’s not really a pearl of wisdom. They offer a few more tips about this type of situation in the games, and put this tip in the “tie” column.
1:08:38 – Email 3
“People shouldn’t take the test until they’re ready.” And “people shouldn’t take gaps between sitting for the test.” Caro writes in confused by these two pieces of advice from Ben and Nathan. Do the two statements contradict each other? Nathan solves the paragraph, and the guys go on to offer advice on how to think about big, general questions you have about the test. Questions like: how do I break through the plateau? Why am I not achieving the scores I want? Tune in for a dose of Thinking LSAT wisdom.