Reading Comprehension Day

December 1994
Section 3
25/27

Passage 1 – Neurogenesis and Canaries

I didn’t have too much problem understanding the passage. I had trouble with three of the eight questions on this passage. Question 1 I narrowed it down to two but chose the wrong answer. My error was that I did not realize that the wrong choice had overstepped its boundaries. The correct answer was more measured. (Main point question) I had trouble with Question 3 as well, but I had time to go back and actually got this question correct. I narrowed Question 4 to two choices as well, but I chose the wrong answer. In retrospect, reading carefully, I did not go back to see what the specific reference was. That is, I did not refer to the correct section of the passage when looking for the answer. This is the kind of mistake I need to correct. Question 5 gave me trouble as well, but I think I chose the best answer and moved on.

Passage 2 – African American achievement in the late 17th century.

I had a good grasp on this passage. Struggled with Question 11, I was torn between two choices. I chose the right answer because it was measured. The incorrect answer overstepped its boundary, which is why I eliminated it. Otherwise, it sounded like a good answer.

Passage 3 - Watteau and French Art

I also had a decent grasp of the passage, but the first question (14) gave me trouble. I eliminated all incorrect answers, but the correct answer didn’t feel so good either. I had to roll with it, and fortunately I got it right. Other questions were fine.

Passage 4 – Evidence and inferential errors by juries

I had a good grasp of the passage. First question (21) gave me trouble, but again, I eliminated all poor answers. Question 25 also gave me trouble. I was split between two answers, but I thought I chose the better one and was right. Other questions were fine.

February 1995
Section 3
24/27

Passage 1 – Earth’s Polarity

This passage took some time to trudge through, especially since it was somewhat long and scientific. What made it worse was that there were only six questions. I struggled with Question 4. This was a careless error. I did not see the specific reference to the answer in the first paragraph. I also got Question 5 wrong. I eliminated all possible answers and chose what I thought to be the “best” answer, but it turned out that I eliminated a good answer. I also missed a specific reference here. Question 6 gave me trouble too, but I got the question right. This question took some time.

Passage 2 – Deconstruction and Literary Theory

This passage wasn’t too bad to understand. Question 11 gave me trouble, and I chose what I thought to be the best answer. I had it down to three choices, and one looked somewhat weak. It was somewhat of a tossup, but I chose the safer answer and moved on. I have to remember not to dwell too much on these types of questions.

Passage 3 – Reclamation Litigation

This passage also wasn’t too bad. I didn’t really struggle with any of the questions, except 19. However, process of elimination aided me and I chose the right answer pretty quickly. Question 20 I got wrong. This one is kind of fuzzy. I know now why the right answer is right but it would have been tough to get it at the time.

Passage 4 – Comparison between slavery and serfdom

This passage was OK. It was somewhat hard to trudge through. I struggled with the first question wanting to choose between two answers. However, just like past questions, I chose what I thought to be the more measured answer, and got it correct. Question 26 gave me a little trouble too, but I chose a safe answer. I chose the answer that went out on the shortest limb. It seems that a lot of answers sound right, but they go too far in making unwarranted assumptions.

June 1995
Section 1
25/27

Passage 1 – Iridium and Extinction of Dinosaurs

I didn’t have too much trouble with understanding the passage. However, I got question 7 wrong. I narrowed it down to two choices and chose the wrong one. This one is a tossup, I understand why the right answer is right now, but at the time it was a pretty close call.

Passage 2 – Folklore and Folkorists

I had a pretty good grasp of this passage. This was a long section, with 8 questions. I struggled with question 13. Narrowed it down to two, and chose the right one.

Passage 3 – Pocock’s analysis

I had a lot of trouble understanding this passage. I spent more time than usual reading and digesting this passage. Fortunately, the questions were nothing too horrible, but I did get question 17 wrong. I used the wrong reference so my answer was wrong. I struggled with question 20 too, and had to choose between two possibilities. However, I chose the more measured answer and got it correct.

Passage 4 – Civil Rights Act

This passage was relatively easy to understand. The questions did not give me any problems.

98th percentile

Some people may think that I am a little crazy for thinking that a 170 is not enough. It's not that I'm a perfectionist. If my GPA was >3.2, I would be chillin like a villian. Unfortunately, 98th percentile is not enough if you have a 2.91 like I do.

Of applicants who were 2.7-3.0 and scored a 170 or 171,

- the best results (maybe 10%) maxed out at Northwestern.
- the decent results (maybe next 25%) maxed out Notre Dame, Emory, and the like.
- the rest maxed out Wash U in St. Louis, U Minnesota, and the like.

Of applicants who were 2.7-3.0 and scored a 172-173

- the best results (5-10%) maxed out at U of Virginia, Michigan, and Penn
- the next best results (10-33%) maxed out at Northwestern or George Washington U
- the rest maxed out at Notre Dame, Emory, and below.

These are comparisons of cohorts. Obviously depending on the applicant, different results will happen, but it remains that those in the second group are seen as different applicants than those in the first. For those of us with sub 3.0 GPAs from college, a 98th percentile score is just not good enough.

September 30, 2006

172+ or WUSTL

December 2000

The first time I took this test was about a year ago, when I was taking Powerscore. I was about three or four weeks into the course and i hit a 160 on this test.

I was supposed to take the test before a study session last week, but I did not. I went over about 10-15 Logical Reasoning questions, so I knew that my score would be inflated.

Today, for the second time ever, I got a 179.

LR 48/50
LG 22/23
RC 27/28

The feeling you get when you score in the upper 170s is very different than the feeling you get when you score in the low 170s. When you hit the upper 170s, you know that you probably got some questions wrong, but there are only a handful of questions you could possibly get wrong. Among the handful, you probably got some right. It's a very confident feeling. It's a feeling I did not get after the February test.

Lessons Learned

1. Maintaining a high level of concentration is crucial. I don't know if it was the cup of coffee I had before the test, or some sort of newfound ability to focus. My mind was like a laserbeam most of the first two or three sections (I admittedly let up in the fourth). I was hitting all cylinders during Reading Comp, and that allowed me to blast through a 28 RC section in 30 minutes. With one question wrong. Not too shabby, I'd say.

2. Choosing the most measured response. This is an RC tactic, but I used it for a handful of LR questions. For some questions, it is real tough to tell the difference between two answer choices, but the one that is more reserved and measured tends to be the more correct one.

3. Full Speed Ahead for the first round. This pertains to the LR sections. Question bothering you? Skip it. Come back to it later. It's huge on time saving.

Post Game Analysis

30 minute sections is very challenging for Logic Games and Reading Comp. It's really not too hard for me to take care of Logical Reasoning in under 30 min. I was especially proud of my output in the LG/RC sections because they are historically my weakest sections.

The new reading comp strategy really helped. I'm going to have to refine the strategy, but before hitting the questions, it REALLY helps to nail the main idea by reading the first and last sentence of each paragraph. By investing that small amount of time earlier on, more time can be saved later.

It is CRUCIAL to make sure you hit the correct order when approaching games. Knock out the easiest ones and save the hardest for last. This was executed well today.

Improvements

I wanted to go through six sections today, but made it through five. My fifth section, a single LR section from 6/2000, was just insane. My mind had lost much of it's ability to concentrate and instead of focusing on questions, I would think about other things. One possible solution is to work my way up to knocking out seven or eight sections in one sitting so that five will be just cake when I actually take the test.

I am also considering taking LR sections in 25 minutes. The reason why I need to drop the time when testing is because I need to perfect my risk analysis ability. There's no way I can be close to 100% sure I have the right answer when I am pressed for time on the real thing. However, since many questions I am doing now I have seen before, I can possibly come close to being 100% sure. This takes away from my risk analysis, because I need to finish a section without being 100% sure on many questions. Plus, having that uncertainty plays into the psychology of the test. How will I face that situation? Will I dwell on mistakes I've made? I might need to drop 5 more min off the LR sections.

I'm back

Hey guys, after almost two weeks, I am back. For a while I just felt like doing nothing, but I've since learned to fight it off. I apologize for the interruption. Hopefully you guys have not stopped visiting!

Hiatus

I have and will be taking a short vacation from this blog. Girlfriend and I broke up last week. I cannot concentrate on anything, let alone law school applications. I will eventually find my way around this though, will keep everybody posted.