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.

Reading Comprehension Strategy

A New Approach to Reading Comprehension

People keep saying that the best way to practice reading comp is to do more reading comp. I'm aware that RC scores don't really increase because it's a skill that one has practiced all his/her life. You're not going to have massive gains simply by practicing it for a couple of months.

I disagree. Sure, gains might be marginal, but gains are possible. I don't think it's about "taking practice tests over and over again." People who say this are just really talented. Talent needs little work. Middle of the road people like me need tactics, strategy, and shrewdness.

This time around, I'm not going to just "take sections." I'm going to develop a framework for attacking the RC section, based on Nova's Master the LSAT. They are the only known publication (at least in my mind) that release a strategy for taking down the Reading Comp section.

1. Massive doses of concentration. There can be no relaxation of the mind. Practicing at this level is crucial because if I half ass the practice, I will receive fewer gains on the real thing.

2. Reading the first line of each paragraph. I will experiment to see if this is helpful. I will read the first line of each paragraph, then go through the entire passage again. Hopefully this will help raise accuracy rates on Main Idea questions.

3. Learn to identify Question Types.

A. Main Idea
B. Description [Do Not Rely On Memory!!]
C. Writing Technique
D. Extension
E. Applicatoin
F. Tone [Decide the tone before seeing answer choices]

General: The most measured answer tends to be the correct one.

3. Speed, speed, speed. There is no excuse for not having enough time. Practice sections must be completed <30 min, regardless.

December 1999 LSAT

Scaled Score: 171
Raw Score: 88

Logical Reasoning: 48/51
Reading Comprehension: 23/27
Logic Games: 17/23

My first crack at the LSAT in five months was pretty decent. Relieved to see that I hit >170, meaningless as it is. An 87 was required for a 170, and I barely made the threshold. LR was decent, RC was relatively easy (minus one section), and Logic Games was tough.

Post Game Analysis

Logical Reasoning

I remembered too many of these questions, so burning through them in under 30 minutes was not too tough. I had trouble with a couple of questions in the first section, and had to settle for answers without being close to 95% confident before time ran out. The second LR section was better; I blasted through it in 25 minutes. I got all those questions correct.

Reading Comprehension

Not too tough, was able to finish four passages in under 30 minutes easy, but I hit a wall on the "Criticism of Critical Legal Studies [CLS]" passage. Philosophical/abstract passages give me a lot of trouble, and this one was no different. Need to find a better approach to reading comprehension, will elaborate on that later.

Logic Games

Horrible strategy management. I know I'm not particularly good at these, but the mistake I made here was not tactical, it was strategic. Due to my five month hiatus from practicing, I forgot to look through the test to attack the easier games first. I left the two easy games for last and by then I had burned off too much time on the tougher questions. Will do better next time. Be sure not to make the same mistake.

At It Again.

Hey guys, sorry for not writing for a couple of days.

I’ve decided to retake the LSAT. I registered yesterday and I will be taking it again at Queens College on September 30th.

As soon as I realized that I would be reliving the horrifying experience of preparing, I had a sick feeling in my stomach. I am filled with self doubt that I cannot shake off. I’ve got to have a new plan this time, since I’ve already seen most LSAT questions twice now.

I’m betting that I’ve forgotten many of the questions from the first time around (it has been something like 5 months since I last looked at an LSAT section) so hopefully that will help. I’m going to spend the first phase of my preparation going over mid to late 1990s tests to get used to all of it. In the second phase, I will be taking the early to mid 2000 tests to better gauge my level. Finally, near the end of my preparation, I will have to go through the June 2006 test.

I’m thinking about making some adjustments this time.

- I need to reduce the amount of time I have for each test. I plan on taking each section in 30 minutes.
- I cannot sit for 4 sections each time. I must sit for five or six. Six would probably be a better idea.
- I need to seriously deconstruct each exam. It’s ok if I don’t take as many preptests but I need to know the details of why I made each mistake and even thoroughly go through the correct answers.

I begin my journey tomorrow.

Here we go again!
Same old shit again!
Walking down the avenue,
One more night and we’ll be through.

Law Degree = Empowering ?

Sometimes it scares me that I will be entering a profession that is dominated by white people. I just had an incident at work today where somebody made a racial comment that I wasn't too cool with. It's fine now, because it's not as if I am trying to climb the ladder at my current company. I am worried though, about the subtle amounts of racism if say, I were to one day work at a law firm that was less diverse.

I feel like I need to be exposed into one of these environments. I tend to be pretty defensive about racial issues and when someone says something remotely stereotypical about Asians, I feel the need to say something back. It's tough to draw the line at work though, because you can't really "throw shit down" and fight someone.

Why do people enter a career in the law? The law is known as a genteel profession, similar to a secret society where handshakes and cigars solve problems. I guess something about the power and respect lawyers command made me very interested in pursuing a J.D.

Is a J.D. really that empowering though? Or is it that the rich and powerful are lawyers by self selection? I don't know. I don't know if getting a law degree will help me with regards to my social mobility.

This entry did not really have a clear direction. Just thought I'd throw this stuff out there.

Ms. Ivey Meeting at Starbucks

She said that I should stay away from typical immigrant stories. Apparently, talking about our upbringing is a cliched topic, and will not distinguish yourself as a candidate.

However, my start up company story will be the best bet. It will set me apart the most. Now, I've got to compose a first draft and throw out a couple of versions of this.

She also told me to play against type. Playing against type = showing that you are not the same as what you are expected to be. For example, I must set myself apart as a very different Asian American applicant. However, when I asked her what else I would be categorized as, she said:

"Oh yes, you will be categorized as the typical Carnegie Mellon type. You know, CMU graduates are not known for being very good socially. That added with the whole technology consulting thing means you need to play against that type."

Fascinating.

Unbelievable

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2006/06/aba_to_require_.html

Up until now, the policy of the American Bar Association was to require law schools to report LSAT medians, 25th percentiles, and 75th percentiles. The formula used was to have the average score of each applicant reported. Apparently, they have just changed that policy to require to have the highest score of each applicant reported.

Well then, why am I concerned? This changes the game. Now, someone with two scores of 160 and 170 on their record is equivalent to mine. The LSAT is going to become the SAT, where only the highest score is reported. I don't have an issue with this particular rule, but in my case it harms me. Had I known earlier, I would have retaken my LSAT. My preptest average was above 170 and the sole reason why I did not retake in June was because scoring anything less than 170 would prove to be catastrophic.

The game has changed, however, and June has passed. If I retake in September, not only will it drive me crazy, I will not be able to get my application in as early as I had hoped. My shrewed preparation in taking the test in Februrary will be rendered moot.

Now hold up a second, wannabe lawyer, you might say. Sure, the ABA says that they will have different requirements for law schools to report scores to them. But isn't the policy for admissions that they take the average score? Why would law schools change their policy because of the ABA?

Well folks, it's because the ABA data is used for purposes of U.S. News rankings. And we all know how important U.S. news rankings are to law schools.

This really messes with my game plan. I'm really concerned now. I was already insecure about my 170, now this makes my 170 even less impressive.