The McGruff Method: A Few Lessons From My Battle to 180
Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:42 am
Contents:
1. About Me
2. Getting Started, pt.1: get pumped
3. Getting Started, pt.2: jump in
4. PHASE I: Learn the general skills without PTing
-Logic Games
-Logical Reasoning
-Reading Comprehension
5. PHASE II: Learning to Perform
6. The most important part of your prep: Review.
7. Resources
Disclaimer: I'm a rambly writer and can easily get off-script so I apologize in advance for long-windedness. I’d also like to say upfront that I don't think I'm exceptionally bright or a naturally good LSAT-taker. I'm writing this guide because I think my experience can benefit others and, if I thought I was exceptional, there'd be little point in writing a guide as my experience would, for most test-takers, be irrelevant. I'm confident that anyone who works smart and hard for long enough will see more improvement than they might think is possible, and I think my method might help some future test-takers in finding their own road to improvement, which is ultimately the goal of all training.
1. About Me
I started studying for the LSAT in February of 2013, intending to take the test that June. My LSAC GPA was/is pretty abysmal, so early on in my prep I decided my target score was a 180. This ultimately meant delaying and taking in October instead of June, since I wasn’t yet in my target range. I took the test in October, got a 180, and now that I have slightly more time on my hands, I want to give back to the TLS community that helped me out so much by making an in-depth description of how I prepared. I really hope it helps you on your own path to LSAT domination, any questions feel free to PM or post here, etc.
2. Getting Started, pt.1: get pumped
I just now dug through my desk and, under a couple feet of printed out Cambridge packs, practice tests, written up reviews and guides, I found my original diagnostic. I scored it as 164 but almost certainly deserved to be in the 140s due to the fact that I basically took it untimed. I didn’t know whether my fake 164 was good, so I googled ‘lsat scores’, found TLS, discovered that 164 wasn’t too bad for a diagnostic, and decided to take the LSAT for reals. In retrospect, it was a blessing that I didn’t take the test under strict conditions that day, because the score I deserved would have discouraged me, and I probably wouldn’t have thought there was hope for me to get a top score.
I started by reading the four “How I Got a 180 on the LSAT” guides on TLS, (one of which is, I think, a reformatted and abridged version of) TLS1776’s guide (which, despite being somewhat out-of-date as far as resource suggestions, is the best guide I’ve ever read. If you only read one, make it his and not mine. Then again, if you only read one, change your mind and don’t only read one), pithypike’s guide, spending a lot of time googling people talking about the importance of the LSAT, looking at law school profiles on TLS, and daydreaming about schools I (fortunately, for my motivation level) didn’t know had GPA floors. I made it a point, like TLS1776, to avoid anything that hurt my motivation.
There is, as we all know, a bunch of stuff on what a scam law school is, and how you shouldn’t go, and all sorts of other stuff that will sap you of your motivation. Avoid it. You need to need to get a top score. When I was at my peak of motivation, which I managed to maintain for months, I wanted a 180 more than I wanted a Game Boy when I was 7, a guitar when I was 11, a girlfriend when I was 13, a car when I was 15; in short, I wanted a 180 with everything I had. If I could single out one factor as being the most important to your success, especially early on, I’d pick motivation. I don’t care how you get and stay pumped, day in and day out, but it will ultimately be the reason you do how you do. Luck, officially, accounts for +/- 2.6pts. The rest is up to you.
I should mention here that I believe that, barring mental disabilities which make going to law school a questionable idea, anyone who works hard enough can improve their score substantially. How much work it takes, and how much improvement you see, are unknowns, but that you will see some improvement with the right kind of work is beyond any doubt for me. If you hear a voice in the back of your head right now, saying that you aren’t smart enough, or you can’t read fast enough, or you’re just wired a different way, I invite you to spend some time meditating on the sound of that voice, and focusing on the source of that voice, so that you can kill it. The corny “whether you think you can or can’t; you’re right” is at least right with the “can’t” part, a belief that moderates the amount of effort you’re willing to put forth and thus directly affects learning skills and practicing performance, which is all we’re doing here.
3. Getting Started, pt.2: jump in
I’m going to assume you’ve taken a diagnostic. If not, I wouldn’t take one, honestly. Either way, you’ve got lots of areas to improve in, so it’s not as important where you begin as it is that you begin.
This is your “familiarity” phase, and you should go through a program. My suggestion to a beginner would be to buy the LSAT Trainer and all the Manhattan guides, to start lurking in the Manhattan forum and the TLS LSAT forum while going through the LSAT Trainer, and then after going through the whole LSAT Trainer, go through the Guides unless you’re already comfortably within a few points of your target score. I hate talk of target scores, though, we really should all have the same target score.
Anyways just get cracking on the books, and don’t look to start taking PTs regularly until you’ve done at least a full LSAT program (see my ‘resources’ section for my thoughts on different companies).
4. PHASE I: Learn the general skills without PTing
-Logic Games:
As Mike Kim, author of the stellar LSAT Trainer, put it, “For many LSAT students, the Logic Games section is the first obsession, and the Reading Comprehension section is the last.” and, for me that was pretty true. I would recommend starting Logic Games ASAP since I think much of the LG proficiency you’re aiming for is a matter of how long you’ve worked with the games. Here’s my Logic Games spiel-
“Why is this on the LSAT?”
Never mind that. You’ll be glad it’s on the LSAT after you master them and they become the least mentally draining section. Early on I heard someone mention that, for them, Logic Games were a chance to give their brain a rest during the test. I didn’t really believe them. Months later, I realized that’s exactly what happened to me, and find it funny that the one question I missed on the real deal was on the games, which was my most consistently flawless section. You can never improve too much, I guess.
I started with the Logic Games Bible, because several (old) guides praised it, and it was probably good that I did. Then I did Ace The LSAT’s LG section, because TLS liked it, and I still respect their hypo-heavy approach, even though they don’t use all real games (which is generally something to avoid) because sometimes hypos will save your life. Setups and inferences are great for most games, and most of the games you see will be regular, eventually easy and straightforward. When you come across something weird and hard, though, you’ll want to be very comfortable whipping out hypo after hypo and doing it quickly.
Then I went through Manhattan’s LG, though I kinda didn’t do the whole book, because I was realizing at the same time that the 7Sage method was getting me the best results. So I spent most of my LG time from then on out working with the Cambridge pack games, printing off a few copies of a particular type/pack, and watching the 7sage games. I got a lot faster and a lot better that way, and ultimately I was doing hard games flawlessly in under 8 minutes, easy games in under 4. I say “ultimately” and urge you to keep in mind that this took huuuundreds of hours. It also required vigilance. After a week or two off, I was definitely rusty, and I did at least one hard game before every PT, but more on warm-up later.
-Logical Reasoning: The Meaty Part of the Test
You have no option but to learn a bunch of skills for the LR section. Go through the Manhattan LR book. I did that after going through the Powerscore LR Bible, and I strongly endorse Manhattan over Powerscore, though ultimately it’s going to be whatever works for you. An example of that principle is in whether or not you should read the stem or the stim first. Manhattan says (I think) that you should read the question first, Powerscore says you should read the stimulus first. I tried both, and ended up doing what worked best for me. Personally it made most sense to me to let my brain go for whatever it wanted, so I started reading questions chronologically, but if I got confused, I might stop what I was reading and look for the flaw. I’m not sure I’m describing my personal method well, so here’s what I wrote someone in a PM:
“I started my prep by reading the question in order, and then later I tried to read other stuff first, like the part that reveals what kind of question it is (sorry, I never got good at remembering what stimulus and stem referred to) but it ultimately seemed too weird to read it out of order. Like you said, it can be harder to focus on the argument when you're thinking "okay, I'm looking for a flaw", when you should really be thinking, "okay, I'm looking for an ARGUMENT." It's all about the argument. (the following is for "assumption family questions")I was into underlining conclusions, because once you've got a conclusion you can look for its support, and then you've got everything you need to track the question. It asks for a flaw, you find the flaw, it asks for a role of a piece, you've got it in your head already. Much easier than setting out to look for a flaw in an argument you haven't even put together in your head yet.”
But that’s just one way that it’s important to pick your own method. LR is like a dozen different kinds of tasks that you have to do, and each requires its own method. My method for getting better at LR was as follows:
1. Go through books on LR and drill by type (Kaplan Mastery or Cambridge packs for question-types) until you can go -3ish consistently/section. If you aren’t there yet, look specifically at which question types are causing you trouble, re-read the section in your books on those question types, read guides online about those question types, and type up your own guide to yourself, about that question type. If you aren’t improving, find out which books you haven’t gone through and go through them.
You’re trying to learn how you approach these questions, and what you’re doing wrong. I think a lot of people try to learn methods, rather than learn how to use them, propositional knowledge instead of know-how. The point is that it is much more important that you are able to do something than that you understand what you’re doing. The latter is almost always necessary, but only as a means to the end of ability. Studying your performance makes for good practice, and good practice makes perfect. More on performance later.
2. Keep hammering down your problem areas while working on LG and RC to get them to a similar level of proficiency. I’d say you should be in the mid-to-high 160s before going into the PT and Review phase of your prep, so keep drilling and reading/writing guides, and practicing question types to solidify your theoretical knowledge into actual know-how. Manhattan’s forum was a great area to read explanations for specific questions, the best I came across, but that may change in the future.
Reading Comprehension: Unrealistically Hard and Consistently Esoteric
Everyone hates RC. I ended up being pretty good at RC and I still loathed it with a passion. It took me 3-4 months of going through several books on RC and doing dozens of sections before I was averaging ~-5/RC section and then another 3-4 months before I could reliably do -1/2 and, up until the end, it was always the most volatile section (i.e. the only one I could randomly miss 5 on). Hopefully for future test-takers it doesn’t get any worse, because it’s already terrible.
That said, it’s doable. It’s hard as nails but it’s doable. My method was similar to LR:
1. Go through books (I used them all and, while Manhattan gave me my biggest gains, I think LSAT trainer earns its reputation as top dog here. It helped me work out my last few kinks) and do sections. until you’re doing the best you can. You don’t need to demand -3 from yourself, just try to improve as much as you can. So for Phase 1, just pick a book and get through it. Then take a PT and see if you're close enough to your target to get to step 2.
2. PT and Review Phase. We'll get to that shortly, but first a recap.
Recap on Methods So Far:
I can’t imagine a way to get through this first part, of learning general skills, that doesn’t take months. You need to do books, guides, forums, notes, videos, and tons and tons of practice until you’re within striking distance of your goal score. For me, I was around 170 when I moved into my phase 2, and it got me my last 10 points. During this phase I studied 40 hours a week easily, some weeks almost double that, and it still took me probably 3 months to get through everything. You might be a better reader or improve more quickly or it may only take one set of books (I’d start with Manhattan and see what still needs improvement) so YMMV but take your time because the returns only get more diminishing from here on out.
1. About Me
2. Getting Started, pt.1: get pumped
3. Getting Started, pt.2: jump in
4. PHASE I: Learn the general skills without PTing
-Logic Games
-Logical Reasoning
-Reading Comprehension
5. PHASE II: Learning to Perform
6. The most important part of your prep: Review.
7. Resources
Disclaimer: I'm a rambly writer and can easily get off-script so I apologize in advance for long-windedness. I’d also like to say upfront that I don't think I'm exceptionally bright or a naturally good LSAT-taker. I'm writing this guide because I think my experience can benefit others and, if I thought I was exceptional, there'd be little point in writing a guide as my experience would, for most test-takers, be irrelevant. I'm confident that anyone who works smart and hard for long enough will see more improvement than they might think is possible, and I think my method might help some future test-takers in finding their own road to improvement, which is ultimately the goal of all training.
1. About Me
I started studying for the LSAT in February of 2013, intending to take the test that June. My LSAC GPA was/is pretty abysmal, so early on in my prep I decided my target score was a 180. This ultimately meant delaying and taking in October instead of June, since I wasn’t yet in my target range. I took the test in October, got a 180, and now that I have slightly more time on my hands, I want to give back to the TLS community that helped me out so much by making an in-depth description of how I prepared. I really hope it helps you on your own path to LSAT domination, any questions feel free to PM or post here, etc.
2. Getting Started, pt.1: get pumped
I just now dug through my desk and, under a couple feet of printed out Cambridge packs, practice tests, written up reviews and guides, I found my original diagnostic. I scored it as 164 but almost certainly deserved to be in the 140s due to the fact that I basically took it untimed. I didn’t know whether my fake 164 was good, so I googled ‘lsat scores’, found TLS, discovered that 164 wasn’t too bad for a diagnostic, and decided to take the LSAT for reals. In retrospect, it was a blessing that I didn’t take the test under strict conditions that day, because the score I deserved would have discouraged me, and I probably wouldn’t have thought there was hope for me to get a top score.
I started by reading the four “How I Got a 180 on the LSAT” guides on TLS, (one of which is, I think, a reformatted and abridged version of) TLS1776’s guide (which, despite being somewhat out-of-date as far as resource suggestions, is the best guide I’ve ever read. If you only read one, make it his and not mine. Then again, if you only read one, change your mind and don’t only read one), pithypike’s guide, spending a lot of time googling people talking about the importance of the LSAT, looking at law school profiles on TLS, and daydreaming about schools I (fortunately, for my motivation level) didn’t know had GPA floors. I made it a point, like TLS1776, to avoid anything that hurt my motivation.
There is, as we all know, a bunch of stuff on what a scam law school is, and how you shouldn’t go, and all sorts of other stuff that will sap you of your motivation. Avoid it. You need to need to get a top score. When I was at my peak of motivation, which I managed to maintain for months, I wanted a 180 more than I wanted a Game Boy when I was 7, a guitar when I was 11, a girlfriend when I was 13, a car when I was 15; in short, I wanted a 180 with everything I had. If I could single out one factor as being the most important to your success, especially early on, I’d pick motivation. I don’t care how you get and stay pumped, day in and day out, but it will ultimately be the reason you do how you do. Luck, officially, accounts for +/- 2.6pts. The rest is up to you.
I should mention here that I believe that, barring mental disabilities which make going to law school a questionable idea, anyone who works hard enough can improve their score substantially. How much work it takes, and how much improvement you see, are unknowns, but that you will see some improvement with the right kind of work is beyond any doubt for me. If you hear a voice in the back of your head right now, saying that you aren’t smart enough, or you can’t read fast enough, or you’re just wired a different way, I invite you to spend some time meditating on the sound of that voice, and focusing on the source of that voice, so that you can kill it. The corny “whether you think you can or can’t; you’re right” is at least right with the “can’t” part, a belief that moderates the amount of effort you’re willing to put forth and thus directly affects learning skills and practicing performance, which is all we’re doing here.
3. Getting Started, pt.2: jump in
I’m going to assume you’ve taken a diagnostic. If not, I wouldn’t take one, honestly. Either way, you’ve got lots of areas to improve in, so it’s not as important where you begin as it is that you begin.
This is your “familiarity” phase, and you should go through a program. My suggestion to a beginner would be to buy the LSAT Trainer and all the Manhattan guides, to start lurking in the Manhattan forum and the TLS LSAT forum while going through the LSAT Trainer, and then after going through the whole LSAT Trainer, go through the Guides unless you’re already comfortably within a few points of your target score. I hate talk of target scores, though, we really should all have the same target score.
Anyways just get cracking on the books, and don’t look to start taking PTs regularly until you’ve done at least a full LSAT program (see my ‘resources’ section for my thoughts on different companies).
4. PHASE I: Learn the general skills without PTing
-Logic Games:
As Mike Kim, author of the stellar LSAT Trainer, put it, “For many LSAT students, the Logic Games section is the first obsession, and the Reading Comprehension section is the last.” and, for me that was pretty true. I would recommend starting Logic Games ASAP since I think much of the LG proficiency you’re aiming for is a matter of how long you’ve worked with the games. Here’s my Logic Games spiel-
“Why is this on the LSAT?”
Never mind that. You’ll be glad it’s on the LSAT after you master them and they become the least mentally draining section. Early on I heard someone mention that, for them, Logic Games were a chance to give their brain a rest during the test. I didn’t really believe them. Months later, I realized that’s exactly what happened to me, and find it funny that the one question I missed on the real deal was on the games, which was my most consistently flawless section. You can never improve too much, I guess.
I started with the Logic Games Bible, because several (old) guides praised it, and it was probably good that I did. Then I did Ace The LSAT’s LG section, because TLS liked it, and I still respect their hypo-heavy approach, even though they don’t use all real games (which is generally something to avoid) because sometimes hypos will save your life. Setups and inferences are great for most games, and most of the games you see will be regular, eventually easy and straightforward. When you come across something weird and hard, though, you’ll want to be very comfortable whipping out hypo after hypo and doing it quickly.
Then I went through Manhattan’s LG, though I kinda didn’t do the whole book, because I was realizing at the same time that the 7Sage method was getting me the best results. So I spent most of my LG time from then on out working with the Cambridge pack games, printing off a few copies of a particular type/pack, and watching the 7sage games. I got a lot faster and a lot better that way, and ultimately I was doing hard games flawlessly in under 8 minutes, easy games in under 4. I say “ultimately” and urge you to keep in mind that this took huuuundreds of hours. It also required vigilance. After a week or two off, I was definitely rusty, and I did at least one hard game before every PT, but more on warm-up later.
-Logical Reasoning: The Meaty Part of the Test
You have no option but to learn a bunch of skills for the LR section. Go through the Manhattan LR book. I did that after going through the Powerscore LR Bible, and I strongly endorse Manhattan over Powerscore, though ultimately it’s going to be whatever works for you. An example of that principle is in whether or not you should read the stem or the stim first. Manhattan says (I think) that you should read the question first, Powerscore says you should read the stimulus first. I tried both, and ended up doing what worked best for me. Personally it made most sense to me to let my brain go for whatever it wanted, so I started reading questions chronologically, but if I got confused, I might stop what I was reading and look for the flaw. I’m not sure I’m describing my personal method well, so here’s what I wrote someone in a PM:
“I started my prep by reading the question in order, and then later I tried to read other stuff first, like the part that reveals what kind of question it is (sorry, I never got good at remembering what stimulus and stem referred to) but it ultimately seemed too weird to read it out of order. Like you said, it can be harder to focus on the argument when you're thinking "okay, I'm looking for a flaw", when you should really be thinking, "okay, I'm looking for an ARGUMENT." It's all about the argument. (the following is for "assumption family questions")I was into underlining conclusions, because once you've got a conclusion you can look for its support, and then you've got everything you need to track the question. It asks for a flaw, you find the flaw, it asks for a role of a piece, you've got it in your head already. Much easier than setting out to look for a flaw in an argument you haven't even put together in your head yet.”
But that’s just one way that it’s important to pick your own method. LR is like a dozen different kinds of tasks that you have to do, and each requires its own method. My method for getting better at LR was as follows:
1. Go through books on LR and drill by type (Kaplan Mastery or Cambridge packs for question-types) until you can go -3ish consistently/section. If you aren’t there yet, look specifically at which question types are causing you trouble, re-read the section in your books on those question types, read guides online about those question types, and type up your own guide to yourself, about that question type. If you aren’t improving, find out which books you haven’t gone through and go through them.
You’re trying to learn how you approach these questions, and what you’re doing wrong. I think a lot of people try to learn methods, rather than learn how to use them, propositional knowledge instead of know-how. The point is that it is much more important that you are able to do something than that you understand what you’re doing. The latter is almost always necessary, but only as a means to the end of ability. Studying your performance makes for good practice, and good practice makes perfect. More on performance later.
2. Keep hammering down your problem areas while working on LG and RC to get them to a similar level of proficiency. I’d say you should be in the mid-to-high 160s before going into the PT and Review phase of your prep, so keep drilling and reading/writing guides, and practicing question types to solidify your theoretical knowledge into actual know-how. Manhattan’s forum was a great area to read explanations for specific questions, the best I came across, but that may change in the future.
Reading Comprehension: Unrealistically Hard and Consistently Esoteric
Everyone hates RC. I ended up being pretty good at RC and I still loathed it with a passion. It took me 3-4 months of going through several books on RC and doing dozens of sections before I was averaging ~-5/RC section and then another 3-4 months before I could reliably do -1/2 and, up until the end, it was always the most volatile section (i.e. the only one I could randomly miss 5 on). Hopefully for future test-takers it doesn’t get any worse, because it’s already terrible.
That said, it’s doable. It’s hard as nails but it’s doable. My method was similar to LR:
1. Go through books (I used them all and, while Manhattan gave me my biggest gains, I think LSAT trainer earns its reputation as top dog here. It helped me work out my last few kinks) and do sections. until you’re doing the best you can. You don’t need to demand -3 from yourself, just try to improve as much as you can. So for Phase 1, just pick a book and get through it. Then take a PT and see if you're close enough to your target to get to step 2.
2. PT and Review Phase. We'll get to that shortly, but first a recap.
Recap on Methods So Far:
I can’t imagine a way to get through this first part, of learning general skills, that doesn’t take months. You need to do books, guides, forums, notes, videos, and tons and tons of practice until you’re within striking distance of your goal score. For me, I was around 170 when I moved into my phase 2, and it got me my last 10 points. During this phase I studied 40 hours a week easily, some weeks almost double that, and it still took me probably 3 months to get through everything. You might be a better reader or improve more quickly or it may only take one set of books (I’d start with Manhattan and see what still needs improvement) so YMMV but take your time because the returns only get more diminishing from here on out.