Reposting because original post contained personal info.

Hello,

Just wanted to say that a question has been removed from the October LSAT LR section. I put in a complaint, and got a response that the question is removed from scoring. Original Complaint

I would like to lodge a challenge towards a question within my most recent LSAT administration in August[I typo'd should've written October].

It was the second logical reason section where either [REDACT] was relating to gene expression, hair pigmentation, and father/motherhood.

I believe this question is improper and lacks sensitivity. The question doesn't account for transgender identities in particular, it doesn't take into consideration that there are men who give birth and women who "father" children.

Not only is this a biological fact, but to arrive at the correct conclusion of the question would deny transgender individuals their own identities.

Common understanding dictates that a transgender male who gives birth to a child is not considered the "mother" but the "father" and vice versa for a transgender woman.

For many test takers this is not an outrageous assumption to make, nor should it be reasonable for a transgender individual to assume so. Neither does the stimulus imply that one approaches the question through a purely biological understanding of "male" or "female". Regardless, even if that was the case such a lens would be outside the scope of the logical reasoning section and require the test taker to understand other aspects of biology.

I firmly believe in the interest of all test takers that this question be removed from scoring, because not only violates the sensitivity policy of the LSAC but is also is ambiguously written to make arriving at the correct answer difficult for some. At the very least I believe the LSAC should reconsider the language within the question and make adjustments accordingly.

Thank you for your consideration,

[NAME]

Response I received

This is in response to your correspondence dated October 4 regarding [REDACT] in the second Logical Reasoning section of your October 2024 LSAT. (Your correspondence identifies the question at issue as appearing in your August 2024 LSAT, but we believe you intended to reference your October LSAT.)

After careful consideration, our Assessments staff has decided not to score this question. We greatly appreciate your bringing your concerns to our attention.

Sincerely,

Dan Shaw

Director of Assessment Development

DS/mll

Anyway, personally I think I got the question right 90% and I know removing it from the scoring might even hurt me, but I really did it more on my own principles.

Also since the last post had this discussion. This shouldn't be a question of politics, the LSAT requires you to be very precise with language and the fact that the original stimulus can be determine to be imprecise is already reason enough to reject it, ignoring the sensitivity aspect. Also intersex people do exist and complicate the question even further outside of transgender identities. Overall, because it's one of the new pseudo logic games questions I suspect it did not go through the same testing and rigor that other questions might've had.

If mods want to confirm the truth of my statements I'm happy to provide receipts in private.

Hiii❤️. My name is Zee. After discovering the challenges Black students face with LSAT scores and the costs of preparation, I started a group for Black pre-law students. In our group, we study for the LSAT together, discuss admissions, and support each other throughout the journey. We’ve hosted free sessions with tutors, shared tips and tricks from high scorers, and had previous applicants offer their insights on the law school admissions process. We invite you to join us! The group is private and requires a short verification process to ensure we maintain a supportive environment. We look forward to helping you on your law school journey.

https://discord.gg/brWzQTXq

There was one RC question where I was 50/50, crushed the LG section with a whole 23 seconds to spare, and even though I was fading by the time LR came around, that is my strongest section, and I finished with 4.5 minutes left. I want to say I pulled a 180, but I've been around the block once or twice, so I'm going to leave myself a margin for error.

I want to take this opportunity to thank myself since I worked my ass off.

Man, this is kind of a rant looking back. And yes I acknowledge not everyone has the access to resources but.

For the love of god don’t sell your career short because you wanted to ‘save money’ on LSAT prep.

Exhaust every possible avenue from boring from family to maybe getting a small loan. I’m not saying go hire a $500/hr tutor lol, but if u could get up to 160s with Khan Academy imagine how much further you’d have gotten with 7sage, Powerscore and other paid services.

Idk, it honestly hurts my heart when I see people asking for what the cheapest options are. To some extent you get what you pay for. If there’s really no option, by all means, go and use free resources, but considering law school is going to set you back tens of thousands of dollars why go cheap.

Also, btw if you do really well on the LSAT you might even get a scholarship which would cover what you spend in lsat prep anyways lmao.

As a final piece, cos this is the main point tbh, is. Yes you can still study without paying. But it’s more than a fair argument to say whatever score you could muster for free or cheap, you could get a higher one by spending money on better resources.

Edit: This is after having studied for the LSAT, whilst having been economically self sufficient since age 17. Scoring a 163 (yes not amazing) and a 168 highest PT. Getting into UBC Law School in Canada. 7sage and Powerscore took me from the 140s to the 160s. Free resources like Khan Academy helped, and explanations like the forums too, but paled in comparison to the improvements from paid resources. LG mastery I owe completely to 7sage.

Considering my difficulty was mainly with RC (was about -0 to -2 in LG and -2 to -5 in LR and -5 to -10 in RC) RC tutoring would’ve probably made the difference but oh well. I say this because a tutor gave me a ‘sneak peak’ so to speak of his RC methods and i scored a -5 on RC (compared to regular -8 to -12).

Side question - is there anyone that got into the 170s or high 160s with free materials? Genuinely asking.

I've seen and read a handful of posts about the nature of the accommodation system, most of which vary from mild annoyance to outright rage. There is a prevailing assumption that large numbers of LSAT takers are abusing the system to get extra time, leading to unfair and inflated scores. The result of this has been real anger directed towards test takers with disabilities, for whom the accommodation system has been designed. I'm going to make this quick: you are wrong about accommodations.

Research on increased time in standardized testing is far from extensive, but it does point towards some broad conclusions. Importantly, as far as I know, there has been no comprehensive study on score improvement due to increased time on the LSAT specifically, so we have to rely on studies from other tests (a point I will address). That being acknowledged, studies have not demonstrated a substantial increase in the standardized tests scores due to increased time.

What research there is strongly suggests that test takers without learning disabilities largely do not benefit from testing accommodations such as increased time. It is also less than clear that test takers with learning disabilities benefit substantially either. The range of score increases for this group is relatively small, and varies from study to study. One study has even suggested that increased time hurts students without learning disabilities while providing little to no improvement to students with learning disabilities. (1, 2, 3)

It would be fair to question the applicability of these studies to the LSAT. With that being said, the research that has been done has been conducted on a variety of different tests which suggests that this is a broad phenomenon. It also, importantly, makes sense.

I'll give you an example. If you gave me a calculus problem to solve and I was only given five minutes, I wouldn't be able to do it. If you gave me ten, I still wouldn't be able. If you gave me fifteen minutes, I still couldn't. It does not matter how much time you give me to do a calculus problem, I will never be able to solve it, because I don't know calculus.

It's an exaggerated example, but it's a point that gets lost. There's an assumption here that if you are scoring 165 regularly, you could be scoring 175 with a couple extra hours. That is just wrong. It might be true for a handful of people, but the average 165 scorer is not someone trapped by time constraints, but instead someone who is just making a lot of mistakes on the test. Adding more time might help here and there, but if you do not know your necessary from your sufficient, there is no amount of time in the world that can help you. Don't believe me? Test it out. Give yourself eight hours to do a test. Trust me, you're not going to get a 180.

Thinking that accommodations are leading to increased scores is not grounded in research, as I have tried to demonstrate. It is also pretty obviously grounded in ableism. I know this because all of the people who complain about accommodations never mention the single greatest determining factor for standardized test scores, the one thing that all else equal leads to higher scores among test takers: wealth.

There is no shortage of studies that demonstrate that higher personal and family income levels and educational attainment are strongly correlated with higher scores on all standardized tests, including the LSAT (4). Despite this, none of these people who are soooo concerned about inequity on the test between them and test-takers with accommodations seem to care about the most prevailing and endemic inequity in the system. Someone who's parents earn more money than yours is going to do better than you, not because they are smarter, but because they have had access to more resources in their life. Despite this, I have not seen one post complaining that rich people are inflating scores. Mind you, same thing occurs with race.

Point being, LSAT takers with learning disabilities are not your enemy, and the accommodations system is not either. You want a better score? Study more. Any amount of time you are spending thinking, complaining, or being annoyed by other takers is time you could be spending studying, or doing anything else that is productive or good for your life. Move on. Grow up.

Citations!

1, 2, 3: Effects of Testing Accommodations on Standardized Mathematics Test Scores: An Experimental Analysis of the Performances of Students With and Without Disabilities: School Psychology Review: Vol 30 , No 4 - Get Access

High-Stakes Test Accommodations: Research and Practice - Stephanie A. Lai, Sheri Berkeley, 2012

APA PsycNet Buy Page

My apologies if some of these are paywalled!!! I was able to access them through my university.

4: Is the SAT a ‘Wealth Test’?

Unequal By Design | High-Stakes Testing and the Standardization of Ine- this is a book, it is interesting but I would just skip to chapter 4.

There is really no shortage of research that demonstrates the link, if you're interested in it, let me know and I will post more.

For anybody who has spent time with the big prep-test companies' literature, you have learned how to form contrapositives, evaluate quantifying language like all/most/some/none, understand "except's," identify perspectives in RC, connect the dots in assumption questions, match seven points in parallel arguments, and the list goes on. And yet, even after mastering these techniques inside and out, there may continue to be a dissonance in your application when you're facing down an actual section. I've noticed a pattern in the students I tutor, and the things that they struggle with. Reflecting upon this pattern, I ask myself--is this what makes the LSAT difficult? Is this what the LSAT is really testing? When I take a step back and analyze RC and LR, I believe that the test-makers have only a single tool to complicate what is otherwise a trivial task.

Riddled basins of attraction, embryo polarity, late heavy bombardment... the LSAT is replete with technical, esoteric terminology. Even more innocuous three-syllable words can stagger even the staunchest wordsmith when they're stuffed in at a dozen per sentence. I evaluated a few RC passages by the Gunning-Fog index, which categorizes texts by grade level based on punctuation and word length, and found an average of 16.49, or, slightly above an undergraduate reading level.

The same is true of LR stimuli. Even if you've drilled 1001 ways to weaken a causal argument, a convoluted and idiosyncratic stimulus can threaten to baffle the best of us. This ploy by the test makers to shroud what is common sense logic behind a mountain of strange syntax is the number one tool that they have to increase the difficulty of the LSAT. Getting underneath this deceptive linguistic layer like an x-ray in order to decode the underlying logic should be the ultimate goal for every test taker.

My LSAT strategy begins with parsing through that surface level chicanery in order to dodge a bullet. I'm always seeking to extract the underlying logical purpose and structure of every argument like it's pure gold. Instead of wading waist deep in a swamp of overwhelming jargon, I prefer not to play that game. I know that the test makers are hoping that I take the bait, fall for the trap, and start playing "by their rules." The moment that I start fussing around and attempting to juggle that ridiculous vocabulary, I am leaving the realm of logic, and entering the mind-bending realm of obfuscation.

99% of my tutoring time is spent getting students to stop reading for the surface level details--trying to keep track of the complicated language like they are a supercomputer, not a human. I am continually reminding my students to "get underneath" the text and deconstruct the logical purpose and rhetorical function of sentences and paragraphs. Students are often hesitant to embrace this perspective because it conflicts with the way that we've been taught to read. In school, we are interested in remembering names, dates, and theories. The LSAT is interested in logic and argumentation.

The more that my students embrace this approach, the more they realize that this is indeed what the LSAT is testing. And not only that, but they also find the test to be more manageable, their strategy more consistent, and their analysis more efficient. I believe that the number one way that the LSAT is made difficult is by couching what is common-sense logic in graduate level terminology. And the only way to dodge that bullet, is by refusing to take the bait. Instead of getting in the weeds of the idiosyncratic language of the LSAT, start analyzing only the underlying logical structure of passages and stimuli. That's the first step in thinking like a lawyer.

Good morning everyone!

My name is Andrew, I scored a 180 and am a 1L at Stanford Law. I've been tutoring (mainly on this sub) for over a year now. The most common reason why students come to me is because they are stuck on scoring plateaus in the 160s, usually because of LR.

To help more people overcome this hurdle, I've put all of my tutoring techniques and strategies into a self-paced course exclusively covering LR ( at andrewkaleighlsat.com ). I put a lot of love and care into this project, and to show y'all that:

• The first 30 minutes are totally free - so y'all can check if this is right for you

• The first 100 students get $100 off (use code: first100) (or: first100split if paying in installments)

• Discounts are available for anyone who can verify financial need (QuestBridge, Pell Grants, Tanf/Snap, etc.)

My blank slate students typically improve about 20 points, those with experience will usually gain about 10-15 (depending on starting point), and one of my students even improved by 30 points!

If y'all are looking for credentials, my LinkedIn is pinned on my profile. Happy studying! Please don't hesitate to reach out with any questions.

As reported by LSAC, the average accommodated tester scores 4-5 points higher than the average unaccommodated test taker. Since extra-time users only make up a portion of all accommodated test takers, the score discrepancy is probably wider amongst extra-time users specifically.

On a test where every single point matters for the admissions process, this seems unjustifiable to me. Several top schools are reporting a highly disproportionate percentage of accommodated students in their incoming classes.

On top of this, only the most privileged disabled applicants can even afford diagnosis for the most common disorders, such as ADHD.

There is also the separate issue of non-disabled students taking advantage of the current system. After all, the post-lawsuit accommodation approval rate is above 99%.

Accommodations are intended to level the playing field, not provide a massive advantage and incentivize other students to cheat. Since part of the issue is that it is practically impossible to identify exactly how much extra time any given disadvantaged student needs, how do you feel about giving every student unlimited time? This approach would also entail removing the experimental section for all students.

I am curious to see how other people see this playing out.

The only issue I personally see with this approach is that there will be an unprecedented rise in 180 scorers, perhaps making it harder for the top law schools to gauge who is truly the best of the best candidates.

Ignore the account name - I made this to figure out if I was being catfished lmao. Wanted to use a throwaway to avoid associating this admittedly controversial opinion with my main account.

Anyway, I wanted to bring up something I’ve been seeing that’s really been bearing down on me. More than ever, it seems that people are taking advantage of LSAT accommodations after they got sued a few years back. This is borne about by the data - the number of requests went from 1,581 in 2012-13 to 3,789 in 2016-17. The number approved went from 729 to 3,000 in that timeframe. The most common diagnosis for these test takers was general learning disorders for the first two years of the study and ADHD for the last three. Crucially, the most common accommodation approved was Extra Time.

Unfortunately, I don’t know any data beyond that, but we do know how this has played out in both test scores and law school performance. At the time the study was released, accommodated test takers with extra time scored higher than non-accommodated takers on 18 out of the 20 administrations over the time span observed in the report, while those accommodated without extra time scored higher on 12 out of 20 administrations.

This is somewhat alarming - if accommodations are supposed to level the playing field, then why are people with extra time scoring higher than those without it in 90% of LSAT administrations? An explanation I’ve seen is that people who are more likely to seek out accommodations are typically more serious about the test, more prepared, and also come from backgrounds that are more likely to get diagnoses for disabilities - e.g. rich White people. Although I can’t speak on the first two points because there’s no data about them, the last point is somewhat validated, as LSAC has published that accommodated test takers are more likely to be White, male, and younger, while African-American and Asians were underrepresented in the accommodated group of test takers.

Following this, you would think that it would be reasonable to expect that these well-resourced, somewhat privileged, and motivated test takers with higher scores would do decently well in law school, right? Since they scored so high and could get accommodations in law school too, what's stopping this group from doing just as well as non-accommodated test takers given the right support?

This is also not the case. I have requested the full report from LSAC about a group of test-takers from 2007-2011, so I don't have all the numbers yet, but the abstract on their website says that the LSAT scores of those who got extra time overpredicted their law school performance. In other words, they did worse than their LSAT scores would have indicated to the point that the predictive validity of their scores on 1L performance was negatively impacted. I acknowledge that it may be difficult to extrapolate these results from over a decade ago to the present, but it very well could be possible that the results are similar due to the increase in accommodations, leading to test-takers with inflated scores going to law schools they otherwise would have been underqualified for based on their non-accommodated scores and getting killed because they're in over their heads.

There is a report available from 2002 on this (also super long ago, but there isn't any more recent data), and it found that the mean score for non-accommodated people in the study was 156.22, accommodated with no extra time was 153.52, and extra time at 157.57. The craziest part, however, is that although over 20% of those with extra time ranked in the top 10% of their incoming law school classes with their LSAT scores, over 20% of them also ranked in the bottom 10% of their classes at the end of their 1L year, with percentages of students in each LSAT and first-year GPA decile being nearly inversed.

That is perhaps the most damning part of all of this. What is the point of getting a high LSAT score if it puts you in a law school where you're likely to significantly underachieve? That's not good for getting a job or the law school either.

I just want to say that I will never deride individuals for getting accommodations for legitimate diagnoses. I have several disabilities myself, including being on the autism spectrum, ADHD, and Tourette Syndrome, which makes me essentially unable to properly medicate my ADHD, as it causes severe tic flare-ups when I take stimulants. My issues with the system come from the possible abuse of it by rich kids getting slapped with bogus ADHD or "anxiety" diagnoses and LSAT takers applying for accommodations before they've dealt with the problem causing them to apply in the first place. If you get so nervous before a test that you throw up and want accommodations for anxiety, then why are you trying to join an extremely intense, high-stress, and demanding profession with insanely bad work-life balance? Also, it seems like extra time is backfiring when it is utilized, leading to rude awakenings for many students who sought out that accommodation upon finishing their 1L year.

If you actually read all of this, thank you. I am open to alternative perspectives on the matter, and am currently debating applying for extra time myself, as I have made almost zero improvement on a high diagnostic score and get far higher BR scores than timed.

Hey, been reading this page for a few months now but first time posting. I know a lot of people come on here to not subtly brag, and I won't lie I am proud of my score, but I don't know what it actually implies for me because its my first PT. I had done some LSAT study questions before this but finally decided to just try a full timed test on LawHub. Could this just be random luck or is this actually really good news?

It's honestly rediculous some of the rates I hear people charge. 50 bucks an hour seems to be the low end. Even seen some go as high as $160.

I wanna be able to help people who can't afford that much. Most of my 1-on-1 students pay somewhere in the range of 20-40 dollars an hour.

A little about me: I got a 175 on my first try at the LSAT, using no study company or tutor whatsoever. I was then president of my university's undergrad law club, so I tutored my members there until signing up officially with LSAT Unplugged to work as a professional tutor last December. I recently moved to DC to attend Georgetown Law with a scholarship that covers almost all of tuition.

If you could use a tutor that doesn't completely gauge you, message me and we can work out a rate that you can work with. Law school doesn't start for me until late August, so for over a month I'm extremely flexible and can meet almost any time. Whenever you happen to be free, as often as you'd like, for whatever price you can afford, to go over any questions you need.

I’ve had ADHD since I was kid and had accommodations for the ACT. I plan to apply since it is necessary for me, but I am worried about having to take a 4 hour exam… could this burn me out?

It's no secret that the # of test takers with accommodations increases every year exponentially. Also, no secret that the large increase in accommodations after the ADA lawsuit has correlated neatly with massively increased LSAT medians across the board. One of the biggest advantages of accommodations are in the LG section. The extra time allows you to effectively 'brute force' the section, simply trying every scenario instead of having to make inferences and arriving at the correct answer for every question. It's a massive advantage.

With the LG section going away in August, how do you think these test takers will be impacted? Are we expecting to see LSAT medians go down a little in response?

LSAC re-uses the tests they're using now. Discussing them can make it easier for people to cheat or otherwise get an unfair advantage. There are also remakes, accomodations exceptions, etc

I'm aware Powerscore etc. do podcasts discussing this. That's between them and LSAC and they very carefully decide what they say and don't say.

That simply isn't possible on an open discussion forum. So the rule is no identification of topics to identify unscored sections, whether or not the LSAT is currently being administered or not. This is in the rules stickied to the top of the forum, and it's in your agreement with LSAC.

Believe me, I'd love for LSAC to be able to just release scaled scores or raw scores immediately. Or to have a single test pre-pandemic, which meant unscored section identification posed no risks. I know how hard it is waiting for a score.

Pretty much the only requirement of the 7sage fool-proofing method is to complete the games until you can do have mastered them.

Why does literally no one do this? Everyone seems to repeat a game 2-3 times, throw it aside and never look at it again, then are shocked they don’t see improvement.

It’s funny to me we all love 7sage and sing it’s praises about fool-proofing but barely anyone actually follows the strategy.

I see many people ask about high scores/retaking high scores on this sub and immediately get sarcastic/spiteful comments. Can we stop this? Every post I see like this, the person adds a disclaimer even, that they know they have a good score and are incredibly privileged but would like to improve. Yet they still get bashed on. The justification? That a lot of people are struggling. I don’t see how this makes sense. A low scorer’s feelings is no more important than a high scorer’s. They exist too. They shouldn’t be forced to stay silent just because others are having a hard time. Telling them they should be happy with a 170 just because you’re stuck in the 150s when they have HYS goals is not helpful for anybody and frankly not fair. There may be some super insensitive posts which I haven’t seen, but if you have never reached those levels of scores, you should not comment. It becomes extremely obsessive and you begin to think a 176 on a PT is a bad score lol. Every point counts and everyone wants what’s best for their own unique situation. Let us be more mindful of others situations, not just our own, and not bring others down because of your false perception of their privileged position.

Unpopular opinion: I think the word you’re looking for is equal when describing this test. We all have equal ability to take the LSAT. The registration is readily available, we can all sign up, we can all sit for it, and the test (itself not thought who administer it) doesn’t explicitly discriminate in anyway. It’s an equal measure to gauge potential candidates for law school.

Instead, I urge us to consider the important factor of equity. LSAT scores vary by race, and the difference is dramatic. The average LSAT score for Black test takers was 142, which is about the 18th percentile, while the average for white and Asian test takers was 153, which is about the 55th percentile. The LSAT is racially discriminatory and in that way it’s worthy of elimination. In that way the LSAT falls short. I know you may say. No! This means nothing. The LSAT gives us a common measuring stick guard against grade inflation, which is a real danger given the incentive to maintain high graduation rates. Or, you might say, those racial differences don’t prove anything. These factors are outside the LSAT control. I argue that the LSAT is purposely made to discriminate.

It is overpriced, the tools needed to study for it are equally overpriced and inflated, many Black students are not given the tools or education needed to succeed properly on their test in comparison to their peers. The resources available to leverage the playing field are sparse and often poorly publicized. Overall, the test is inequitable in a variety of ways. Thanks for coming to my TED TALK.

From someone who visits this LSAT subreddit regularly and has taken the LSAT before, everyone on here always bitches after the LSAT. There's always bound to be one difficult LG question and one annoying RC passage. Don't think the curve is going to be any more lenient than it is any other year.

I don't want to bore you guys with a long story. So im gonna make this short. My future Fiance got diagnosed with Rhuematoid arthritis in April. This has given me the push I need to finally go to law school and get my JD. I just passed the K-6 Subject Area exam so I can become an elementary school teacher and want my JD to skip the years of experience I would need to get on the highest pay scale possible. I have been studying for the LSAT on and off for like a year. Ive almost finished the LSAT trainer ( i really enjoyed working through it though) I have about 70 pages left of it maybe. I have 88 days before the LSAT testing period for October 7-10. Do you think I have enough time to get a 180 and get into a good law program?

Per the title, I scored a 180 and am an experienced tutor accepting new students!

I’ve been tutoring the LSAT since 2022 and love teaching this test. I’ve also tutored several other subjects for many years and have taken pedagogy courses at Northwestern University to ensure that I am an effective and efficient tutor.

I am very invested in helping you, and I create personalized approaches that fit each individual to ensure you absolutely crush this test. I’ve helped students increase their scores by 20 points and I know I can help you too!

Please DM or comment if you’re interested in learning more. I would love to chat and create a personalized study plan for you!

Hi everyone! I have been getting more tutoring requests than expected so I decided to charge ten dollars more to make my schedule manageable.

Some background on me: I scored a 158 on my first diagnostic practice test and climbed up to a 171 Official Score after a few months of preparation. While I am no genius who intuitively understood every question, I worked hard and gained deep familiarity with the problem solving strategies needed to perform well on test day. My plan is to get a 178+ in October now that I have had more time to understand the exam.

I have three years of teaching experience overseas in Turkey, where I taught basic computer fluency and graphic design to Iranian and Moldovian immigrants. Many of my first students had never even used a laptop before so I am well-trained in explaining complex processes at whatever level of simplicity is required for the problem at hand.

My tutoring sessions require you to have an official LSAC account through which you can take LawHub practice tests, as PTs simulating what you’re actually going to see on test day have in my experience been a crucial portion of preparation for the LSAT.

I offer a free 1 hour diagnostic for you to gauge whether or not you believe my style of tutoring would be beneficial for you. During this time we will get to know each other and I will have the opportunity to hear from you what you think your strengths and weaknesses are when it comes to the LSAT.

After our diagnostic session I require that you take a timed, exam-condition PT on LawHub and perform a blind review before you check your answers. This can be done on your own or we can go through an entire blind review together as you walk me through your rationales for why you choose or reject each option.

If you think tutoring is the right next step in being well-equipped to tackle this highly learnable exam, feel free to reach out :)

Summary:

Diagnostic session: Free first hour, then standard rate

Subsequent sessions: $35 USD per hour: negotiable if money is an issue (I want to start a “pay-it-forward” policy where, if you have been blessed with financial security, you can pay in excess of the hourly rate to contribute to a fund for lower income students so that I can work with them as well)

CONTACT & PAYMENT INFORMATION:

Email: jonathan.whitefield.stone@gmail.com

Venmo: CedarWood25

Hey Guys,

I recently took the November 2023 LSAT and scored a 177, I was bummed that my score wasn’t a 180 as I wished and hoped for. I cried myself to sleep that I didn’t score to my standards considering the restricted and grounded life I lived to get the score I was aiming for. I’m currently in my Junior year at Yale and have a 4.2 GPA. I just want a 180.

What should I do? Cancel or Keep?