Thinking LSAT

Vacillating in Vancouver has a dream to become a criminal defense attorney; he also has a dream of not regretting the pursuit of said dream. With an aptitude for reading, writing, and standardized test-taking, Vacillating is confident in his ability to score over 170 on the LSAT. The guys address his fears and attempt to root out their cause in the hopes of helping him make a decision. (0:43)

We continue Logical Reasoning Section 3 of the June 2007 LSAT with Question 21, a weaken problem. To play at home, just download the free test; work through Section 3, Question 21; listen in as we discuss the solution. (16:50)

Ben and Nathan interview Gary Kinder, an attorney, author, and the creator of WordRake, editing software that can improve the clarity and brevity of one’s writing. Gary talks about writing a compelling opening for your personal statement and gives tips on storytelling techniques to keep a reader’s interest. He also speaks on WordRake’s role in the automation of legal work and whether it will take jobs from the industry. Finally, Gary discusses his best-selling book Victim: The Other Side of Murder.

Got questions you want us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email at [email protected] or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question!

Take a listen and let us know what you think.

Watch this episode on YouTube.

Unfortunately, Ben just cannot deal! Ads with relentlessly poppy, upbeat, hand-clapping music are making him want to run for the hills. And if the tune features xylophones? Forget about it. Stay tuned at the end of the show for an example (not you, Ben!). (0:25)

A BART ad in San Francisco seems to be recruiting people for their simple 5-step plan aimed at fighting President Trump’s devastating environmental reform. Step 1: read poster; 2: study for and take the LSAT; 3: apply for and attend law school; 3.5: realize that Trump is no longer in office but just keep going anyway ’cause you’re almost there; 4: prep for, take, and pass the Bar exam; 5: become an environmental law powerhouse with the clout to change policy at the highest levels. Easy! (5:55)

Cordelia, a fan of the show and of Nathan’s LSAT prep guides, asks what the improvement curve looks like for people studying for the LSAT. The guys estimate a ten-point improvement over three months of studying but stress that everyone is different and will have different results. They also discuss how many times a person should retake for optimal scores. (10:40)

Chris had a diagnostic score of 150 that, through hard work and our (priceless) advice, he turned into an official 171 on the December LSAT. He is currently in his gap year and is working as a tutor for Kaplan. Chris wants tips on bringing his score up even further toward 180, as he has decided to retake. After all, he’ll be around the LSAT so much for work anyway. Nathan and Ben agree his job could help him improve but only if he ignores Kaplan’s techniques and continues to focus on understanding the questions. (16:45)

MJ, a former Strategy Prep student, is facing an “enviable decision”: she must choose between four full-ride offers from D.C. law schools (update since recording: five full-ride offers), partial offers from other programs, and acceptance from 7th-ranked Penn. Ben thinks that Penn will open doors she might not even know that she wants to go through yet, but Nathan worries that the debt she’ll incur might force her into a big law job that she doesn’t want. Ultimately, the guys think of another outcome: MJ could try to maximize all her options. (34:40)

An update from Mr. Negotiator aka The Closer aka He Didn’t Want Us To Say His Name: He shares the offers that he’s received with his 3.8 GPA and 163 LSAT. Decent scholarship offers from Alabama and Emory turned into a full ride at Alabama when he negotiated with the schools, using one offer to boost the other. (47:45)

We continue working through the June 2007 LSAT with Logical Reasoning Section 3, Question 20, a Matching Flaw problem. To play at home, just download the free test; work through Section 3, Question 20; and listen in as we discuss the solution. (57:54)

Subscribe to the Thinking LSAT Podcast! Everybody’s doing it…

Got questions you want us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email at [email protected] or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question!

Take a listen and let us know what you think.

Watch this episode on YouTube.

Law School Expert Ann Levine joins Episode 87 to discuss Harvard Law School’s recent bombshell—they are now giving students the option of submitting their GRE score instead of their LSAT score.

Ann is optimistic that this policy will create waves in the LSAC’s antiquated testing system and bring about changes that will ultimately benefit all applicants. The guys agree with her, however, Ben is unsure about the timeline for these shifts and whether students preparing for the LSAT might be facing stronger competition in the next year or so. Hear advice from all three on what students can do to deal with this news, then check out Ann’s blog on the topic. (1:45)

“JaBron from the car wash” (hopefully the LSAC won’t charge this listener for borrowing that title from their logic game!) asks about the nuances of LSAT wording. Ben and Nathan walk through the definitions of few, almost all, rarely, many, tends to, and other quantifiers, but urge JaBron to focus less on the hard definition of such terms and more on how to interpret them in the context of the question and its five answer choices. In discussing the ambiguity of such things, the guys (somehow) end up waxing poetic on the inevitability of amortality. (25:10)

Matt from D.C. writes in with his own thoughts relating slow and solid economic growth to the Thinking LSAT Podcast’s “slow down” philosophy. (47:37)

Luis, a 27-year-old in Austin, has been considering law school for years but continues to be unsure whether it’s the right career for him. With a low undergrad GPA, he will need an impressive LSAT score, but he is enjoying studying and is confident he can earn a 170 or higher. With very little debt from his undergrad degree, Luis is willing to drain his pension fund to pay for law school, if necessary. Nathan and Ben stop Luis right there and strongly advise him against this unsound financial plan. Instead, they urge him to apply broadly and to look at the margins to see what programs will make sense for his future. (51:52)

Before hearing the Thinking LSAT Podcast, Jay was scoring in the mid-160s on his practice tests. After becoming an avid podcast listener, he took the February LSAT and scored a 174 on his first attempt. He credits two pieces of advice from Ben and Nathan with this life-altering score jump. (1:03:45)

Mike, the Nyquil guy from Episode 66, writes in to update the show on the offers he’s received since scoring a 170 in September. Huge scholarship offers from the likes of George Washington, USC, UCLA, and Cornell prove that the hard work you put into the LSAT will be rewarded. Mike also shares the spreadsheet that he created to determine, using the law schools’ own index formulas (available on LSAC.org), a student’s target schools. (1:17:10)

Got questions you want us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email at [email protected] or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question!

Take a listen and let us know what you think.

Watch this episode on YouTube.

Nathan introduces guest Chantal Renta, a Chinese-speaking, freelance-accounting, tax-law-loving 3L at Southwestern Law School. The show begins with Chantal, a self-proclaimed “tax queen,” warning students about the downside of federal loan forgiveness, an issue previously discussed on the Thinking LSAT podcast in episode 83. (1:30)

Chantal discusses the mistakes that she feels she made in preparing for law school and shares tips on how to avoid them. Nathan asks about her unique path to law, a journey that includes Chantal teaching herself accounting, studying postmortem medicine, traveling through China, and playing drums in a technical death metal band. (12:45)

Chantal describes the high and low points of her 1L experience at Southwestern Law, including her less-than-awesome first semester grades and what she did to turn them around quickly in the second semester. Nathan is awestruck by the long and impressive list of extracurricular activities Chantal has been involved in while at Southwestern. Her passions are varied and span from acting as President of the Tax Law Society to hosting a panel on the Muslim Ban. (30:01)

As the interview winds down, Nathan asks his guest what she thinks her future holds. Chantal plans to take the bar this summer, to become a CPA wherever she ends up, and to continue her legal education by earning an LL.M. in tax law next year. She hasn’t applied for any legal jobs as of yet, but she isn’t worried about her prospects in the market; we aren’t worried about them either. Chantal has no current plans to tour with any death metal group, technical or otherwise. (50:40)

Got questions you want us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email at [email protected] or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question!

Take a listen and let us know what you think.

Watch this episode on YouTube.

An update from musician-turned-future-lawyer Peter notifies the guys that, despite their best efforts to dissuade him, he did indeed apply to Temple Law School with his 164 LSAT score. The good news is that Peter was accepted with a full-ride scholarship. The bad news is that Peter still is wondering whether he should retake the LSAT and reapply to get offers to higher ranking programs. At first, Nathan and Ben disagree on the merits of waiting, but they soon devise a solution that could satisfy everyone. (1:46)

Nathan and Ben discuss La La Land. (14:06)

Nathan and Ben discuss La La Land. (17:20)

Nathan reveals his surprising new pastime that makes his mom nervous and Ben intrigued. (18:10)

“Thad hominem,” a 34-year-old actor who is starting law school in the fall, is wondering whether he should sign up for a 1L prep program before classes begin. Ben is skeptical of the worth of these programs and recommends a few books for Thad to check out instead, including Getting to Maybe: How to Excel on Law School Exams. Nathan wants Thad to get his ducks in a row by finishing home projects, seeing friends, and getting fresh air and exercise before the law school walls close around him. (24:10)

Adam, a carpenter with a degree in journalism from Auburn, is registered for the Kaplan course to prepare for his first LSAT attempt in June. He has also been talking to lawyers, using Kaplan’s online study tools, and listening faithfully to the Thinking LSAT Podcast. Adam wants ideas on what else he can do to round out his application and input on whether he needs to switch from his carpentry job to something in the legal field. (34:10)

We continue working through the June 2007 LSAT with Logical Reasoning Section 3, Question 19, a strengthen question. To play at home, just download the free test; work through Section 3, Question 19; and listen in as we discuss the solution. (47:00)

Got questions you want us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email at [email protected] or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question!

Take a listen and let us know what you think.

Watch this episode on YouTube.

Laughter is the best medicine, Ben credits Melissa McCarthy’s Sean Spicer skit with adding three years to his life. He also enjoys the absurdity of a clip demanding unquestioning submission to the power of the President. Even with the real-life stress of Trump’s presidency, Ben hopes comedic therapy will yield an overall increase in his longevity. (0:40)

Ben recommends an article discussing the emergence of LawGeex, a company that built an algorithm for automatizing contract review. This review platform is just the beginning for LawGeex; over the next few years, the company is looking to “automate the entire legal world.” (3:20)

Alexis was consistently missing 4-6 Logical Reasoning questions per section. Taking advice given frequently on the Thinking LSAT Podcast, she forced herself to slow down on these problems until she thoroughly understood each one. After making this adjustment, Alexis did a Logical Reasoning section, where she finished all but the last question and only got one problem wrong. Another successful convert! (14:12)

Nisha is interested in law school but is getting frustrated with the application and admission processes. As a single mother with a career, she needs to know how to balance work, school, and her child so she asks Nathan and Ben for some clear answers. They advise her on how to prep for the LSAT, when to apply and when to wait, and how to decide which law school is the right one for her circumstances. (18:07)

A new mother writes in with a question the guys haven’t considered before—breastfeeding breaks at the LSAT. When she takes the test in June, she will still be nursing her baby and is wondering what accommodations the testing center will make for her. Ben’s wife, a certified doula and mother of four, helps this listener by talking to an LSAC rep and suggesting ways to determine her options on test day. (35:45)

Subscribe to the Thinking LSAT Podcast! Then subscribe your friends and family! And then your pets!

We continue working through the June 2007 LSAT with Logical Reasoning Section 3, Question 18. This flaw question turns out to be one of the trickier ones of its type, forcing the guys to discuss the answer choices in detail to find the correct one. To play at home, just download the free test; work through Section 3, Question 18; and listen in as we discuss the solution. (48:59)

Got questions you want us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email at [email protected] or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question!

Take a listen and let us know what you think.

Nathan has two recommendations this week: Cadillac Desert, a thorough history of the American West’s pursuit of freshwater by Marc Reisner, and Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes, a cooperative video game where the players work together to defuse a virtual bomb that only one of them can see and manipulate. If you squint hard, this game can almost count as LSAT prep. (1:53)

Matt in D.C. took the LSAT in February and is having post-test emotions he wants help processing; his range of feelings runs from sadness to happiness and back to anxiety. He asks the guys if they have experienced similar reactions and how they dealt with them. Nathan suggests boozing it up while Ben gets in touch with his inner Nietzsche (who knew Ben would be the darker one?!) (9:10)

Calvin attempted his second LSAT in February and found this test to be quite similar to the one in December. He does a comparison of the exams; do you agree with his assessment? (29:40)

Not to be outdone by his cohost, Ben recommends a book of his own, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari. This book was one of Obama’s Top 10 and possibly the reason behind Ben’s newfound nihilism. (32:40)

Madison is studying to take the summer LSAT with the goal of scoring a 178. She has an undergrad GPA of 3.2 from a top public university, a resume chock-full of community service hours, and a dream of attending Stanford Law School. While admiring Madison’s lofty goals, the guys encourage her to toss out her specific score idea, broaden her list of dream schools, and follow the application instructions to the letter. (37:20)

Your friendly reminder to subscribe to the Thinking LSAT Podcast is coming up…now! Please subscribe to automatically receive new episodes and updates from your favorite LSAT nerds. (53:30)

We continue working through the June 2007 LSAT. To play at home, just download the free test; work through Section 3, Question 17; and listen in as we discuss the solution in detail. (1:00:26)

Nathan continues Episode 83 with Eliza Ghanooni, a bankruptcy attorney with her own firm in Los Angeles. Ms. Ghanooni works with corporate and individual clients, including students, who need help managing their debt. (1:21:40)

*Correction from the show: the lawsuit needed to get rid of student loans is actually an adversary proceeding to declare student loan debt dischargeable, not a non-dischargeability action.

Got questions you want us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email at [email protected] or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question!

Take a listen and let us know what you think.

Ben recommends an article from The Atlantic, “The For-Profit Law School That Crumbled,” which discusses the downfall of the Charlotte School of Law due to its students' low LSAT scores, 45% bar passage rates, and dire employment stats. The piece spurs discussion about for-profit vs. not-for-profit schools, admissible LSAT scores, and whether helping disadvantaged students is really hurting them. The guys also get into the larger question of who should be held responsible when a law school graduate is unable to pass the bar or get a job. (5:32)

Kelly has a degree in community development, a 3.2 GPA, and a seat reserved for Saturday’s LSAT. After studying for only a month and a half and achieving a high practice score of 157, he is wondering if it might make sense for him to postpone his test date. Ben and Nathan reply with a resounding “Yes!” and explain why this decision should be an easy one for Kelly. (21:56)

“Joe” is sure about a lot of things: he wants to go to law school part-time at the University of Houston, he received a 150 on December’s LSAT, and he is taking the test again this Saturday. Joe is not as sure, however, about when he should apply to UH. (30:50)

JoshDougBob is a 32-year-old pharmacist who has always been interested in health care law. He’s spent the last few months studying and feels prepared for the LSAT on Saturday. One possible snag—while JDB holds a doctorate in pharmacy, he never actually finished his bachelor’s degree. The frustrating non-advice from one admissions committee forced him to email the podcast to see what the guys think. (40:01)

And now… your friendly reminder to subscribe to the show! Don’t make yourself remember to check the site for new episodes, save those brain cells for test day. Sign up now and you’ll automatically get all the Thinking LSAT Podcast news as soon as it comes out. (49:08)

Scott is registered for Saturday’s LSAT—his third and final attempt. He wants strategies for tapering off of his heavy study schedule in the last few days before the test. Ben recommends Scott do what feels comfortable to him, and Nathan suggests a stroll in the fresh air, time with friends, or catching a movie (preferably La La Land and preferably watching it over and over again). (50:30)

A tweet to @thinkingLSAT from @BenjaminHarkins describes his situation as a law school hopeful with an official LSAT score in the mid-160s and an undergrad GPA of 3.97. Benjamin asks whether his high GPA and LSAT potential warrants a retake and waiting on his applications or if the opportunity cost of postponing another year is too steep. (1:06:16)

After signing off with Ben, Nathan interviews his past student, Ken, to get a first-hand account of present-day testing conditions. Ken describes the test center, checking in with the proctor, what people did during the break and the marginalization of left-handed students. After receiving his score (a 170!) Ken planned to withdrawal from his February 4th retake reservation; Nathan, however, has some surprising advice for him… (1:11:57)

Got questions you want us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email at [email protected] or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question!

Take a listen and let us know what you think.

Remember to subscribe to the Thinking LSAT Podcast to be automatically notified each time a new episode goes online!

“Timmy,” a 44-year-old who is established in a successful non-law career, is looking to achieve his Bucket List goal of earning a JD. After taking the December test and receiving a 162, Timmy is wondering whether he should continue studying to increase his score or just apply with his score as is. (9:38)

Brian is about to turn 30 and, after completing his undergrad degree in 2014, is looking forward to the next stage of his professional life. His family runs a successful law firm that he spent a lot of time helping out at, and Brian has finally agreed to join this enterprise as a full-fledged lawyer. Now that he’s made his plan, Brian wants to speed through the LSAT and law school so he can “hit the ground running” at the family firm. Nathan encourages him to take the time necessary to decide if law is truly the profession that will make him happy. Ben shares a story of his own legal experience at the Department of Justice and how it affected his career. Both guys suggest Brian spend more time prepping for the LSAT so he can both earn scholarships and get a better feel for what he’ll be up against when he takes the Bar exam. (29:38)

We spend the second half of this episode working on two Logical Reasoning problems from the June 2007 LSAT. To play at home, just download the free test, work through Section 3, Questions 15 and 16, and listen in as we discuss the solutions in detail. (#15 at 55:03 and #16 at 1:07:01)

Got questions you want us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email at [email protected] or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question!

Take a listen and let us know what you think.

The (self-proclaimed) Greatest Podcast Hosts That God Ever Created discuss Donald Trump’s recent press conference. Ben wonders about people’s news and filter bubbles, while Nathan transforms current events into sufficient and necessary conditions. (0:30)

A 30-something listener is concerned about her chances of law school admittance and success. She needs advice on who to use for references, how to make her application stand out, and whether or not she can be a lawyer and still have a life outside of her career. The guys recommend she make the most of her age in her application, focusing on maturity and life experience to set herself apart. (13:30)

It was the best of answers, it was the second best of answers…an email from Canadian Nathan describes the trouble he’s having choosing the correct answer out of the two best answers in the Logical Reasoning sections. We discuss this common issue and what steps to take to overcome it. (31:38)

Lynn is only completing two of the four Logic Games sections on her practice tests and needs help speeding up. Nathan reiterates his past advice on accuracy vs. speed and encourages Lynn to slow down even more until she achieves 100% accuracy on all questions. (48:02)

An anonymous listener is worried she won’t be admitted to an LSAT testing center if her current hairstyle is radically different than the one on her uploaded ID. She also mentions she will soon be getting a “protective style,” a term that mystifies the hosts. The guys don’t know anything about natural hair, but they do know that supplementary photos and documentation, along with some charm, should convince the test proctor of this listener’s identity on test day. (58:50)

Peter, another 30-something listener, has a PhD in classical piano but is now considering a career in law. He studied for two months, got a 164 on the December LSAT, and thinks he can improve his score with more prep. Peter’s wondering if he should apply to schools now “just to see” whether he gets admission with the scholarship offers he wants or if he should wait until after retakes. Both Ben and Nathan start by begging him to remain in the field of music rather than become a lawyer. If that plea doesn’t convince him, then Peter should keep studying, take another LSAT, and wait to apply in the next cycle. (1:10:02)

Got questions you want us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email at [email protected] or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question!

Take a listen and let us know what you think.