<p>
i love bluedevilmike.
</p>
<p>Is it because he has "blue" in his name? Then you should also love me.</p>
<p>Besides, I'm cool.</p>
<p>cool beans.</p>
<p>I mean, why not set your goal to 300? That way, when you get a 270, everybody will be impressed that you have the highest LSAT score in history.</p>
<p>Yes I love you too.</p>
<p>How'd you guess that I am a adamant believer in the 100% Blue Theory?</p>
<p>Be slightly charitable guys. He does not mean that if you set just any goal (however high it may be) that you will automatically achieve an alternative outcome corresponding to 90% of the desired outcome. Rather he seems to mean something like this,</p>
<p>Goal 1 (G1): Harvard
G2: Other T14 school
G3: Any law school at all</p>
<p>If having G2 corresponds to putting in X amount of work and G1 corresponds to putting in X+1 amount of work, then assuming a positive correlation between the amount of work put in and the likelihood of attending any given law school (holding all other factors equal), it seems reasonable to say that having G1 as a goal (and working harder as a result) would increase the likelihood of all three outcomes being obtained. How much the likelihood is increased depends both on how much work X and X+1 correspond to and how much work G1, G2, and G3 require. </p>
<p>If someone puts in the amount of work necessary to be accepted to Harvard (and consequently has the grades, scores etc.) then they have also likely put in the work necessary to attend another T14 school should they not be accepted to Harvard. If someone sets a lower goal and fails to achieve it, the alternative will be worst (Hello People's College of Law).</p>
<p>Oh, and as for ol' god, it is not enough to simply 'aim to be god' you have to aim to be god and do the corresponding amount of work required to fulfill that aim. </p>
<p>Watch out for those straw man arguments mate ;)</p>
<p>... it's still fallacious. The point we were all making is that many goals are not solely determined by the amount of work put in.</p>
<p>Well, you said that "incorrect goals are either totally irrelevant or, if anything, a hindrance." I don't see how working harder is either totally irrelevant or a hindrance in this case. But I do agree that working hard is not always adequate (as shown in the god and down syndrome cases for example).</p>
<p>If the OP's actual goal is to get into a T14, he should set his goal correctly (aim for a T14). That will similarly take hard work. If he is aiming specifically for Harvard, then that will either be irrelevant or actually harmful. (For example, if all his LORs are geared towards HLS, or if he actively mentions Boston in an essay.)</p>
<p>Just as importantly, if the OP is flatly incapable of getting into HLS no matter how hard he works, then setting your goals that high is a sure recipe for frustration and disappointment -- both of which are similarly counterproductive and often push people into making poor decisions. I have seen several people, for example, get into perfectly fine law schools but turn them all down and retake the LSAT to try to get into a "better" one -- and this second time around, the previous-rejects don't want them either.</p>
<p>There are very, very few situations where it is beneficial to think incorrectly. I cannot think of any right now. This is certainly not one of them.</p>
<hr>
<p>I should note further that this particular fallacy is especially damaging. A hypothetical student who is flatly incapable of getting into HLS may also be flatly incapable of getting into a T14 law school at all. Fooling yourself into thinking that you can automatically get into a T14 if you work hard enough for HLS can close off many other, very promising, options -- both in other law schools and in life as a whole.</p>
<p>I only improved 5 points from my cold diagnostic. Then again, I studied only one month, but still...I think a 10-15 point gain is overly optimistic.</p>
<p>^ That depends where you start and how much effort you put in. I know people who have improved from low 150's to high 160's with the help of a LSAT class. I started out decently high and improved 10 points as well.</p>
<p>^ I started out at 164 and improved to 169. Given, it was below my PT average by 5 points, but a lot of high 160/low 170s scorers I know only improved around 5 points or so.</p>
<p>My boyfriend started at 165 and improved to 171.</p>
<p>The LSAT's were really hard this year, so if you're using older diagnostics, those might not be representative. You should also expect to drop off a little bit on the real one since there's so much more pressure with the timing and strict rules in a test setting.</p>
<p>Yeah, the LSATs were pretty tough this year, because they have been making the games more difficult again (after the brief lapse in which they only tested simple linear/grouping games) while maintaining the difficulty on the RC.</p>
<p>The only advice I can give you is to do a lot of the older games from the older LSATs. These may be harder than the newer ones, but it will prepare you for games the best. I ended up missing a couple on games because I wasn't adequately prepared for the increased difficulty. </p>
<p>I also had this insane experimental games section, which was harder than any games section I had seen during practice and harder than my actual games section. (It contained a moving, unfixed, grouping game...)</p>
<p>The sections I felt most comfortable on and really raped were the Logic Reasoning sections, as these haven't really changed in difficulty over the years.</p>
<p>The LR is definitely the easiest section now. I only missed 2 of those I think. The RC is definitely the hardest and I also agree about reviewing all of those old games for practice. I went from only getting half of the games right to getting almost all of them right for real. The RC was the hardest for me - I don't really think the old practice material is relevant for that. It used to be so easy and the real one was almost impossible.</p>
<p>I had that experimental games section too, fun stuff. That China woman passage ruined my LSAT =(</p>
<p>Personally, I would urge the OP to take a course to improve his reading skills. It beats pulling lots of all -nighters to get your work done. Moreover, while I agree that ls case reading is different than regular reading, when you take ls exams or the bar exam, being able to read through the fact patterns presented quickly does help. LS tests are often timed. Bar exams almost always are. Reading slowly can be a serious disadvantage.</p>
<p>"coolbluebeans-I'm a firm believer in the 90% Achievement Theory-whatever you aim for, you'll most likely only achieve 90% or less of it. Thus if I aim for a 180 on the LSAT I'm likely to only get a 175 or less, if I aim for Harvard Law School, chances are I'll end up at UVa or Penn Law (not that those are bad institutions-because they're excellent institutions), if I aim for a 100 on a test I'll likely get a 90, if I aim to make $100k on an investment I'll likely only make $90k, etc. etc.</p>
<p>Thus I must aim for Harvard so that I'll get somwhere in the top 14."</p>
<p>....i suspect you might have some trouble in law school with reasoning like this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I had that experimental games section too, fun stuff. That China woman passage ruined my LSAT =(
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I pity the people who get that experimental games for the actual in the future. </p>
<p>I missed 3 on the China woman passage alone. The question about the cloths/fabric? What the hell was that?</p>
<p>That whole passage was awful. Thankfully the comparative passages and the econ one were really easy.</p>
<p>The LR sections were FAR easier then both the RC and games.</p>
<p>Oh yeah, and this "90% Achievement Theory" is ridiculous. I could give a hypothetical to dismiss it entirely, but enough others have already done this. Have fun in law school my man.</p>
<p>Yes, because there's something wrong with being ambitious :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Ambition isn't the problem. Being incorrect is the problem.</p>