Thinking LSAT

Nathan Fox and Ben Olson

Ben Olson and Nathan Fox started the Thinking LSAT Podcast to become better LSAT teachers and have some fun. Please 1) subscribe, 2) rate and review, and 3) send us questions: help@thinkinglsat.com. Don't pay for law school!

Learn more at lsatdemon.com

Subscribe Listen in podnod RSS feed Show website

577 episodes
Updated Yesterday
Explicit

Episodes577

Newest first

Jun 4, 2017 · 1 hr 40 min
Episode 96: Ann Levine, big news from LSAC
Ann Levine joins the top of the show to discuss the big news of the day, including: 00:01:20 – LSAC eliminates the “3 times in 2 years” rule 00:03:20 – What’s it going to look like when applicants take the LSAT 7 times? 00:08:33 – “People get these goal scores in their head that sound pretty” 00:14:49 – Harvard Law School junior referral program 00:16:59 – It’s still important to take the LSAT over the GRE, even though Northwestern may begin looking at GRE scores 00:25:26 – The new Above the Law law school rankings, and why they’re better than US News After Ann says goodbye, we turn to listener mail and other assorted goodies like: 00:33:00 – MJ delights us by explaining how she was able to negotiate for a stipend in addition to her full ride 00:37:50 – Nate talks about Southwest Airlines the impossibility of asking for booze during a tarmac delay 00:42:48 – Why do some applicants get full rides? 00:44:16 – Norm, with perfect scores on his last few practice tests, offers us $1 per point correct 00:48:06 – Justin asks about Principle questions, which basically don’t exist 01:09:26 – We dissect a difficult question stem, and talk about Sufficient vs Necessary Assumption questions 01:18:13 – Annabelle asks whether a gap in her resume will be problematic when applying to law school? (No.) 01:23:20 – “As long as” – does this introduce the sufficient or necessary condition? 01:27:00 – The 160s is actually quite solid—folks shouldn’t get caught up with perfectionist tendencies when their current abilities are well above average 01:30:46 – Are older LSAT tests easier, particularly in reading comp, compared to the new ones? Forgot our birthdays, and want to atone? Give us a rating and/or review on iTunes. Suck at the LSAT and wish you didn’t? Try Ben’s 100-Hour Online LSAT Course or Nathan’s Fox LSAT On Demand. Ben offers a free LSAT lesson, and Nathan has a free trial LSAT course. Watch this episode on YouTube.
May 29, 2017 · 1 hr 16 min
Episode 95: The digital LSAT pilot is a success!
00:00:24 – We kick off the show with a comedy update about a listener who showed up for the digital LSAT pilot at the wrong time. 00:01:20 – We speculate on why the June test happens in the afternoon? 00:02:23 – We express our excitement about LSAC changes after the recent Harvard Law / GRE announcement. 00:03:20 – We admit our Yale April Fool’s Day blunder. Eff you, April Fool’s Day! 00:05:30 – Big news! The LSAT no longer carries a “three attempts in any two year period” restriction. 00:08:27 – Ben talks about a quote from a movie producer he can’t remember the name of. Basically, “success forgives past sins.” 00:11:13 – Listener Hannah reports in with news from the digital LSAT. 00:16:25 – We speculate on when the digital LSAT will finally go live. Ben says June 2018, and Nathan takes the over. 00:18:02 – We discuss our current books, Nathan’s favorite place The Last Book Store, and book clubs. 00:25:08 – We talk about how cool it is when we encounter LSAT stuff in real life. Brancusi, anyone? 00:28:56 – More from the digital LSAT with listener Jacob. 00:31:14 – We discuss potential shortcomings of the digital implementation of the LSAT. Is it solving the correct problems? 00:41:14 – How not to do reading comprehension—flagging “main point,” “key evidence,” other nonsense. 00:47:50 – Next email (anonymous) 00:52:08 – Next email (not really Brad Pitt) 01:05:10 – To recap, we have four positive reports from the digital LSAT. It’s a hit! 01:07:35 – Shall we call it a show? Hey, want to do us a ginormous favor? Give us a rating and/or review on iTunes. Also, please don’t forget that we each have an online LSAT course. Check out Ben’s 100-Hour Online LSAT Course or Nathan’s Fox LSAT On Demand. Try before you buy! Ben offers a free LSAT lesson, and Nathan has a free trial LSAT course. If one or the other of us can’t take care of you, perhaps you just can’t be taken care of. Got questions you’d like us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email at help@thinkinglsat.com or follow us on Twitter @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question! Watch this episode on YouTube.
May 26, 2017 · 1 hr 37 min
Episode 94: You want to talk about Wonder Woman?
Watch this episode on YouTube.
May 18, 2017 · 2 hr 14 min
Episode 93: How much is LSAT improvement worth?
Today’s show clocks in over two hours. A Thinking LSAT record? (We don’t know, because we’re too lazy to look through all the past episodes.) In the show open, Nathan talks about his upcoming trip to Europe. He has a one-way ticket to Brussels, Belgium right after the June 2017 LSAT, with no clue where he’s going once he’s there. If you have suggestions for what to see and do, please send them to nathan@foxlsat.com. Ben reads fiction! Well, it’s historical fiction based on actual events involving 19th-century attorneys, but it’s fiction nonetheless. (Shh… don’t tell him, because I don’t think he realizes.) But do check out his book recommendation: The Last Days of Night: A Novel. Maybe it will help spark your interest in IP litigation. (2:00) How much is LSAT improvement worth? Check out this merit scholarship matrix on the Thomas Jefferson School of Law website and find out exactly. This school is offering guaranteed tuition scholarships based on a fixed LSAT/GPA matrix. Other schools aren’t so explicit, but we can infer that similar matrices probably apply at other schools. Step one: Get the best LSAT score you can. Step two: Get yourself $100,000 or more in free law school tuition. Unless you hate money or something. (6:05) Do you know of any other schools that publish scholarship matrices like this one? Please email us: help@thinkinglsat.com. Whittier Law is going out of business. Sad trombone. (21:40) Your school has a bar passage rate of 25 percent? Welcome to the world’s worst casino. (27:30) “Brad Pitt” writes “the dudes” for tips on applying super-late in the admissions cycle, and promptly gets chastised at length. No surprise there. (29:25) Parallel Reasoning questions: to skip, or not to skip? Nathan takes a pretty strong anti-skip stance. Ben agrees: “Go do a bunch of Parallel Reasoning questions and own them.” Yep, pretty much. They’re not that hard, once you know what you’re doing. (39:05) “Nameless” has already been admitted to University of Chicago with a 162, but asks about retaking the LSAT in order to get a better scholarship offer. The boys speculate that a school as prestigious as Chicago might be less willing to renegotiate based on a new LSAT, but commend the effort anyway. Whatever you do, don’t swing for the fences! Play the game you actually have, not the game you wish you had. (46:55) Jabron from the Carwash writes in again (thanks Jabron!) to ask for some clarification about accuracy targets. Do we really mean that students should shoot for “near perfection”? Yes, yes we do. (1:02) At this point, Nathan gets tired of writing show notes. Tons of other great stuff follows, trust me! Hey, want to do us a ginormous favor? Give us a rating and/or review on iTunes. Got questions you’d like us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email at help@thinkinglsat.com or follow us on Twitter @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question! Watch this episode on YouTube.
May 6, 2017 · 1 hr 36 min
Episode 92: Student loan relief lawyer Jay Fleischman
Alert! Today’s show notes were written by Nathan, so don’t be surprised if you find them saltier and less amusing than Andi’s usual sweetness and light. Our first email comes from “George Town,” a fourth-time LSAT adventurer, on how to prep when you’ve already been at it for a year or more.(10:30) The discussion edges into spoiler territory as we discuss the fourth logic game from PrepTest 80–the one with the buildings. Just because it’s unfamiliar doesn’t mean it’s hard! “You just slow down and THINK about what they’re talking about,” says Ben. Nathan can’t say it better himself, but that doesn’t stop him from trying. (19:20) Ben talks about a near miss in class. He had dismissed a correct answer too quickly, but did that mean he would go on to miss the question? Hell no. He has high standards, and he wasn’t about to pick a wrong answer. “It’s like I had a safeguard, like I had two ways of getting to the answer,” says Ben. (27:35) Ben offers a quick tip about Reading Comprehension from Justice Alito, which kicks off some scintillating discussions about everybody’s favorite LSAT section. (32:40) Want to do us a bigass favor? Good. Give us a rating and/or review on iTunes. Please? (40:15) “Bertha” checks in with an idea she read about doing 30-minute sections instead of 35, to which Ben and Nathan both offer a hard “no.” She also asks about taking the LSAT in stressful and/or loud places. Again, the guys say no. There’s lots of bad advice out there, y’all! Be careful who you trust; CRBS is everywhere. Next we talk about caffeine, chocolate brownies, bacon, and the LSAT. (42:05) Finally, Jay Fleischmann Esq. joins the show to talk about student debt, an exploding area of law. Jay practices consumer relief law in Pasadena at Shaev & Fleischman, LLP. He hosts The Student Loan Show (the podcast about student loans) and trains lawyers about this growing practice area via his Student Loan Law Workshop(“Where Smart Lawyers Learn About Student Loan Law”). (1:00:55) Hey, just a reminder: If you’re looking for an online LSAT prep course, we’ve got you covered. Check out Ben’s 100-Hour Online LSAT Course or Nathan’s Fox LSAT On Demand. Nathan has a free trial LSAT course, where you can see if his teaching style works for you. Ben also offers his own free LSAT lesson. Got questions you’d like us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email at help@thinkinglsat.com or follow us on Twitter @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question! Watch this episode on YouTube.
Apr 18, 2017 · 1 hr 27 min
Episode 91: “Georgetown, we have a problem.”
Looking for an LSAT prep course? Consider Ben's 100-Hour Online LSAT course or Nathan's Fox LSAT On Demand Class. Also, try Fox LSAT's free trial course or check out Ben's free lesson. Like many of you, Mark emails the show to let us know he will be taking the digital LSAT in May. He also confirms that LSAC will allow scratch paper during the test. Good luck to Mark and all of the rest of you guinea pigs. Let us know how it goes! (4:45) While attempting to register for the June LSAT, students are finding their nearest test centers are full. Ben reports that there are no openings in the D.C. area so students are traveling to Philadelphia for the test. Nathan suggests people instead get on a waitlist and then call the LSAC to see about opening more centers in their area. Prepare yourself as Ben shares a nightmarish tale of students signed up to take June test at Georgetown. (8:20) Scrooge was thinking about taking the June LSAT, but restructuring at work, family obligations, and a busy day-to-day have left him with little time and energy for studying, so now he’s thinking about waiting until September. The prep he has managed has focused on reading test theory and doing untimed practice tests. Nathan calls into question Scrooge’s excuses for not studying and advises/demands that he start timing all practice tests. Ben discusses the idea of stretch goals and wonders whether registering in June will be more beneficial to Scrooge after all. (15:38) Anthony asks for clarification about something said in Nathan’s interview with Chantal Renta (Episode 86), specifically pertaining to loan forgiveness and taxes. Chantal responds to Anthony and shares depressing articles from NPR and the New York Times about what the Department of Education is doing to cut down on these “forgiven” loans. (47:30) LOL, a 34-year-old professional speech writer in Beijing, is feeling pressure from her family to have a baby instead of pursuing her dream of becoming a lawyer. She poses questions about what LSAT score will get her into a T14 school and how long it will take for her to achieve that number. The guys discuss her issues and why some people might never reach an elite LSAT score, no matter how much prep they do. (52:03) PDUMRN:) is an LSAT instructor with a 179 and a 3.78 GPA from a top liberal arts college. Although he doesn’t want to actually practice law, he is considering getting a JD to give him a leg up in other careers that he is interested in. He asks which top-tier schools, if any, would give him a full merit-based scholarship. Nathan and Ben list some programs that he can look into and encourage him to apply more broadly so he could use those offers to negotiate better packages from higher-ranked schools. (1:04:46) We continue Logical Reasoning Section 3 of the June 2007 LSAT with Question 23, a Flaw question that you can solve by looking for two specific things. To play at home, just download the free test; work through Section 3, Question 23; listen in as we discuss the solution. (1:11:45) Got questions you want us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email at help@thinkinglsat.com or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question! Take a listen and let us know what you think. Watch this episode on YouTube.
Apr 10, 2017 · 1 hr 31 min
Episode 90: Let’s Get Digital… Digital.
Ben recommends a book that he’s been enjoying: What Doesn’t Kill Us: How Freezing Water, Extreme Altitude and Environmental Conditioning Will Renew Our Lost Evolutionary Strength. Ben’s started taking cold showers, but Nathan remains unconvinced (and warm). (0:17) Looking for an LSAT prep course? Consider Ben’s 100-Hour Online LSAT Course or Nathan’s Fox LSAT On Demand class. Learn in-person, over skype, or online from the guys you already enjoy listening to! (4:28) Nathan shares some (pretty unsurprising) news out of Yale Law School this week. Following Harvard’s recent announcement that they would be accepting GRE scores from law school applicants, Yale proclaims they will likewise accept scores from the GRE. What’s next—Stanford?!? Probably. (8:48) The LSAC is seeking participants for their Digital LSAT Pilot Test on May 20. The test will be tablet-based and is taking place at 20 sites throughout the United States. While no official score will be reported, this could be a good chance to practice for the real thing. Benefits to the 1,000 chosen guinea pigs include a $100 gift card, analysis of their test performance, and the eternal gratitude of The Thinking LSAT Podcast (pending your full report of the pilot). The application period ends April 15 so apply ASAP. (9:55) Emails abound on Episode 90 of the show! Hear Nathan and Ben respond to these listeners: Desperate Sarah wonders if a great score on the June LSAT could work as a bargaining chip on the schools that have waitlisted her. (24:08) Boston Eric improved 10 points since his diagnostic in January and asks if the guys think it’s possible for him to jump 5-10 more by June. (35:35) Nervous Ted put off taking a diagnostic LSAT because he was worried about what a low score would mean for his future. Family support and this podcast convinced him he had to see where he was starting from. (47:58) Impatient Jenny plans to take the June LSAT and apply to start law school this fall—like, three months after this June, fall. (Mistake.) (55:25) Wonderful-wedding-guest Anita works as a lobbyist in the state legislature but wants to become a litigator. She is worried about her practice scores fluctuating between 160-171 and hopes the guys have tips on stabilizing her score. (1:10:53) We continue Logical Reasoning Section 3 of the June 2007 LSAT with Question 22, a Must Be True question involving conditional reasoning and some tricky word order. To play at home, just download the free test; work through Section 3, Question 22; listen in as we discuss the solution. (1:19:25) Got questions you want us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email at help@thinkinglsat.com or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question! Take a listen and let us know what you think. Watch this episode on YouTube.
Apr 3, 2017 · 1 hr 23 min
Episode 89: Make a Statement with Gary Kinder
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 help@thinkinglsat.com or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question! Take a listen and let us know what you think. Watch this episode on YouTube.
Mar 27, 2017 · 1 hr 19 min
Episode 88: Let’s Make A Deal
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 help@thinkinglsat.com or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question! Take a listen and let us know what you think. Watch this episode on YouTube.
Mar 20, 2017 · 1 hr 25 min
Episode 87: LSAChyosaurus with Ann Levine
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 help@thinkinglsat.com or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question! Take a listen and let us know what you think. Watch this episode on YouTube.
Mar 7, 2017 · 1 hr
Episode 86: A Happy Beginning
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 help@thinkinglsat.com or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question! Take a listen and let us know what you think. Watch this episode on YouTube.
Mar 2, 2017 · 1 hr 14 min
Episode 85: La La Law
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 help@thinkinglsat.com or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question! Take a listen and let us know what you think. Watch this episode on YouTube.
Feb 20, 2017 · 1 hr 7 min
Episode 84: The Power of This Podcast Will Not Be Questioned
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 help@thinkinglsat.com or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question! Take a listen and let us know what you think.
Feb 13, 2017 · 1 hr 57 min
Episode 83: Big Nihilists Don’t Cry
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 help@thinkinglsat.com or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question! Take a listen and let us know what you think.
Feb 2, 2017 · 1 hr 56 min
Episode 82: Is For-Profit For You?
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 help@thinkinglsat.com or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question! Take a listen and let us know what you think.
Jan 23, 2017 · 1 hr 28 min
Episode 81: Don’t Hurry, Be Happy
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 help@thinkinglsat.com or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question! Take a listen and let us know what you think.
Jan 15, 2017 · 1 hr 26 min
Episode 80: A Tale of Two Answer Choices
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 help@thinkinglsat.com or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question! Take a listen and let us know what you think.
Dec 31, 2016 · 1 hr 11 min
Episode 79: Little White Lies and the Diagramming Demon
Nathan gives five (death)stars to “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” while Ben shares a far more lukewarm review of his family’s new dog, a “Mountain Swissy” kind. (0:30) In Episode 78, the guys read part of an email from Alec, a student who took the December LSAT but canceled his score after encountering an “unusual” Logic Game. They continue with Alec’s questions here in Episode 79. Topics covered include: dealing with the experimental section, choosing the best study materials, combining rules to make inferences, and deciding when to diagram on the test. (6:34) An anonymous listener asks whether or not she should submit an addendum that uses a “white lie” to explain an LSAT absence from two years ago. Ben says the fib is not worth the risk and if the truth ever does get out it could have devastating consequences on her career. Nathan agrees that the truth is best in this and every case, as small lies lead to bigger, more complicated lies that are too difficult to keep track of. No matter the reason, the guys concur and urge people to be completely honest on their applications. (42:30) We continue the June 2007 LSAT with a lengthy Logical Reasoning problem. To play at home just download the free test, work through Question #14 in Section 3, and listen in as we discuss the solution in detail. (48:30) Got questions you want us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email! Follow us at @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question! Take a listen and let us know what you think.
Dec 18, 2016 · 51 min
Episode 78: Think You’re Overthinking? Think Again.
The guys open Episode 78 by discussing the need to submit a diversity statement with a law school application. Both agree it can be a valuable addition but caution applicants to beware of wasting the admissions officer’s time. (1:28) Nathan admits he has a drinking problem; the problem being his need to discuss the LSAT while drinking. The good news is he left a note for his sober self to discuss an important issue on the show today! After noticing students’ tendency to misunderstand the question type “the argument proceeds by…” he and Ben clarify what the question is actually asking you to identify. (4:51) Drew’s email shares his lofty goal of a score in the 170s on the February LSAT. He feels his accuracy is on target, only missing about two per section, but is worried about his pace being too slow to finish all the sections. Ben encourages Drew to deeply review the questions he’s getting wrong to identify what idea he is missing. Nathan agrees and counsels Drew to ignore the clock and focus only on accuracy, as that is what will increase speed and lead to higher scores. (8:50) Subscribe to the Thinking LSAT Podcast to join our mailing list and be instantly notified when a new episode is released. Hurry and do so before we fill the site with all those lucrative pillow advertisements Ben has lined up! (30:00) Ferris Bueller admits he didn’t like going to classes so he focused on working and extracurricular activities (presumably parades) instead. Now he wants to know if he should include an addendum with his application to explain his 3.0 GPA to admissions. Ben suggests Ferris use his resume to show his busy schedule and Nathan thinks he should write the addendum but to not be so honest about his disinterest in school. Ben and Nathan both recommend that Ferris focus the issue entirely on his need to work to support himself and not the extracurriculars he enjoyed. (31:37) Omar worked hard to receive good grades in undergrad but one devastating semester is dragging his overall GPA down. An addendum to explain that outlier is perfect for this situation and we discuss striking the right tone in the addendum. (37:00) The final email is from Alec and asks how to avoid “overthinking” in the Reading Comp section. Nathan is appalled at the idea of overthinking on the LSAT and encourages all test takers to leave their brains on for the entire test. (42:00) Got questions you want us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email! Follow us at @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question! Take a listen and let us know what you think.
Dec 12, 2016 · 1 hr 10 min
Episode 77: Don’t Get Left Holding the Bar Bag
Nathan shares an email he received from David Faigman, Acting Chancellor and Dean of the University of California Hastings College of the Law. The email, sent to students and alumni of the program, discussed Hasting graduates’ “horrific result” on the July 2016 Bar exam. We talk about who and what is to blame for the low passage rate and what might be done to improve it. (2:36) Arye asks the guys to explain why it’s better to read the question stimulus before reading the question stem. We discuss this and more from Arye, including score plateaus and preparing for the February LSAT. (12:35) One of Nathan’s students recently took the LSAT in Mexico City and shares his impressions of the experience. He was very pleased with the helpful test proctors, less so with the restrooms, and completely mystified by the stickiness of his desk. (30:30) Calvin emails to thank the show for test day tips he utilized while taking the December LSAT. Nathan’s insistence that there is no such thing as a “weird” Logic Game kept Calvin calm and confident when he encountered a new-looking game on the test. (31:48) We continue working our way through the June 2007 LSAT with two more Logical Reasoning problems. To play at home just download the free test, work through Section 3, Questions 12 and 13, and listen in as we discuss the solutions in detail. (#12 at 37:20 and #13 at 49:06) Got questions you want us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email! Follow us at @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question! Take a listen and let us know what you think.