Glad you like the change and that the new version may be better for you!

That could be a possibility. AR in my opinion was far too gamified. I respect the dry tedious paragraphs in RC, because it prepares and assesses you for the dry tedious nature of law. LR translates as well. Seems like AR existed as a weird rite of passage meant to extract a pound of flesh from you and to liquefy your gray matter 😅. I come from the intelligence community where critical thinking, deductive reasoning, and comprehension is a prerequisite to being an effective intelligence officer. I excelled in that capacity, however AR had me questioning my cognitive abilities!

That could be a possibility. AR in my opinion was far too gamified. I respect the dry tedious paragraphs in RC, because it prepares and assesses you for the dry tedious nature of law. LR translates as well. Seems like AR existed as a weird rite of passage meant to extract a pound of flesh from you and to liquefy your gray matter 😅. I come from the intelligence community where critical thinking, deductive reasoning, and comprehension is a prerequisite to being an effective intelligence officer. I excelled in that capacity, however AR had me questioning my cognitive abilities!

Some do better with LG, some do better without LG. These are individual personal differences. I don't see LSAC changing the difficulty of LR and RC questions, but they can always adjust raw score conversions as necessary. And although the change may not affect the mean or median score of test-takers, it certainly affects test-takers on an individual level. And given that most scoring 170+ are perfect or near-perfect on LG, it will undoubtedly change things at the top.

It's great that you're planning ahead and considering your personal circumstances in deciding when to take the LSAT and apply to law school. Taking the LSAT requires a significant amount of time and dedication, so it's important to find a balance that works for you. If you're planning to take the test before August 2024, that can still give you plenty of time to prepare and allow for flexibility in your application timeline. Many law schools accept LSAT scores that are a few years old, but it's essential to check the specific policies of the schools you're interested in applying to, as they may vary. Taking the test in 2024 and applying in 2026 should not be viewed as unusual. Admissions committees understand that applicants come from diverse backgrounds and may need time to balance work, family, and other commitments. It can even be an advantage if you have relevant work experience to bring to your application. Regarding the Analytical Reasoning (AR) section, it's a good idea to gauge your initial performance on the diagnostic test. If you find that you're naturally strong in that section, it might make sense to include it in your study plan and aim for the August test. However, if you struggle with it, you can still prepare for the other sections and consider not taking the AR section if it doesn't align with your strengths. In summary, taking the LSAT in 2024 and applying in 2026 is a reasonable plan. Just be sure to check the specific policies of the law schools you're interested in and tailor your LSAT preparation to your strengths and goals. Good luck with your LSAT journey!

I agree LR and RC with their perceived ambiguities and use of complex sentence structures have more obvious applicability to the practice of law. I don't think the test prep industry is shuddering, though. There have been low-cost/free LG explanations available for over a decade (for example, I've released nearly 200 of them on KZfaq), yet students still seek out paid prep.

If you score much better on RC and LR, and don't want to work on LG, it does seem clear that going for August 2024 or later is your best course of action!

I score much better on RC and LR as well and LG was the bane of my LSAT existence. Ironically, I’ve grown to like LG and finally have fun with them but score wise I think I would benefit without it. For me, LG b Is best for fun instead of being tested on it but ima go for both type of exams

You made a very interesting point here. I have noticed that in the practice of law the skills most necessary come from what is learned 1L and 1L summer years, depended upon your desired area of practice. The LSAT is not even close to being an adequate representation of what being an attorney entails, and quite frankly even worse as a determining factor in whether one has the skills needed to be successful in law school. We live in an inherently sinful world that has racism at the top of the sin-list. Why wouldn't we want to get rid of a section that procures vitriol? It costs MONEY to hack LG. For anyone to deny that this change won't affect these prep programs is not being honest with themselves. All of these test preps highlight the LG section because they know it's the section that FORCES you to PAY for REAL training. I watched a lot of free videos on the LG section, and boy let me tell you, they never really intended for that to be the only resource, in fact they always point you to some practice exam that costs an extra $200 or a private that is "worth" $50 an hour. It is all one big arbitrarily racist and wicked pay wall used to complicate a very transparent career path. You can either last in law or not, but there is no trick to this career path if the skills are developed properly in LAW SCHOOL. P.S. Look up the history of the bar exam and the ABA, it is equally as gross.

I think that is the point. You do know this arbitrary exam was created in 1948 as a barrier to keep people out who may not be able to afford to learn and hack this exam., right? The logic games was the only section I needed to pay someone for because the other areas of the exam are up my alley and are most aligned with the skills needed for law school. Logic games is just that, a game. It is not actually beneficial to law school study AT ALL. It really is just evil.

@@jayjayeffron9249agree! Plus logic games are not truly learnable for everyone either! They’re great for people who aren’t atrocious at math.

No they didn’t. That’s a pretty bold statement to make that it’s the “….most learnable part of the LSAT.” Have you truly looked at how discriminatory the logic games are for some individuals?

If you’ve ever actually worked with AI, you’d know that would never happen

@@samuelblackwell5990 No one has yet. AGI hasn’t been invented yet. That’s real AI.

@@justanotherhandle1 Anyone who thinks AI is going to take over does not understand the industry. If anything, it will take over entry-level software dev positions first.

@@samuelblackwell5990 they literally have videos on KZfaq of studies they’ve done comparing lawyers to ai. Look it up. My point is, just wait till AGI which doesn’t exist yet but will in 5 years.

@@samuelblackwell5990 they literally have videos on KZfaq of studies they’ve done comparing lawyers to ai. Look it up. My point is, just wait till AGI which doesn’t exist yet but will in 5 years.