Couverture de Thinking LSAT

Thinking LSAT

Thinking LSAT

De : Nathan Fox and Ben Olson
Écouter gratuitement

À propos de cette écoute

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.comNathan Fox and Ben Olson
Les membres Amazon Prime bénéficient automatiquement de 2 livres audio offerts chez Audible.

Vous êtes membre Amazon Prime ?

Bénéficiez automatiquement de 2 livres audio offerts.
Bonne écoute !
    Épisodes
    • Regressive Cross-Subsidy (Ep. 511)
      Jun 16 2025
      Ben and Nathan explore how AI is acing law school exams and what that says about legal education. They unpack Donald Rumsfeld’s “unknown unknowns” and how the LSAT helps uncover them. The guys break down what the LSAT curve really means (or doesn’t), then offer advice on predatory pre-law jobs. Then they revisit the difference between sufficient and necessary assumptions. Temple University is featured in this week’s What’s the Deal With… Finally, another contestant in the Personal Statement Gong Show and amanuensis is the word of the week. Study with our Free PlanDownload our iOS appWatch Episode 511 on YouTubeRegister for RC Prediction Fundamentals0:34 – AI is an A+ Law StudentBen and Nathan aren’t shocked to hear that AI is pulling A’s and B+’s on law school exams at the University of Maryland. The LSAT-style “racehorse” exams are all about spotting issues, which is something AI excels at. It’s a reminder that the profession is changing, and lawyers who ignore these tools risk falling behind.Artificial Intelligence is now an A+ law student, study finds9:33 – Unknown UnknownsThe LSAT is the best teacher, and when paired with the explanations that come with every question, you can solve your “unknown unknowns.” When you miss a question, you’ve both picked the wrong answer and failed to pick the right one. You must understand both mistakes before moving on. The guys note that gimmicky strategies often muddy common-sense logic, turning solvable problems (unknown knowns) into confusing ones.17:46 – LSAT CurveDanielle’s question about the LSAT curve leads to a breakdown: it’s not a traditional curve, but a scale based on experimental data. LSAC aims for consistent difficulty across tests, and it's not worth stressing over. 26:37 – Predatory Pre-Law JobsA listener’s $50k pre-law job in San Francisco turns out to be little more than coffee runs. Nathan warns against sticking with these roles unless there’s upside—legal exposure, networking, or skill-building. While there’s some value in doing grunt work well, make sure it’s leading somewhere.33:10 – Sufficient vs. Necessary AssumptionBen and Nathan clarify the frequent confusion between sufficient and necessary assumptions. Sufficient assumptions prove the conclusion (open question), while necessary assumptions must be true (closed question). Although they can sometimes overlap, applying the same analysis across the two question types will trip students up on harder questions. 49:13 – What’s the Deal with Temple Law?Ben and Nate take a look at what ChatGPT provided for this week’s What’s the Deal with… Pulling data mainly from Temple’s website, the information was generally accurate. Temple offers regional value, if you can attend at the right price, as more than 75% of the class pays less than half of the sticker price. LSAT Demon Scholarship EstimatorThe Disparity IndexTemple Law Employment OutcomesChatGPT prompt: What are the five best and worst things about [insert law school]? Be brutally frank, please. Consider not only the quality of the school, but job outcomes and cost. Is it worth the money? Is it fair that some students get scholarships and others don’t? 1:21:30 – Personal Statement Gong ShowB sends in their submission for the Personal Statement Gong Show, the show where Ben and Nathan read personal statements and hit the gong when something goes wrong. The standing record to beat is ten lines, held by Greta.1:26:40 - Word of the Week - AmanuensisReaders of African American autobiography have too readily accepted the presumption of these editors that experiential facts recounted orally could be recorded and sorted by an amanuensis‑editor. Get caught up with our ⁠Word of the Week⁠ library.
      Afficher plus Afficher moins
      1 h et 29 min
    • The Disparity Index (Ep. 510)
      Jun 9 2025

      Law schools manipulate scholarships to obscure what they’re actually willing to pay for LSAT scores. Ben and Nathan reveal how some schools offer up to $40,000 per LSAT point. They introduce the “Disparity Index” to show how wildly different financial outcomes can be for students at the same school. Don’t settle for mediocre scores—top LSAT performance unlocks the best deals.

      Study with our Free Plan

      Download our iOS app

      Watch Episode 510 on YouTube

      0:30 – LSAT Buyer’s Club

      Ben and Nathan dig into how much law schools pay for LSAT scores. They introduce the Disparity Index—calculated by subtracting a school’s 75th percentile grant from full price—as a measure of that school’s willingness to buy scores. Some schools pay $10,000 per point while others offer up to $40,000. At full price, you might be paying 20 times more than a classmate. The key takeaway: the 75th percentile grant should be your floor, not your ceiling.

      LSAT Demon Scholarship Estimator

      31:09 – Scholarship Reconsiderations

      The guys explain why you shouldn’t expect schools to negotiate openly. Many schools pretend to have fixed offers or use pre-law advisors to dissuade students from pushing back. Protect your leverage—don’t visit schools, don’t volunteer information. “Exclusive” opportunities are often just marketing ploys to increase tuition revenue.

      50:43 – Last Call for Uncle Sam’s Wallet

      Recently proposed policy changes threaten to disrupt the current tuition landscape of law schools. Limitations on student visas, loan amounts, and repayment options all have the capacity to change the way law schools play the scholarship game.

      1:07:05 – RC Comprehension

      Ricky scores nearly perfectly on Logical Reasoning, but underperforms at Reading Comprehension. Ben and Nathan suggest that Ricky aim for two perfect passages and guess on the rest. With time and practice, two will lead to three, but perfection on two gives a strong base and builds confidence.

      1:10:07 – Grammarly

      Ben and Nathan discuss the value of Grammarly. They suggest a smart workflow: use tools like Grammarly to generate suggestions, then double-check those suggestions with Google or other AIs. Cross-referencing recommendations can teach you good writing while improving your output.

      1:13:00 – Personal Statement Gong Show

      Ian sends in his submission for the Personal Statement Gong Show, the show where Ben and Nathan read personal statements and hit the gong when something goes wrong. The standing record to beat is ten lines, held by Greta.

      1:18:31 - Word of the Week - Compatible

      Which one of the following statements about cells is most compatible with the views of late nineteenth-century biochemists as those views are described in the passage?

      Get caught up with our Word of the Week library.

      Afficher plus Afficher moins
      1 h et 24 min
    • The Freedman Firm (Ep. 509)
      Jun 2 2025

      Michael Freedman joins Nathan on Thinking LSAT to share his story as a trial lawyer in some of the nation’s most high-profile criminal cases. Along the way, he shares candid advice for law students about finding their path, building experience, and starting a firm. Michael emphasizes the importance of treating law school like a job, embracing trial work, and nurturing every professional relationship.

      4:00 – UC Hastings

      Michael recalls feeling bored during his 1L year but loving 2L because he finally began interacting with real lawyers. Nathan encourages students to approach law school the way Michael did. Michael offers two practical tips for success: treat law school like a 9-to-5 job and intentionally build life balance outside of school.

      27:10 – Federal Clerkship and Government Position

      Despite participating in OCI, Michael didn’t land a Big Law job. Instead, he worked during law school for a trial lawyer focused on white-collar defense, which helped him confirm his passion for criminal trial work. The client relationship aspect deeply appealed to him, influencing his decision to clerk after graduation. He landed a prestigious clerkship on the Ninth Circuit. While many of his peers moved into Big Law after clerking, Michael opted for a government role to gain more courtroom experience. When he eventually reached the typical endpoint for federal positions, he chose to start his firm rather than join another existing one.

      27:23 – Starting the Freedman Firm

      To build his practice, Michael accepted every case, no matter the size, emphasizing that no case was too small in those early days. He believes that founding a firm requires an entrepreneurial mindset—one must enjoy thinking about how to acquire clients, how to handle hiring, and how to manage payroll. He later brought on another partner to help handle larger, more demanding cases.

      33:41 – Big Profile Cases

      Michael’s work eventually led to invitations to co-counsel on major white-collar criminal cases, including representing Bill Cosby, working on R. Kelly’s trial, and participating in Harvey Weinstein’s appeal. Much of this work was in collaboration with Jennifer Bonjean, a highly respected trial attorney based in Chicago. These opportunities didn’t happen by accident. They stemmed from years of deliberate effort in building strong professional relationships. Michael treats his referral sources like clients themselves, ensuring they’re proud to be associated with his work and satisfied with the results he delivers.

      40:41 – Should Our Students Do What You Do?

      Michael poses a fundamental question to students: Do you know what kind of lawyer you want to be? He encourages students to take advantage of every opportunity to gain hands-on experience. Law firms require a diverse range of personalities and backgrounds to serve their clients effectively. He urges students to attend court and introduce themselves to lawyers, not just to network, but to genuinely learn. A sincere interest in the work can lead to meaningful opportunities.

      Afficher plus Afficher moins
      1 h et 11 min

    Ce que les auditeurs disent de Thinking LSAT

    Moyenne des évaluations utilisateurs. Seuls les utilisateurs ayant écouté le titre peuvent laisser une évaluation.

    Commentaires - Veuillez sélectionner les onglets ci-dessous pour changer la provenance des commentaires.

    Il n'y a pas encore de critique disponible pour ce titre.