Video summary

The 170 Median Race | Thinking LSAT, Ep. 573

Main summary

Key takeaways

Educational

Main ideas / lessons

1) When to apply to law school (and why not to rush)

  • Savannah (a listener) has a 158 LSAT and 3.5 GPA and is considering applying this cycle for schools like UCSF/Hastings and Willamette, aiming for a full-ride scholarship.
  • The hosts argue the main downside of applying now is bad offers (partial scholarships or worse), plus the psychological pressure to accept them.
  • They emphasize real-world harms of rushing:
    • Shallow/weak scholarship offers that are less than what the applicant could earn later.
    • Denials or waitlists that waste time and create emotional damage.
    • Temptation/normalization: friends/family may frame any offer as “great,” making it harder to hold out for better outcomes.
  • Core recommendation: wait until next cycle to apply, after retaking and raising the LSAT (e.g., aiming for a much higher score).

2) Scholarship strategy: don’t anchor on a couple of schools

  • The hosts recommend applying to many more schools—specifically suggesting ~15 schools once the LSAT is ready.
  • They critique Savannah’s list:
    • Hastings is viewed as not a strong scholarship provider (based on reported percentile/grant behavior).
    • Willamette is also seen as unlikely to produce enough large scholarships for someone at a 158 to justify a narrow strategy.

3) Minimum LSAT “readiness” for a reasonable law school outcome

  • Rule of thumb from the hosts:
    • 150s correlate with higher odds of poor outcomes (e.g., bar passage/job outcomes) for most people.
    • 160–165 is presented as a more meaningful minimum for a “solid chance.”
  • Even if a strong offer appears possible, they still view applying with a 158 as a poor plan.

LSAT medians trend: rising score competitiveness

  • The hosts discuss preliminary law school reporting (class of 2029 profiles):
    • Multiple schools’ LSAT medians appear to be rising (often to 170).
    • Examples mentioned:
      • UNC (rank ~18): median 168 → 170
      • George Washington (rank ~26): median 168 → 170
      • University of Florida (rank ~34): median 169 → 170 and GPA median 3.91 → 3.97
  • Analytical point:
    • Medians are not averages and can be “managed” through admissions dynamics (e.g., admitting enough students at/above the median).
  • Scholarship incentives:
    • To attract enough above-median scores, schools often must offer more generous scholarships.
    • Otherwise, “the bottom falls out,” potentially worsening outcomes.

Financial/ethics commentary on law school pricing

  • The hosts critique how scholarship/discount incentives interact with federal loan availability.
  • They argue the system encourages schools to:
    • Improve US News medians/rankings
    • Use scholarships strategically to attract higher-scoring applicants
  • “Fairness” solutions described:
    • Charge everyone the same price (or regulate pricing) if federal loans are available.
    • This would reduce extreme disparities (e.g., some students paying full price while others get large discounts).
  • Additional structural barriers mentioned:
    • ABA/accreditation requirements and other barriers to entry (e.g., law school length, bar exam requirements).
    • They claim these barriers help keep the system expensive.

Listener Q&A / methodology & course advice (detailed)

A) Email: switching prep after using another vendor for lots of questions (Dan)

  • Dan asks whether to:
    • Switch fully to The Demon (even if repeating ~1,800 questions), or
    • Stay with the current course and use Demon explanations only during review.
  • Hosts’ response:
    • Repetition isn’t useless; the key is understanding why answers are correct/incorrect, not just remembering the choice.
    • They argue that practice + review builds:
      • clearer reasoning,
      • rejecting tempting wrong answers,
      • predicting likely wrong answers and understanding traps.
    • Practical comparison:
      • Only ~1/5 of any question bank is encountered in a given practice/testing cycle, so “running out” is less concerning than it sounds.

B) Moral: “sunk cost fallacy” in prep course decisions

  • Dan worries sunk-cost pressure could be intensified if refunds are blocked by scoring requirements or module completion rules.
  • Hosts’ decision rule:
    • If continuing with a course isn’t giving you more effective learning than switching, then stop.
    • Test question: if someone offered you free access to the remaining course, would you take it? If not, don’t keep paying.

C) Reddit-style Q&A: how often to take full practice tests (new learner)

  • A new student scored 167 on a diagnostic and asks how often to take full-length practice tests (including weekly).
  • Hosts’ advice:
    • Don’t delay official testing just because you’re unsure of readiness.
    • If practice suggests you can hit 175+, you can test sooner (they mention official tests can be in October/November).
    • Don’t chase perfection:
      • Aiming for 180 every time is misguided.
      • Law schools mostly care about your highest score.
      • Plenty of 175+ practice scores are sufficient.
  • Scheduling guidance:
    • One full test per week is acceptable at this stage (diagnostic mistakes are assumed to be few; review is manageable).
    • Alternative:
      • Alternate timed sections and drills.
      • Mix timed sections across days so you get performance signals without waiting for full exams.

D) LR vs RC “code switching” (KJ)

  • KJ struggles because RC feels like author mindset/implications, while LR feels like gaps and logic structure.
  • Hosts’ reframing:
    • RC is largely must-be-true / main-point work (many questions are “main point in disguise”).
    • LR isn’t automatically simpler; it still requires careful reasoning.
    • RC answer selection is more about aligning with what the passage establishes.
  • Fix for RC drills:
    • Stop treating RC like LR.
    • Use a main-point / must-be-true lens:
      • If unsure, choose the answer consistent with the passage’s main point.
    • They conclude the student is already capable at RC if approached correctly (based on diagnostic results).

LSAT teaching segment: finding the flaw in an argument

  • The episode includes an LSAT question about why a “supergroup” band (Velvet Chaos) might not succeed even if each member is individually talented and commercially successful.
  • Weakness taught:
    • Evidence about parts does not guarantee the conclusion about the whole.
    • This is framed as the parts-to-whole flaw / unwarranted assumption: individual success doesn’t necessarily transfer to group success.
  • Answer logic:
    • The correct choice is identified as D (the members’ qualities/achievements won’t necessarily translate into group success).
    • Other choices are rejected because they mischaracterize the argument or rely on flawed reasoning not actually present.

App/program announcements & events

  • The Demon is available on Android (Google Play Store).
  • ELSAT registration deadline for the October test: this Thursday, August 27.
  • Emphasis:
    • Don’t register unless practice scores support success.
    • If you miss deadlines, “the most important thing is your score”—taking the next test is fine.
  • Event promotion:
    • MINK Law Day on September 2 in Overland Park, Kansas
    • The team will attend and give away book copies/free materials (first 150 people).

Word of the week

  • Calumniator is tied to a historical text (Virginia Resolutions report).
  • It comes from calumny, meaning malicious false statements/lying that harms reputation.
  • Historical reference: Henry Lee (with definitions mentioned, including attribution to Miriam Webster).

Speakers / sources featured

  • Nathan Fox — host; co-founder of elsatdemon.com; Think­ing LSAT podcast host
  • Ben Olsen — host; co-founder of elsatdemon.com; co-host
  • Savannah — listener email; applying/LSAT + GPA scenario
  • R — listener email; transitioning to Georgetown Law via GI Bill; veteran outreach discussion
  • Dan — listener email; prep-switching and sunk cost / refund concerns
  • “Samuel L.” — source for Word of the Week context: Report of the Minority on the Virginia Resolutions 1799 by Henry Lee
  • Henry Lee — author referenced in the word-of-the-week segment
  • Miriam Webster — definition source mentioned
  • Reddit user “R/SAT demon” — listener post about frequency of full practice tests
  • KJ — listener post/email about RC vs LR mindset

Original video