Waddling Thunder responds to my post about LSAT prep courses being a waste of time and money (you'll have to scroll down a bit). Says he skipped a logic game and things turned out fine. I'm a bit impressed, actually, because it probably means he got most everything else right, since he got into Harvard. But just because there's a data point against it won't get me to give up my point so easily -- I still think it's generally unwise to rely on a strategy that involves your skipping a handful of questions, thus ensuring no points for them. And that it's reasonable to say that strategies that encourage going into the exam planning to skip chunks of the exam are strategies generally designed not for people scoring at the higher end of the scale. That said, if Waddling Thunder did in fact go into the exam with the intention of skipping a logic game, my question would be whether that strategy was formed after taking a bunch of practice tests and figuring out that, for him, it was the right strategy, or whether he took a prep course and blindly accepted their test-taking methods. The former seems perfectly sensible. The latter seems less so. Not a real powerful or revolutionary point I'm trying to make here, just warning that if you want to score a 180, or something close, the market-leading test prep courses may not be the right way to go to help you get there.