Blunt LSAT advice, fewer expensive mistakes.
Thinking LSAT treats law school admissions like a numbers problem with consequences. Nathan Fox and Ben Olson work through emails, rankings, scholarships, test changes, and LSAT questions with a skeptical eye for bad incentives and student panic.
PRESS PLAY
Thinking LSAT is an advice-heavy LSAT and law-school admissions show with little patience for mystique. Nathan Fox and Ben Olson read questions, argue through the details, and keep returning to the practical stakes: score higher, apply smarter, and avoid unnecessary debt. The show is brisk. It often starts with a listener email or a piece of law-school news, then widens into a diagnosis of the system around the applicant. U.S. News rankings are treated less like destiny than like a seasonal spectacle. Tuition, general fees, conditional costs, and school-funded loans get examined with visible suspicion. Scholarship negotiation is handled as a fact pattern, not a self-worth exercise. LSAT prep advice is similarly unsentimental. The answer is rarely to diagram harder, chase speed, or invent a theory for every bad section. More often, the advice is to read every word, understand the argument, and let accuracy build speed over time. That makes the show useful for students who are tired of vague motivation and want someone to tell them when their plan is sloppy. It is not soft-edged. The hosts can be warm when a listener makes progress, but they are just as willing to call out prestige panic, overtesting, weak admissions logic, or a bad financial deal. Recent episodes move through AI requirements in law schools, remote LSAT changes, waitlist strategy, reading comprehension pace, burnout, personal statements, and the hidden cost structure of specific schools. There are also close readings of LSAT-style arguments, where the pair slows down enough to show how a conclusion slips beyond its evidence. The result feels less like a lecture and more like two sharp advisors sorting a messy inbox in public. It is especially strong for applicants who need practical judgment under pressure. The show keeps asking what the numbers actually say. Then it asks whether law school is worth the price being offered.
Made for: For LSAT students and law-school applicants who want direct guidance on test prep, admissions strategy, scholarships, rankings, waitlists, and debt. It especially suits listeners who prefer concrete numbers and plain criticism over reassurance.
What sets it apart: Thinking LSAT combines question-level LSAT reasoning with admissions and financial triage, so test prep never floats away from the cost of attending law school. Its edge is the willingness to challenge applicant assumptions in real time.
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: [email protected]. Don't pay for law school!Learn more at lsatdemon.com
Based on 6 episodes we listened to · September 2026
Nathan Fox and Ben Olson turn LSAT reasoning and law school decisions into direct, practical lessons in reading claims carefully.
Thinking LSAT makes test preparation sound like a running argument between Nathan Fox and Ben Olson. They work through LSAT questions aloud, answer listener emails, and challenge the jargon and shortcuts that make the exam seem more mysterious than it is.
Law school rankings get sports commentary; your scholarship offer gets the sharper questions.
Press play if you want
Short reviews from the PlayNext desk, based on the episodes we processed.
A rankings reality check that stays practical, then turns to LSAT logic and assumptions.
Thinking LSAT opens by treating the new U.S. News rankings like sports talk, but it keeps the focus on the practical point: applicants should care because schools do, even when the year-to-year shifts are small.
Loan terms, headline wording, and LSAT logic all get the same hard look.
Thinking LSAT opens on the WashU Law supplemental loan and stays with the awkward question it raises: if no collateral is required, what does that say about repayment?
A blunt LSAT episode that ties one listener's admissions choices to a simple case for careful reading and earned speed.
In episode 548 of Thinking LSAT, Chris's update gives the discussion its clearest anchor: he says he raised his LSAT from 151 to 166 and is comparing offers from several schools. From there, the hosts settle into familiar ground, but it is useful ground.
Testing logistics and waitlist strategy meet in a practical episode about LSAC's in-center shift and a Minnesota full ride.
LSAC's shift toward in-center testing gives this PlayNext episode a clear lens on how a rule change can reshape the experience around an exam.
Admissions news and LSAT reasoning frame a practical look at online law school and its tradeoffs.
Thinking LSAT opens with Reagan's admissions update, and the numbers carry the episode's practical weight: nine offers from 16 schools, a T14 admission, and stipend offers that now look like an actual check.
A final LSAT feels more manageable when score panic is replaced by evidence, review, and routine.
How to Take Your Last LSAT frames a final test date as a pressure problem before it is a score problem. The hosts begin with a warning against rushing, then carry that steadier tone into Carter's account of being accused of cheating by LSAC's Office of Test Security, submitting…
Law schools, seat deposits, and the pressure built into the deadline.
Episode 504 keeps its focus on deposit-deadline pressure and the uneasy feeling that can come with a school making an offer look less secure. Nathan Fox and Ben Olson read a University of Arizona email about changing financial awards for admitted students who had not yet…
ASWB strategy, one scenario at a time.
Admissions consultants on school fit, essays and staying the course.
MCAT content, taught step by step, trap by trap.
Close reading for GCSE English, one quotation at a time.
GCSE Physics definitions and equations, read out and recapped.
Nathan Fox and Ben Olson discuss the LSAT Demon free class and announce the LSAT test dates for the 2025-2026 cycle from the Law School Admission Council.
This episode discusses the importance of not registering for the LSAT until practice test scores are at target levels, highlighting common mistakes and advice for test-takers.
Ben Olson and Nathan Fox open episode 535 of the Thinking LSAT Podcast with a listener question about managing pressure on a final LSAT attempt.
Ben Olson and Nathan Fox discuss a University of Arizona email that cut a student's scholarship from $30,000 to $15,680 before the deposit deadline.
This episode of the Thinking LSAT Podcast offers advice to an older, non-traditional applicant considering law school, discussing LSAT scores, career changes, and resources like LSAT Demon.
Nathan and Ben kick things off by taking a swing at the new U.S.
The hosts discuss California's proposal to require law schools to teach AI, criticizing it as a late and ineffective regulatory move.
The hosts of Thinking LSAT discuss an email from a listener experiencing burnout while studying for the LSAT, offering advice on test preparation and recentering strategies.
This episode discusses whether gambling can be a positive in law school admissions, using poker as an example, and covers law school fees at William and Mary.
The hosts discuss whether to quit a job for LSAT prep and address a listener's question about inconsistent performance on LSAT Logical Reasoning sections.
Ben Olson and Nathan Fox start with the WashU Law supplemental loan.
Chris opens with a very specific LSAT success story.
Thinking LSAT episode 547 opens on an LSAC email that moves most LSAT administrations into in-person testing centers starting in August, with remote test takers accounting for 40% of the pool.
Reagan starts with a better board.
This episode discusses a listener's update on successfully resolving LSAC cheating allegations and achieving a high LSAT score after following the hosts' advice.
The hosts discuss whether AI will make law school obsolete, analyzing an article from Forbes and debating its implications for legal education and competition.