Question for those that scored lower than their PT average

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
ps494
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:50 pm

Question for those that scored lower than their PT average

Postby ps494 » Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:21 pm

What exactly happened? Were you nervous, did you not proctor yourself correctly (i.e. gave yourself extra time, did not use a scantron, etc.), or do you just have no idea what happened?

Slimpee
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: Question for those that scored lower than their PT average

Postby Slimpee » Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:27 pm

I was avg. around 167 (including a 168 the week before the test) on PTs and ended up w/ a 163 in Sept. (after a 164 in June w/ lower PTs). While this wasn't an epic failure I didn't practice LG strategically and thus bombed it in Sept. I thought that I could just do them and i'd magically get better which, in hindsight, was really stupid. I

As for LR and RC I missed 9 between the three sections both times which was slightly disappointing (I thought i'd be around -7 in Sept.) but not disastrous.

The point is that you need to figure out why your weak section is your weak section and then work strategically to get better (while not forgetting about your strengths)...

ps494
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:50 pm

Re: Question for those that scored lower than their PT average

Postby ps494 » Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:30 pm

Slimpee wrote:I was avg. around 167 (including a 168 the week before the test) on PTs and ended up w/ a 163 in Sept. (after a 164 in June w/ lower PTs). While this wasn't an epic failure I didn't practice LG strategically and thus bombed it in Sept. I thought that I could just do them and i'd magically get better which, in hindsight, was really stupid. I

As for LR and RC I missed 9 between the three sections both times which was slightly disappointing (I thought i'd be around -7 in Sept.) but not disastrous.

The point is that you need to figure out why your weak section is your weak section and then work strategically to get better (while not forgetting about your strengths)...



What do you mean? I thought that's what you're supposed to do - do game after game until you can do them in your sleep.

amolson04
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 1:03 am

Re: Question for those that scored lower than their PT average

Postby amolson04 » Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:34 pm

I was very, very nervous. I spent too much time on one RC section that I found particularly difficult, and then ran out of time and had to guess on a few that should have been easy. But, looking back, I don't know that I could have done anything differently in terms of preparation. I just got so nervous that a lot of my preparation went out the window.

Yeah, it's kind of depressing.
Last edited by amolson04 on Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
dgouzoul
Posts: 244
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: Question for those that scored lower than their PT average

Postby dgouzoul » Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:35 pm

got nervous. missed 8 on one section of LR when i usually missed around 6 on the two combined. Terrible. I also had to piss like a racehorse (section right before the break). Though that wouldn't make a very good addendum to adcomms

User avatar
rx3r
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: Question for those that scored lower than their PT average

Postby rx3r » Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:40 pm

I gave myself bathroom breaks during my practice tests, and when the real thing came around I had to pee at the end of section 2, so I missed a minute or two of sections 2/3.

The proctor was pissed, but I really had to go.

User avatar
rw2264
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:59 am

Re: Question for those that scored lower than their PT average

Postby rw2264 » Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:43 pm

ps494 wrote:What exactly happened? Were you nervous, did you not proctor yourself correctly (i.e. gave yourself extra time, did not use a scantron, etc.), or do you just have no idea what happened?



i was averaging 171-172, but that was translating to about 8-10 wrong answers per PT. on the actual thing i got 13 wrong, but i got a 170. on PTs my wrong answers were completely concentrated in the LR sections, whereas they were evenly spread through all 3 sections on the real thing.

firstly, i was studying with older tests, so the RC was way harder than I had anticipated.

secondly, i got about 4 hours of sleep, but there's nothing i could do about that as i am a chronic insomniac.

thirdly, i got really tired during the 5th section (RC). i had been practicing by just taking 4 section PTs, thinking i would be pumped enough on the day of the test to power through 5 sections. but i was actually really calm on the day of the test, so i was almost falling asleep. it sucked. i suggest adding a fifth section to your PTs to simulate the experimental section.

Geist13
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:21 pm

Re: Question for those that scored lower than their PT average

Postby Geist13 » Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:48 pm

stress, stress, stress. avg. 172 strictly timed. 167 real thing (sept 09). got a -12 before the break and a -2 afterwords when i settled in.

User avatar
paratactical
Posts: 5961
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: Question for those that scored lower than their PT average

Postby paratactical » Tue Jan 05, 2010 9:01 pm

.
Last edited by paratactical on Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Slimpee
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: Question for those that scored lower than their PT average

Postby Slimpee » Tue Jan 05, 2010 9:14 pm

ps494 wrote:
What do you mean? I thought that's what you're supposed to do - do game after game until you can do them in your sleep.


Maybe that worked for some people but it didn't work for me. Once I learned a game I could do it easily and quickly but then when faced w/ a new game I would F up again. Granted, the single-action games were usually pretty easy for me but the hybrids were always a problem...

ps494
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:50 pm

Re: Question for those that scored lower than their PT average

Postby ps494 » Tue Jan 05, 2010 9:15 pm

Slimpee wrote:
ps494 wrote:
What do you mean? I thought that's what you're supposed to do - do game after game until you can do them in your sleep.


Maybe that worked for some people but it didn't work for me. Once I learned a game I could do it easily and quickly but then when faced w/ a new game I would F up again. Granted, the single-action games were usually pretty easy for me but the hybrids were always a problem...



Ok, what did you do exactly to improve on games? Did you just review them and see where you went wrong and what you could have done to get through more efficiently? I need some advice, because sometime i'll get -3 and other time i'll get -10.

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Question for those that scored lower than their PT average

Postby General Tso » Tue Jan 05, 2010 9:27 pm

Not only are older exams easier, the scales are also easier. So you may experience some dropoff from this effect alone.

Example....my LSAT didn't even have space to diagram the 4th game, something you never saw on older exams. Plus RC is widely considered to be tougher now than it was 4 years ago.

User avatar
existenz
Posts: 927
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:06 am

Re: Question for those that scored lower than their PT average

Postby existenz » Wed Jan 06, 2010 12:41 am

In Sep I scored a 163, which was at least 5 points worse than any of my PTs.

The reasons were simple:

    -Not enough sleep -- I'm not a morning person, and getting up at 6:30 after sleeping in all week was a killer. For the retake I woke up early all week, went to bed early before the test.

    -Wasn't honest enough during PTs with the timer. You may think you can shave off a minute or two on the day of the test, but ultimately you will just feel rushed and miss easy questions. For the retake I was much more disciplined while studying.

    -Mixture of stress/panic -- I had always studied in my quiet apartment, so being in a room full of people coughing, flipping pages and scribbling loudly with pencils really distracted me. For the retake I studied at coffee shops.

    -Outdated PT tests -- I only studied the three "Actual, Official" LSAT prep tests. Stupid of me. For the retake I got tests 47-57 and that helped a bunch, especially with RC and LR.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests