How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
o2bnlv
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:29 am

How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby o2bnlv » Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:09 pm

I got a 170. My preparation for LSAT was taking 3 or 4 sample tests and studying the answers. How unrealistic is shooting for a 175+ if I studied 10-15 more hours?

o2bnlv

User avatar
Knock
Posts: 5152
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby Knock » Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:11 pm

o2bnlv wrote:I got a 170. My preparation for LSAT was taking 3 or 4 sample tests and studying the answers. How unrealistic is shooting for a 175+ if I studied 10-15 more hours?

o2bnlv


:x

This is the biggest test of your life so far. Study for 100, 200 hours, and it's definitely possible. Take 20-30 PT's. There's pretty much no chance of raising your score that much in only 10-15 more hours :roll:.

User avatar
OrdinarilySkilled
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:22 am

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby OrdinarilySkilled » Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:23 pm

20 or even 10 PTs is overkill, especially if you've already scored a 170. There isn't that big a difference between a 170 and a 175, mostly luck I would think, unless you got totally lucky the first time. Just study whatever gives you the most trouble, take a few PTs and you could prob do it.

User avatar
sayruss11
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:47 pm

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby sayruss11 » Tue Jul 27, 2010 7:07 pm

you tested cold 170? yea I'd say no prob getting a 175 with a few more PTs. Probably more than 10-15 hours but 100-200 would definitely be overkill in your situation

User avatar
Nom Sawyer
Posts: 933
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:28 am

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby Nom Sawyer » Tue Jul 27, 2010 7:12 pm

While 100-200 is definitely overkill, 10-15 is not enough. I got around what you did in my first test... then put in a good 40+ more hours of studying for my retake but didn't improve due misreading a rule in Logic Games.

At the 170+ lvl, every single question counts greatly so you have a big margin of error.. if you want to be confident of overcoming that you probably need more preparation just to be sure.

User avatar
dutchstriker
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:15 pm

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby dutchstriker » Tue Jul 27, 2010 7:18 pm

OrdinarilySkilled wrote:20 or even 10 PTs is overkill, especially if you've already scored a 170. There isn't that big a difference between a 170 and a 175, mostly luck I would think, unless you got totally lucky the first time. Just study whatever gives you the most trouble, take a few PTs and you could prob do it.

Speaking from experience, this is all wrong.

Total Litigator
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:17 pm

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby Total Litigator » Tue Jul 27, 2010 7:36 pm

Yeah, you want to make sure your consistently hitting 170+, or you'll join the ranks of thousands of students who score substantially lower on test day due to simple bad luck, because they didn't practice until they were consistently hitting those marks.

acrossthelake
Posts: 4431
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby acrossthelake » Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:14 pm

...

User avatar
kazu
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby kazu » Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:37 pm

Unless your 170 was due to nerves and your actual PT average (from those 3~4 tests) was 175+, I don't think getting a 175+ by just studying 10~15 hours is likely. Possible, maybe, but without enough prep there's also the chance that you'll score lower on your second try.

Obviously you have a lot of potential, and I think if you target your weak spots study, say, 5~10 hours a week until October you have a pretty good chance at scoring 175+.

User avatar
OrdinarilySkilled
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:22 am

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby OrdinarilySkilled » Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:44 pm

dutchstriker wrote:
OrdinarilySkilled wrote:20 or even 10 PTs is overkill, especially if you've already scored a 170. There isn't that big a difference between a 170 and a 175, mostly luck I would think, unless you got totally lucky the first time. Just study whatever gives you the most trouble, take a few PTs and you could prob do it.

Speaking from experience what I want to think about myself, this is all wrong.

User avatar
Nom Sawyer
Posts: 933
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:28 am

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby Nom Sawyer » Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:58 pm

OrdinarilySkilled wrote:
dutchstriker wrote:
OrdinarilySkilled wrote:20 or even 10 PTs is overkill, especially if you've already scored a 170. There isn't that big a difference between a 170 and a 175, mostly luck I would think, unless you got totally lucky the first time. Just study whatever gives you the most trouble, take a few PTs and you could prob do it.

Speaking from experience what I want to think about myself, this is all wrong.


nope sorry.. dutchstriker is right, there is a large difference between scoring a 170 on one attempt, and having reasonable expectations of scoring a 175 the 2nd time.

And 10 ~ 20 PTs is definitely not overkill if a 175 average is what you're shooting for.

ballents
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 1:01 am

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby ballents » Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:07 pm

OrdinarilySkilled wrote:20 or even 10 PTs is overkill, especially if you've already scored a 170. There isn't that big a difference between a 170 and a 175, mostly luck I would think, unless you got totally lucky the first time. Just study whatever gives you the most trouble, take a few PTs and you could prob do it.


I'd just like to reiterate that this is bad advice. Unless you are an exception and your experience is nothing like mine and most other people who spend time on these boards, you will need to spend much more than 10-15 hours to make the jump from 170 to 175+.

My first pt was a 168 and it took me a few months of studying and about 25 pts before I was consistently testing above 175. There is a lot of fluctuation but if you were to graph my results they would form a jagged but upward sloping line. Don't take this test for granted--it's just not worth it.

User avatar
Knock
Posts: 5152
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby Knock » Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:14 pm

ballents wrote:
OrdinarilySkilled wrote:20 or even 10 PTs is overkill, especially if you've already scored a 170. There isn't that big a difference between a 170 and a 175, mostly luck I would think, unless you got totally lucky the first time. Just study whatever gives you the most trouble, take a few PTs and you could prob do it.


I'd just like to reiterate that this is bad advice. Unless you are an exception and your experience is nothing like mine and most other people who spend time on these boards, you will need to spend much more than 10-15 hours to make the jump from 170 to 175+.

My first pt was a 168 and it took me a few months of studying and about 25 pts before I was consistently testing above 175. There is a lot of fluctuation but if you were to graph my results they would form a jagged but upward sloping line. Don't take this test for granted--it's just not worth it.


Strongly agreed.

User avatar
OrdinarilySkilled
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:22 am

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby OrdinarilySkilled » Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:33 pm

These responses would make sense towards someone with a 160. However to think someone who was able to get a 170 after a few PTs isn't smart enough to get a 175 without 20 more PT's is just silly. Most of this feeling of "don't take it for granted" is BS to justify wasting time answering questions you would get right 100% of the time.

Like I said, assuming 170 is the current mean ability of a person, a little studying + some luck (more questions to the person's strength) and that person's range would certainly include some 175+ tests, and would just have to make it happen on test day.

But if you peeps need to feel like your not messing around in some statistical noise when you could be backing into chicks at the club, go right ahead.

User avatar
Nom Sawyer
Posts: 933
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:28 am

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby Nom Sawyer » Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:39 pm

OrdinarilySkilled wrote:These responses would make sense towards someone with a 160. However to think someone who was able to get a 170 after a few PTs isn't smart enough to get a 175 without 20 more PT's is just silly. Most of this feeling of "don't take it for granted" is BS to justify wasting time answering questions you would get right 100% of the time.

Like I said, assuming 170 is the current mean ability of a person, a little studying + some luck (more questions to the person's strength) and that person's range would certainly include some 175+ tests, and would just have to make it happen on test day.

But if you peeps need to feel like your not messing around in some statistical noise when you could be backing into chicks at the club, go right ahead.


--ImageRemoved--

User avatar
dominkay
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby dominkay » Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:41 pm

Not totally unrealistic, but certainly not guaranteed. I would say put in the 15 hours and then see where you're at. It took me a lot longer to break 175 on a PT than to reach it (and, of course, I ended up getting less than 175 on the real thing).

User avatar
kazu
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby kazu » Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:45 pm

OrdinarilySkilled wrote:These responses would make sense towards someone with a 160. However to think someone who was able to get a 170 after a few PTs isn't smart enough to get a 175 without 20 more PT's is just silly. Most of this feeling of "don't take it for granted" is BS to justify wasting time answering questions you would get right 100% of the time.

Like I said, assuming 170 is the current mean ability of a person, a little studying + some luck (more questions to the person's strength) and that person's range would certainly include some 175+ tests, and would just have to make it happen on test day.

But if you peeps need to feel like your not messing around in some statistical noise when you could be backing into chicks at the club, go right ahead.


20 PTs is not 10~15 hours more work. It's closer to 50 hours more work. I definitely agree that this guy will be able to get 175+ with a lot less prep than most people, but 10~15 hours total is definitely not enough to say that it is likely that OP will score 175+ on his next try.

User avatar
dutchstriker
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:15 pm

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby dutchstriker » Wed Jul 28, 2010 9:35 am

.
Last edited by dutchstriker on Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
OrdinarilySkilled
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:22 am

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby OrdinarilySkilled » Wed Jul 28, 2010 10:02 am

dutchstriker wrote:
OrdinarilySkilled wrote:
dutchstriker wrote:
OrdinarilySkilled wrote:20 or even 10 PTs is overkill, especially if you've already scored a 170. There isn't that big a difference between a 170 and a 175, mostly luck I would think, unless you got totally lucky the first time. Just study whatever gives you the most trouble, take a few PTs and you could prob do it.

Speaking from experience what I want to think about myself, this is all wrong.

Clever. I went from a 170 diagnostic to a 180 on test day, and it took much more than 10 PTs. I wasn't scoring consistently above 178 until I had taken around 25 tests. It's all well and good to hope for some luck on test day; maybe the OP will end up with a 173 instead of a 170. But with a dedicated workplan, the OP can be in the upper 170s. I wouldn't be headed to Yale if I hadn't take this shit seriously.

If you have a similar story, I'd love to hear it. The more ways to 180/Yale, the better. I'm sure there would be quite a market for your "backing-up-on-girls-at-the-club" study plan. See you in New Haven.


I think you forgot a winky face im-not-really-this-big-a-douche punctuation, but lol, thanks for proving several of my points. If by 180/Yale you mean "successful" and by New Haven you mean "non-TG", I'll see you when you get here. :wink:

itsfine
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:07 am

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby itsfine » Wed Jul 28, 2010 10:10 am

more importantly, find out what your expected score should be. Take a few more pts, and see hwo you do, is 170 is high out lier? if so, maybe you shouldnt retake unless you are ready to do some serious work...if its a score that is either below or perfectly within your expected score range, then studying should certainly bring up that score....dont make this decision to retake unless you know what your expected score range is right now...

User avatar
dutchstriker
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:15 pm

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby dutchstriker » Wed Jul 28, 2010 10:15 am

.
Last edited by dutchstriker on Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
dominkay
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby dominkay » Wed Jul 28, 2010 10:33 am

dutchstriker wrote:Getting into Yale instead of Michigan is presumably relevant to the OP as well.


OP has a 3.1 GPA. They would be lucky to get into Mich.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=125142&p=3283213#p3283213

User avatar
dutchstriker
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:15 pm

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby dutchstriker » Wed Jul 28, 2010 10:38 am

dominkay wrote:
dutchstriker wrote:Getting into Yale instead of Michigan is presumably relevant to the OP as well.


OP has a 3.1 GPA. They would be lucky to get into Mich.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=125142&p=3283213#p3283213

I was speaking of my own experience. So for the OP the difference may be between UVA or NU and some other place, I don't know.

User avatar
Richie Tenenbaum
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:17 am

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby Richie Tenenbaum » Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:25 am

OrdinarilySkilled wrote:These responses would make sense towards someone with a 160. However to think someone who was able to get a 170 after a few PTs isn't smart enough to get a 175 without 20 more PT's is just silly. Most of this feeling of "don't take it for granted" is BS to justify wasting time answering questions you would get right 100% of the time.

Like I said, assuming 170 is the current mean ability of a person, a little studying + some luck (more questions to the person's strength) and that person's range would certainly include some 175+ tests, and would just have to make it happen on test day.

But if you peeps need to feel like your not messing around in some statistical noise when you could be backing into chicks at the club, go right ahead.


It's about making that last jump and then consistency. Scoring in the upper 170s once on a PT and then saying, "I'm at my goal, I can stop" is a terrible idea. You might get lucky test day and say within that range, but you really need to show you can hit a score consistently before taking test day. It is possible to get consistently in the upper 170s (usually it takes a decent amount of practice though); where luck usually comes more into play is in the difference between something like a 176 and a 179.

acrossthelake
Posts: 4431
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: How unrealistic is raising my LSAT?

Postby acrossthelake » Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:34 pm

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:
OrdinarilySkilled wrote:These responses would make sense towards someone with a 160. However to think someone who was able to get a 170 after a few PTs isn't smart enough to get a 175 without 20 more PT's is just silly. Most of this feeling of "don't take it for granted" is BS to justify wasting time answering questions you would get right 100% of the time.

Like I said, assuming 170 is the current mean ability of a person, a little studying + some luck (more questions to the person's strength) and that person's range would certainly include some 175+ tests, and would just have to make it happen on test day.

But if you peeps need to feel like your not messing around in some statistical noise when you could be backing into chicks at the club, go right ahead.


It's about making that last jump and then consistency. Scoring in the upper 170s once on a PT and then saying, "I'm at my goal, I can stop" is a terrible idea. You might get lucky test day and say within that range, but you really need to show you can hit a score consistently before taking test day. It is possible to get consistently in the upper 170s (usually it takes a decent amount of practice though); where luck usually comes more into play is in the difference between something like a 176 and a 179.


Chyea...I did better than the OP on my diagnostic, and all my preptests, but even I saw a noticeable increase in consistency over time. That's how I *made it happen*. Of those who retook a 170 in 2007-2008, only 10 saw it go up, 4 had it stay the same, and 20 saw it go down. How do we know that his 170 wasn't the top of a 163-171 range instead of a 170-180 range?




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cyclopterus, mccracal, Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests