LawSchoolChampion wrote:If you study the LSAT long enough, it will make sense. You can isolate your weaknesses and improve upon them.
If you don't do that, you've made a personal decision not to.
If you have tried that for months on end and still have no luck then you're clearly not the brightest bulb...and don't deserve a T14.
Analyzing a performance and improving upon it is a crucial skill for success. Most people (I'd say 99%, if not 100%) of the people who score 168+ have done this.
Taking an LSAT cold and scoring 168+ does not happen often.
So, keep the test. If anything, add a few more breaks between sections.
Meh, I think you're overestimating your percentages by quite a bit. I know a handful of people who start over 168 to begin with, and I'd guess a decent chunk of those who get that final score start there as well. This is part of what makes suggestions like adding more time a bit odd. There already are people who start out in the 170s cold. Not quite sure I see the point of making the test easier since more people would just hit ceiling.
In seriousness, there are some changes that I think are valid...just not really the ones in the poll.
The LSAT limits their testing days because of the amount of time/effort it takes for them to construct the tests. It'd probably increase the cost to increase testing dates, but it really would be nice to add in one more.
I also second the idea that there shouldn't be so much variation in the desks at testing centers.You should at least be able to lay out your test booklet with the bubble sheet off to the side. The timing constraints weren't really meant to include dealing with that sort of inconvenience. I had mine with a good set-up, but I've taken practice tests on small desks and it was certainly annoying having my booklet falling onto the floor every so often.