how hard is it to break 176+ in LSAT Forum

[sbpark84]

if i have a mediocre intelligence?
i go to a true TTT UG (T50) by XoXo standard.
of course, i did poorly on SAT (1230).
is it possible to get such high LSAT score?

[cannoneer]

It's definitely possible, since it doesn't matter what school you went to, and your reading ability could have improved significantly since high school. The best way to tell for yourself would be to take a test. The company that administers the test makes a couple available for free on their website, at http://www.lsac.org.

[jonnybeard]

My theory is that there are two ways to get a +176...

1) Be a natural-born genius

2) Have above-average intelligence, study very hard for a few months, and have your A game on test day, as well as a little bit of luck.


UG doesn't matter.

[cannoneer]

I don't know about the "be a natural genius" bit. The LSAT's a glorified reading comprehension test, if you've had some experience playing with logic puzzles.

[flchick1]

1230 isn't poorly at all. It's well above average (going by the "old" scoring system I presume?? I don't know much about the "new" one implemented in the past few years).

But anyway, the LSAT is totally different than the SAT. I think, from the studying I've done, it might actually be easier...because it's so coachable...and the SAT is based on stuff you either did or didn't learn along the way. Take a diagnostic to see where you're at and then start studying!

[prelawyer078]

A lot of it's luck. The differences in the 170's are so sensitive. One more incorrect question could mean a 2-point drop in that section. Someone who got a 173 could have easily got a 177, and v.v. Unfortunate how luck can have such a big role in admissions, huh?

So even if you practice 176+ even half the time, it's hard to count on it for test day.

Good luck:).

[lawduck]

Just keep in mind that it's awfully hard to keep yourself consistent beyond the mid-170s. Once you're at that level luck begins to play a role as big as, if not bigger than, skill. That's been my personal experience at least.

[Dead Ringer]

The real problem as I see it is the "luck" factor. There are some people who simply never score below a 176. However, though I hadn't scored below that in at least a week and a half prior to test day, I got a 173. For those of us who are completely locked into the 176+ groove, there is going to be some luck in hitting the high note on the real thing. I know for a fact that if one or two things had of gone my way I would have gotten a 176: there was no raw score for 174 on the last test so one point would have been good for the 175. I'll probably think about that until I get in to a school I want. Luck DOES matter unless you are nearly perfect, and even then it is generally said that some luck is needed to get the 180. The odds of a silly mistake or two are just pretty high even if you never really have trouble arriving at the credited response.

[Dead Ringer]

Oh, and natural genius is not necessary. However, by design, if you truly have mediocre intelligence (i take that to mean slightly above average) you will not be getting a 176+. This is not a mean thing to say. It is the goal of the test makers that this doesn't happen. I think on the level you need to be at least well above average to hit 170. I tutor and this has been my experience. You can spot the potential 170's before they even are able to get their scores up there. If anyone has any exceptions, such as empirical proof that they are truly around average yet they were able to post a 170, let me know. You need at least third party verification that you are indeed not the sharpest, such as a professor having said so.

[M51]

1. SAT is wayyyyyy more "coachable" than LSAT. i.e. Math section, it's possible to consistantly get 700+ without knowing anything beyond +-x/ (no algebra even). This isn't to say that the LSATs aren't coachable... but was that 1230 just going in cold? Did you study a lot? If that's your coached score, you'll have great trouble even coming close to 176. 176 = top .4 percentile (i think?) That's higher than a 1580 on the old SATs... and only a self-selected group take the LSATs. On top of that, sadly, logic games are more like math than you think.

2. Why a 176? I think 173 or 174 is the median for Yale acceptances... The higher the score gets, the more random variation will play a huge role. It's muchhhhhh harder to consistantly get a 176 than a 171, although it's only technically a 6-7 question differance. Statistically, out of every 25 people who get at least a 171, only 4 of them get a 176 or above. That's under 20%... and you're considered to have done VERY well on the LSATs if you can pull a 171.

3. Nothing's impossible. Exceptions make the rule. Aim for the stars. I'm sure if you ask around for long enough, someone w/ a 1200 SAT from a TTT school got a 176 on thier LSATs. But your fighting against heavy heavy heavy odds here. 99.99% of them didn't get there.

[AndrewD]

Considering well under 1% of people actually do it, pretty damn hard methinks.

[vasiok]

Knowing English helps.

The only things keeping me from consistent 177-180 is lack of concentration due to outside distractions and poor knowledge of english...

I usually get 1-2 LR mistakes just because I don't understand certain words... never used em before.

Hopefully I'll get into mid 170's on real thing if I get lucky. Most likely I'll be stuck in low 170's.


Intelligence is by far not the only factor to hit 175... as others have said, it's more about how the wind blows and which leg you get up from sleep...

But seriously... difference between 170 and 175 is like 4-6 questions... Not a lot of wiggle room for how different the scores are.

p.s.

You probably will not be seeing 176+

[Mark71121]

i'm probably of below average intelligence and managed to score 174, so you definitely don't need to be a rocket scientist for a 176.

[Mob Dylan]

Work hard and practice

[brokendowncar]

i'm probably of below average intelligence and managed to score 174, so you definitely don't need to be a rocket scientist for a 176.

I know the LSAT isn't designed to be an intelligence test, but it certainly tests some very core intellectual abilities. Your claim is that you scored better than 199 out of 200 people who took the test even though at least half of the people you beat were more intelligent than you. Does that really seem possible/plausible?

PS - Congrats on the 174.

[lawduck]

i'm probably of below average intelligence and managed to score 174, so you definitely don't need to be a rocket scientist for a 176.

I know the LSAT isn't designed to be an intelligence test, but it certainly tests some very core intellectual abilities. Your claim is that you scored better than 199 out of 200 people who took the test even though at least half of the people you beat were more intelligent than you. Does that really seem possible/plausible?

PS - Congrats on the 174.

He's just trying to get his score out there without sounding like a douche

[Mark71121]

no, i just have a knack for the types of things the LSAT tests. i'm also really good at things like chess and riddles, but i can't do math or science if my life depended on it. do you really think knowing how many ways 7 different colored clowns can enter 2 circus rings is reflective of intelligence?

maybe saying "below average" was a bit excessive, but there's no way i'm smarter than 99% of lsat takers. although i picked up the lsat very quickly, the test is definitely learnable, particularly LG.

my point to the OP is: don't demoralize yourself by pointing to a low SAT or low grades, or whatever. the LSAT is a different animal; you can learn it. identify the kinds of questions you're getting wrong and work on correcting the problem.

[tome]

no, i just have a knack for the types of things the LSAT tests. i'm also really good at things like chess and riddles, but i can't do math or science if my life depended on it. do you really think knowing how many ways 7 different colored clowns can enter 2 circus rings is reflective of intelligence?

maybe saying "below average" was a bit excessive, but there's no way i'm smarter than 99% of lsat takers. although i picked up the lsat very quickly, the test is definitely learnable, particularly LG.

my point to the OP is: don't demoralize yourself by pointing to a low SAT or low grades, or whatever. the LSAT is a different animal; you can learn it. identify the kinds of questions you're getting wrong and work on correcting the problem.

I can relate to this to some extent. I can't spell to save my life, math hurts, etc. But I am excellent at the sort of stuff the LSAT tests. I have also studied a lot of philosophy and logic. This helps more than any prep-course ever could.

At the end of the day, I have a very small area of ability, and the LSAT just happens to test these ability. Is that unfair? Not really, because I take it these are the abilities that help you succeed in law school and in the greater legal world (along with not being socially retarded; which might even be a hinderance in law school). At the end of the day, the LSAT is an aptitude test, and probably an appropriate one. So the question is not how intelligent are you, but how good are you at lawish-stuff?

[wraaaa]

I've been prepping in the 175 range for the past 2 weeks. I had a 1280 on the SAT the first time around, 1400 after some half assed studying. I've been a below average student my whole life. Bottom 5% in my high school, bottom 25% at a TTTT (top 120). Okay, I cut class almost every day in high school and it was the top school in the city, and I had a lot of other things going on during college. However, if you were to only look at my grades, you'd think I'm a moron. But I do decent on standardized tests, and luckily for me that counts for something.

The LSAT is not the SAT. Instead of worrying about whether it's possible to get a certain score, just go and study if law school is what you want. Don't worry about getting a 176+ just yet. I started off with a goal of 160, and have worked my way up slowly. I'll still be happy with anything above 170 on the real thing.

[Dead Ringer]

Neither wraa nor the other guy made a convincing case for being of even average intelligence (wraa wasn't trying very hard). The bare fact of the matter is that 170+ scores go to smart people. I have met a lot of 170 and a lot of non 170 people and the fact is you could tell them apart without knowing their scores. 170+ people are bright. I and others, whether they admit it or not, are extremely proud to be part of this group for a reason. Nor do I think your intelligence could be isolated to just the lsat. I too suck at math in the sense that I can't calculate. I have no trouble understanding the concepts. You can't say you are bad at math just because you didn't memorize the multiplication tables past ten. You CAN say you are "bad at math" because like me you stopped taking math classes in sophomore year of high school, but you may not have been and may still not be innately bad. The point is that intelligence is a relative concept and if you do well on the LSAT's you are intelligent in that relative to everyone else you are able to perform a good variety of cognitive functions better and/or faster.

[Ub3rSlack3r]

The problem with self-reported cases of lack of intelligence is that those who often say they are below-average is that they are often actually more intelligent than they say they are.

Socrates once said that he was wise for that he knew that he knew nothing.

If anything, I would think that the LSAT is a better indicator of intelligence than the SAT. (More people prep for the LSAT but the SAT has easier material, which makes it easier to do well on).
I know of a person or two who slacked off in high school, scored around a 1200 on the SAT, and got 170+ on the LSAT.
Were they stupid in high school and smart in college?
No. They didn't really care to prep for the SAT at all.

[TheJackson6]

I'm 99% sure you won't do it given that you haven't told us your prep test range. That's just stats right thar.

[1474292940502124]

Considering well under 1% of people actually do it, pretty damn hard methinks.

TCR.
Shouldn't discourage you, though.

[bendl]

This probably isn't super helpful in terms of prepping now... but maybe for your kids? I think the two most important factors for me in scoring a 176 were a lifetime of heavy, nerdy recreational reading and a philosophy major. I'm a clever dude, but no one would ever mistake me for a genius. It's a reading and reasoning test, and if you're already able to read quickly and absorb info, a high score is just a matter of getting familiar (developing an intuitive sense of what is right and wrong) with the logic portions.

[prelawyer078]

Oh, and natural genius is not necessary. However, by design, if you truly have mediocre intelligence (i take that to mean slightly above average) you will not be getting a 176+. This is not a mean thing to say. It is the goal of the test makers that this doesn't happen. I think on the level you need to be at least well above average to hit 170. I tutor and this has been my experience. You can spot the potential 170's before they even are able to get their scores up there.

It's not kosher to mention natural ability that much nowadays (because as long as you really believe in your dreams, you can do anything). But, unfortunately or not, it is a huge element. I used to teach and I could tell who's the smart kids and the dumb kids right away. If the smart kids did not succeed, it was obvious they weren't working at it. But they almost always beat the dumb hard-working kids, even if liked the latter more. Sad.

I think the two most important factors for me in scoring a 176 were a lifetime of heavy, nerdy recreational reading and a philosophy major. I'm a clever dude, but no one would ever mistake me for a genius.

But many people read a lot and major in philosophy. Of course you don't want to sport your natural ability, but if it's not that, or another reason you failed to mention, then it was chance, which would be hard to believe if this was about your practice average.