Where did you score compared to your PT average? Forum

[JCougar]

Not just for the December test, but for anyone who took the September version as well.

[Jockin Jay-Z]

I scored equal or higher on half on my PTs than I did in September. I scored equal or higher on about 20% of my PTs than I did in December.

[Sourpunch]

PT average= 173..

Actual= 169.

Dissapointing but the score is solid so I'm satisfied and just want to move on with life. USC or UCLA acceptance would be my dream come true.

[cdnguy]

week of: 161, 163, 166

actual: 164

[Moxie]

Was testing 171-174, but got a 168 and 160 the week before the test itself.

Ended up with a 168

[MBZags]

Within 2 points of my average. I scored as low as 165 and as high as 172, but I mostly stayed around 166-168. I got a 167 on the test.

[lakerfanimal]

Average was 173. Scored 172.

[scribelaw]

My PT range was 167-175, but I was 170+ from August on.

I got a 164 in September and a 173 in December.

[dinerroll]

I've scored between 164 and 178, but my average was around 171-173... I ended up scoring 172 in Dec. (which was the only time I'd taken the LSAT)... however looking at the score report, of the two possible experimental sections, the one I knew I did worse on was the one that ended up being scored... so who knows.

[Fenguin]

I scored almost exactly my average, though after the real test I felt I had completely bombed logic games.

[GoBroncos22!]

My 158 score was 2 points higher than my average PT. So I cant say I am pissed off, but slowly coming to accept the fact that I will be retaking if I want a better school

[Giller]

PT average: 173
Score: 174

[februaryftw]

Small quibble, but I'd be interested to see how many of those not scoring within 2 points are scoring within 3 points of their average. I'm also curious how rigorous people are with their PT average (my guess: not very). If LSAC's reporting protocol is to be believed, the scores are only reliable within +-3 points.

[becauseimaddicted]

My average is about 168 (feburaryftw, I wouldn't say I was particularly scientific with my averages. Frankly, I'm guessing. I scored between 161-174 during prep, but higher towards the end, more like 164-174).

Scored 161 in September (nerves) and 160 in December (not enough nerves). Applications are all in, but I'm retaking in February and hoping for 165 for schools I'm on the bubble.

[whuts4lunch]

missvoted... meant to click 3-5 lower not 3-5 higher.

[jks289]

June PT Average 166 (164-168)
June score 163

September PT average 175 (172-179)
September score 168

[jk11287]

This is the most frustrating subject in the world for me. I can literally speed-read, and I'm usually an excellent test taker. I hate the LSAT so much.

PT range: 168-177
PT average: 174
Sept: 169

[thickfreakness]

Average: 172 (on unused tests)
Actual: 171

[j2d3]

This poll has a missing option:

"I DON'T FKING KNOW BECAUSE LSAC DID NOT TELL ME MY SCORE YET."

[IHaveDietMoxie]

This poll has a missing option:

"I DON'T FKING KNOW BECAUSE LSAC DID NOT TELL ME MY SCORE YET."

that seriously sucks, I'm sorry

[stratocophic]

...

[j2d3]

This poll has a missing option:

"I DON'T FKING KNOW BECAUSE LSAC DID NOT TELL ME MY SCORE YET."

that seriously sucks, I'm sorry

Well, I guess I have six more days of living in a fantasy land where the LSAC is investigating my score because it's a perfect 180 (-0).

Unfortunately, said fantasy land frequently alternates with nightmare land in which a proctor spilled his coffee on my answer sheet, rendering it unreadable by the machines. They say they've been able to read my raw score accurately for the most part, but that there's a six point margin of error due to two areas of my answer sheet that were badly damaged by the coffee spill and the machine's subsequent failed scanning attempt. Six answers were just irretrievably illegible. However, they then go on to say I need not worry, they can actually still calculate my score, "retro-predictively." LSAC's R&D computer scientists regularly employ statistical models to correlate scores with answer patterns as well as the patterns formed by other quantifiable features of the test. This new retro-predictive technology is literally designed for this kind of situation, and the LSAC's researchers are able to do dynamic predictoforensic statistical analysis on my readable responses with respect to the other test takers' response patterns from the test. Using this new system, which incidentally runs on a distributed computation platform much like that which was described in the comparative RC passage, each one of my unreadable responses was predicted to have been incorrect. Realizing, however, that the coffee spill was not my fault and that this huge mishaps was truly a great inconvenience, they are going to give me one point and a 152 instead of the 151 I had most likely earned. They said I shouldn't worry because they would be a mark next to my 152 score indicating that there was a problem with the scoring. Then, they warmly invited me to take the LSAT again on any given Saturday morning, my choice, with 5% off the usual registration fees! It would still have to be at 8:30am and unfortunately could only be done in Sacramento, but it could be on any Saturday I wanted, just so long as it's the Saturday after the second Sunday in a given month, and that month's name does not end in Y. As well, the offer is not available in any month until after the moon has been either completely full or completely new with respect to the calendar date and moon phase as observed in Newtown, PA‎.

The rest of the time I imagine the reality of the situation is somewhere in between these extremes. In any case, this is all very bad for my mental health.

[JCougar]

Looks like a slight skew towards scoring a few points lower than your PT average, but nothing more than that.

To all you people who score better than your PT average, I don't know how you can focus more on test day. Kudos, because apparently I can't even beat my worst PT score. If I could just do that, I'd be pretty ecstatic. Maybe if I retake in February, my anxiety about taking a timed test will abate and let me think clearly.

[kazu]

This poll has a missing option:

"I DON'T FKING KNOW BECAUSE LSAC DID NOT TELL ME MY SCORE YET."

that seriously sucks, I'm sorry

Well, I guess I have six more days of living in a fantasy land where the LSAC is investigating my score because it's a perfect 180 (-0).

Unfortunately, said fantasy land frequently alternates with nightmare land in which a proctor spilled his coffee on my answer sheet, rendering it unreadable by the machines. They say they've been able to read my raw score accurately for the most part, but that there's a six point margin of error due to two areas of my answer sheet that were badly damaged by the coffee spill and the machine's subsequent failed scanning attempt. Six answers were just irretrievably illegible. However, they then go on to say I need not worry, they can actually still calculate my score, "retro-predictively." LSAC's R&D computer scientists regularly employ statistical models to correlate scores with answer patterns as well as the patterns formed by other quantifiable features of the test. This new retro-predictive technology is literally designed for this kind of situation, and the LSAC's researchers are able to do dynamic predictoforensic statistical analysis on my readable responses with respect to the other test takers' response patterns from the test. Using this new system, which incidentally runs on a distributed computation platform much like that which was described in the comparative RC passage, each one of my unreadable responses was predicted to have been incorrect. Realizing, however, that the coffee spill was not my fault and that this huge mishaps was truly a great inconvenience, they are going to give me one point and a 152 instead of the 151 I had most likely earned. They said I shouldn't worry because they would be a mark next to my 152 score indicating that there was a problem with the scoring. Then, they warmly invited me to take the LSAT again on any given Saturday morning, my choice, with 5% off the usual registration fees! It would still have to be at 8:30am and unfortunately could only be done in Sacramento, but it could be on any Saturday I wanted, just so long as it's the Saturday after the second Sunday in a given month, and that month's name does not end in Y. As well, the offer is not available in any month until after the moon has been either completely full or completely new with respect to the calendar date and moon phase as observed in Newtown, PA‎.

The rest of the time I imagine the reality of the situation is somewhere in between these extremes. In any case, this is all very bad for my mental health.

.... I'm so sorry, you're living through one of my worst nightmares .... good luck!!

[sibley]

PT average = 165 (pretty close to exact... I kept a list.)

September = 158
December=170