For June 2010: How did you score compared to average PT's

[HiLine]

Now that most of those who took the June test have received their scores, please share with us your experience with PT's, i.e. how reliable they are as a predictor of your actual performance on the test. If you are satisfied with your score, congratulations! We would like to hear your story of success. If you are retaking, this poll will be tremendously helpful, so please share your bit.

[theavrock]

I scored just a tiny bit above my practice test average but well within my range.

I said this in another thread but I completely credit this to the method in which I took my PT's.

I took them under strict timed conditions, in public places to increase focus and with the things I would use on test day (watch, pencils snacks etc).

This isn't the key to mastering the LSAT, but IMO it is the key to being able to accurately gauge where you are scoring. I was pretty relaxed and assured that my score would be within my PT range and it was. Led to a much more relaxed waiting period.

[dawb]

Scored 7 points below my average, printed out and retook the same test today not under the pressure and performed well above my average, i really gotta work on the whole anxiety thing

[Anaconda]

Scored 7 points below my average, printed out and retook the same test today not under the pressure and performed well above my average, i really gotta work on the whole anxiety thing

That's disappointing, but at lest you now know what to expect and won't be thrown off next time.

[glucose101]

This isn't the key to mastering the LSAT, but IMO it is the key to being able to accurately gauge where you are scoring. I was pretty relaxed and assured that my score would be within my PT range and it was. Led to a much more relaxed waiting period.

+1

This is solid advice. It seems that many people froze under the pressure, esp during the June 2010 exam.

[ilovemulch]

My PT average was 171.5 and I got 171. I didn't take that many timed full length PTs (12 total, which is decent but not compared to some people who take all 59). I did do pretty much ALL of the testmaster's HW which included every single LSAT Q since 1991 (with the exception of the ones on full length diagnostics, so that they would be completely fresh to our eyes when we took them), so I did every single game published, almost all RC, and majority of LR questions. All my PTs were 5 sections, 30 seconds between sections and 15 min break btwn 2 and 3. I was definitely very strict. I'm very pleased with my result!

[dmerritt]

165...I am pretty disappointed. My experimental section was a dang Logic Games, and doing two of them burnt me out. 8 points low of my highest PT, on the low end of my average. But it was my first crack at the LSAT and all I did study-wise was six PT's, so I'm not sure how accurate my average PT was anyway. But it puts me at the very low end of the schools I'm looking at, and my GPA is a mediocre 3.62 and not expected to go any higher.

Retaking in fall.

[Anaconda]

Could we also include an initial diagnostic score to guide those taking/retaking in October?

[DaveBear07]

Cold Diagnostic was a 159.

After a month or two of prep/drilling I started taking 10 PT's and went something like 168, 168, 177, 169, 174, 170, 168, 173, 166.

On the real deal I got a 171. Most of those high PT scores were with -0 on LG's. On the real thing I went -3 on LG after mis-reading the intern rules. That would have put me more firmly in the middle of my scores. But still, it was all worth it to get the score that I got. Cheers.

[makingwaves]

2 points higher than my practice average (158 PT avg., 160 real deal)... Honestly, it was luck, but i'm not complaining!

[PlugInBaby]

[ilovemulch]

Could we also include an initial diagnostic score to guide those taking/retaking in October?

My cold diagnostic was 155..studied about 2 months (individual questions/games/passages - about 15 hours a week) before started taking full length tests. I did about 9 or 10 in the month before exam and studied on the days when not PT'ing for anywhere from 2-6 hours a day. I also recommend taking some proctored if you can (i took testmasters and they offered one proctored exam a week for 5 weeks before exam, but you may be able to take ones that Kaplan offers to walk-ins, not sure?).

There is also some online proctored test thing you can do (I'm pretty sure you have to pay for it) where a virtual proctor calls time etc. and there are other "students" in the classroom making noise and stuff, to simulate real test conditions. I'm sure if you google this, you should be able to find out.

My last 8 PT scores:
167, 172, 171, 173, 166, 171, 176, 169

Got 171 test day. PM me if you have any Q's or anything.

[thugnificent]

Anyone else feel like things seem to balance themselves out on this test? I usually ace the LG sections but bombed this one and still got my average PT score... and I was sort of banking on that which is why I didnt cancel. Maybe I just got lucky...

[angiej]

My first initial diagnostic was 143. My PT average was 149-153 and MIRACULOUSLY I scored 155 (I had NEVER scored that high before).

[CanadianWolf]

@angiej: Was your first diagnostic LSAT cold or did you do some prior preparation?

[angiej]

@angiej: Was your first diagnostic LSAT cold or did you do some prior preparation?

It was stone cold. I had never seen the lsat before. It was the June 2007 PT. But even after preping I did a few more 143 PT's which was obviously very frusturating. My best ever untimed PT was 158.

[sewwah]

I scored four points lower than my highest PT but right on my average score.

[Bildungsroman]

My actual score was two points above my PT average, but I only took 5 PTs total.

[Anaconda]

Bump.

[jdstl]

My mean and median and mode PT score was 174, lucked out with a 180 on the real thing.

That said, in terms of predicting your score I think the most important thing is not your average, but sectional trends. For instance, logic games always give me trouble, so my PT's were more like 177-179 if I finished LG and 170-172 if I didn't get to finish. With that kind of knowledge you can get some idea of where you scored after finishing the test. Since I finished LG on June 2010, I was fairly confident I got 175+ (at least in my non-neurotic moments), even though that was above my average.

I think the other aspect is understanding your own mental habits. For instance, I would notice my concentration drifting in PT's, leading to careless errors, where as I was zoned the fuck in on the real thing. Similarly, if you know you're someone who can get flustered under pressure, you might expect a little lower on the real thing. Whereas for some folks (like me, who put off 15 papers until the night before ), pressure can actually improve your performance.

My cold diag. (an online Princeton Review test, so take with a grain of salt) was 157, cursory stud of Games brought me to high 160's/low 170's, and drilled my way up from there. Highest PT was 179 (which I only made once in practice).

[Ronnie_Coleman]

Jdstl -- awesome score, congratulations on the 180!

I was getting between 167 and 173 on all my practice tests (I took over 25 of them, as well as Testmasters a year ago.) For some reason during the real thing nerves got the best of me, and I ended up with a 162. LGs was generall -2 or -1 on every PT I took, but was -9 on the real thing (unreal). Needless to say, I was very, very disappointed in my performance. I already took the test October '08 and cancelled, and will probably be retaking in October, but I'm worried that a cancel + 162 + ___ is going to be a tough sell for t14 schools. What do you guys think?

[justinmcl]

Scored 165, 1 below my average of 166. Had a range of 161-170, trending upwards.
Initial diagnostic was 146. Did self-study, 25 PT's

[HiLine]

Great input so far. Let's keep it up.

[Anaconda]

Don't want to be obnoxious, but I think this was a great thread, and some input from some more June testers wouldn't hurt.

[Precessional]

It's interesting how the respose is symmetrical about 0pts-- about equal number of overachievers and underachievers. Distribution also looks really bell-curve-ish.