Top Law Schools

.

Let's say I was pting at 175, and then scored 163 and 167. Should I retake? Is it even worth it?

Cpwilson wrote:Let's say I was pting at 175, and then scored 163 and 167. Should I retake? Is it even worth it?

Only you can answer whether or not you should retake. It's certainly worth it if you can hit your PT. Do you know why you scored lower? Do you feel that you can overcome that reason?

./

A lot of schools (including good schools) seem to take the highest score: http://www.top-law-schools.com/retaking-the-lsat.html. You'll notice LSAT gives you a "score band" in addition to your scaled score, that's +/- 3pts. If you think you'll score within that band upon retaking, the retake won't mean much...

you_were_driving wrote:

bartleby wrote:I was just thinking maybe everyone here thought this LSAT was so hard because we're all stupider. Most of the people who are applying this year probably already took it in Oct or June and did well.

Who is the eit / incompetia of December TLS?

its me, LR-RC-LR-LR-LG, LR2 was experimental because i say it was. problems with sunburns, stars, stairs, and windows make you an inadequate 150er.

If you are still trying to hold onto the shred of hope that I'm wrong, then i guess well see.

FIGHT ME.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

bartleby wrote:

you_were_driving wrote:

bartleby wrote:I was just thinking maybe everyone here thought this LSAT was so hard because we're all stupider. Most of the people who are applying this year probably already took it in Oct or June and did well.

Who is the eit / incompetia of December TLS?

its me, LR-RC-LR-LR-LG, LR2 was experimental because i say it was. problems with sunburns, stars, stairs, and windows make you an inadequate 150er.

If you are still trying to hold onto the shred of hope that I'm wrong, then i guess well see.

FIGHT ME.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

if that inference is too much for you then i suggest you stick with the GRE.

Apparently, you_were_driving is the eit / incompetia of December TLS...that is, the "best of the best"...

Anyone feel better about the test as time progresses? I'm slowly feeling more and more optimistic, which is perhaps unwarranted, but comforting nonetheless. I didn't even finish LG and RC (left 2 and 3 questions blank, respectively, and wasn't smart enough to bubble them). But I'm slowly feeling more confident... anybody else?

you_were_driving wrote:

bartleby wrote:

you_were_driving wrote:

bartleby wrote:I was just thinking maybe everyone here thought this LSAT was so hard because we're all stupider. Most of the people who are applying this year probably already took it in Oct or June and did well.

Who is the eit / incompetia of December TLS?

its me, LR-RC-LR-LR-LG, LR2 was experimental because i say it was. problems with sunburns, stars, stairs, and windows make you an inadequate 150er.

If you are still trying to hold onto the shred of hope that I'm wrong, then i guess well see.

FIGHT ME.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

if that inference is too much for you then i suggest you stick with the GRE.

Why am I seeing this as a conditional diagram? Edit - and I can't figure out the contrapositive. TTT.

ren2011 wrote:Apparently, you_were_driving is the eit / incompetia of December TLS...that is, the "best of the best"...

oh I'm sorry, apparently confidence is taboo? would you prefer that I cancel or file an LSAC complaint?

I know that the "im a special snowflake" train is busy, but does that mean that it's full?

I also am slowly starting to feel better about it. We shall see.

I thought it was a challenging test, so I'm glad I did as much prep as I did (over 200 hrs, every LG multiple times, 25 or so PTs under test conditions). I'm impressed with LSAC's ability to find new ways to make the test tricky.

LR: This was my most reliable section going into the test, and I had 3 of these. I felt pretty confident but there were a couple of questions where 2 answer seemed equally correct and I just couldn't find what I was missing to eliminate the bad one. Also, I usually finish with 5 minutes to spare and with one of the sections i came in just on time. However, that could be for the better. My reviews of troublesome questions seem to get me into more trouble most of the time, because I'm more likely to change TCR to an incorrect response than the other way around. I'm guessing -2/-3 cumulative for both of the sections.
RC: Nothing as difficult as the Noguchi passage, thank god, but these passages were SO BORING. The comparative passage was probably the most difficult for me, which is unusual. I finished this when time was being called, and on this section, i really would have liked some more time to compare my responses to the passage, but oh well... I'm guessing -3, but I find it more difficult to predict my performance on RC because I'm never quite as confident on the answer choices as I am with LG and LR.
LG: First let me say that I think not leaving ample space to diagram is a very cheap way of increasing the test's difficulty. That being said, 2 of the games were ridiculously easy, Conferences was of medium difficulty (mainly just time-consuming) and Stained Glass was tricky and very very weird. I can't think of any game quite like it, and I ended up eliminating choices and guessing on a few of the questions once I realized how much time the game was eating up. Also, as the proctor was giving the 5m warning, I was reading the rules for the last game. Luckily it was a piece of cake and was able to finish, confident in my answer choices I'm guessing -4

I think it was harder than 60 and 61, and about on par with 57 and 59. I don't think I scored quite as high as my PT average of 176 but it was a respectable showing.

Also: the paper used for the test sucks. I ripped drawing a diagram, which was distracting. Why is the paper of the test, which we pay so much to take, so much cheaper and crappier than that of the $8 PTs!?

you_were_driving wrote:

ren2011 wrote:Apparently, you_were_driving is the eit / incompetia of December TLS...that is, the "best of the best"...

oh I'm sorry, apparently confidence is taboo? would you prefer that I cancel or file an LSAC complaint?

I know that the "im a special snowflake" train is busy, but does that mean that it's full?

Um.

Confidence: "I felt good about this test."
"If you had problems with x/y/z you are 'inadequate' ".

On a related note, if you did well, then, yes I'd prefer you cancel...one less person to compete with while applying lol.

you_were_driving wrote:

ren2011 wrote:Apparently, you_were_driving is the eit / incompetia of December TLS...that is, the "best of the best"...

oh I'm sorry, apparently confidence is taboo? would you prefer that I cancel or file an LSAC complaint?

I know that the "im a special snowflake" train is busy, but does that mean that it's full?

hahahahahahahahahahahaha! indeed this is how "confident" people speak

Did anyone else have LR(26)-RC(27)-LR(26)-LR(26)-LG(23)?


I know those who had a LR(25) have discovered it to be the experimental. Any word on which one was experimental in this case with all LR having 26 questions.

OAN: Phuck the LSAC.

you_were_driving wrote:

ren2011 wrote:Apparently, you_were_driving is the eit / incompetia of December TLS...that is, the "best of the best"...

oh I'm sorry, apparently confidence is taboo? would you prefer that I cancel or file an LSAC complaint?

I know that the "im a special snowflake" train is busy, but does that mean that it's full?

It's never full. It's an infinite train, that's why it never moves.

did anyone actually finish the game section with confidence?

I thought conferences was harder than glass, I just had zero time to properly do either of them. I guess I lost track of time trying to find space in the first one and psyched myself out. did the 4th one fast and by the time I got back to 2 and 3 I barely had any time to finish them up. Guessed at least 6. not good.

Yea I read a rule wrong and had to redo the stain glass one I completely guessed on the third

ThreeYears wrote:

gmenfan wrote:

alicen wrote:
i know, but i have always PTed around 175 (ridiculous issue on the real thing in oct)...is it unrealistic to hope for a 171 even?

We're in VERY similar boats--170 in Oct and retake today with one craptacular LG section. Part of my feels like I did well enough on RC and LRs to make up for it, but another part would rather have a 170 and a cancel . I think I'm going to take a few days to think over it.

Exact same situation, exact same thoughts. I think I did phenomenally good on the rest of test, feeling like a -0/-0/-0/-6. Only hope it will turn out to be true.

ditto's. 170 on the june '10, but i retook hoping for at least a 175 to have a shot at georgetown.

really, i don't think i missed many questions at all on the two LRs, and I was especially confident after the RC section.

The breakdown for the LG was 6 - 7 - 5 - 5, and I'm like 98% sure I got the first 13 correct (first section was cake and just plugged and chugged all the way to finish stained glass... like people have said, it wasn't HARD, it was just time consuming).

however, the third set of questions (conferences) really tripped me up. definitely guessed on the last two before switching to the last section with time running out, where i only had time to get the first 3 correct with certainty. all in all, i blindly guessed C for the last 2 questions in each of the last two sections. if even one of those hits, i'll be ecstatic.

so, best case scenario is -3 if i pull the miracle on the LG and somehow didn't miss any on the rest of the test. worst case scenario would probably be like -8 or 9 overall. which, on a 102 question test with such a brutal LG, might still be near a 175.

but yeah. Conferences was WAY harder than stained glass. stained glass was easy.. just really time consuming. which makes it the same as being hard, i guess.

Rikkugrrl wrote:The hardest part of the LG was not having room to write on the two long games that were right next to each other. I couldn't just scribble on the next page, so after trying to write really tiny and failing, I finally just gave up and wrote my setups on the third page, which made me miss some stuff. Probably canceling.

They gave you not one but TWO no-spacers?

LSAC's really cheating, trying to inflate the difficulty of the test. What's next? You're not allowed to use your dominant hand when taking the test?

The only section of the test that I know I struggled with was the conference game. I just didn't know how to effectively diagram it. I didn't pick up any key inferences, unlike the stained glass window game; that one had a big inference that was pretty easy to find. Still, those questions were time-consuming. Ditto with the first game.

I actually glanced at the conference game and then moved on to the fourth game b/c it looked much easier. Looking back, that was the best decision I've ever made on an LSAT. I had never done that before and it helped me immensely since I can look back and feel confident about 3/4 games.

I thought LR's and RC were easier than October, no real surprises, but who the hell knows?

Eyetalian wrote:I actually glanced at the conference game and then moved on to the fourth game b/c it looked much easier. Looking back, that was the best decision I've ever made on an LSAT. I had never done that before and it helped me immensely since I can look back and feel confident about 3/4 games.

Yeah, that was a genius move for sure. If I could go back in time I definitely would have done that.

I thought LR's and RC were easier than October, no real surprises, but who the hell knows?

This is the only thing that really worries me. On PTs I've had some LR sections where I thought I did really well, but ended up missing like 3. I really don't think I bombed any section, but who the hell knows, right?

Who else in this thread is waiting for these scores to be in to send in applications?

Question - Paper Concrete or paperete or whatever. Real or EXP? That question kicked my butt.