anonymiB wrote:cardinals03 wrote:bport hopeful wrote:I find it hard to believe that someone could accurately guage how they did on an LSAT after only 20 hours of studying.
I was wondering if the 20 hours included pt's or just studying. I spent 10-15 hours a week on just pt's, but some people might be different. I feel like all that practice allowed me to have a more accurate gauge of my abilities than I had before.
Yeah I am up in the air about it, but I did take a couple practice tests, the June 2007 one where I missed about 20, and another one from a book I bought, and honestly that was about it. It was probably more like 5 hours, I got a much higher score on the second practice test, and on both tests I scored perfect on the LG. So...I missed a lot on the reading comprehension on both, but I felt like I did really good on the RC on the real Dec LSAT because I spent extra time learning how I missed and what type of errors I made on the RC. I did read up on what types of questions were going to be on the LSAT in general, and spent some time looking at other info, so 5 hours of tests and probably 10 hours of looking up other stuff. On average I missed 5 on the LR and 7 on RC when I was finished, and perfect on the LG. I was expecting a high 160 score on the real thing, and thought I was beating that until I hit the terrible LG which I did not bother to prepare for since I was just putting them together in random diagrams on my own, just placing on letter I would assign to something in front of whatever needed to be, in fact I wasn't even using paper too much for many of the questions on the June 2007 LSAT, which is probably why it was a -8 curve, cause that test was really easy, especially the LG. I learned to do a couple diagrams and that was about it, so I shit when I saw the brutal LG on the real test, even the first set of questions on the water company etc threw me off, and I probably missed 2 or 3 from each section in the LG. Was really disappointed, but I flew through the other sections, almost knowing the types of questions and answers they were going to ask before they asked them for each question, so I maybe beat my old -5 and -7, but WOW LG ruined my life, seriously. If I did worse than I think on the other sections and miss 10 or something on the LG, I am going to be at a high 150, not a high 160.
I am a good test taker in general, I basically shot my way through college with a 3.0 gpa without ever studying so I thought I would do at least mediocre on the LSAT, and people I had talked to told me 150 would get me into law school, so I basically took the first test without any dedication or effort during the test on top of the fact. Second time I went in stoked. I hope it worked...
Why dont you take a couple years off and grow up a little. You could save yourself a lot of pain. You will not get into a good school with anything less than a 170.