Can't break 170 on LSAT. Help? Forum

[Monte.Cristo]

I go to HYP. I'm sorry for sounding so toolish with the title of this post. The disappointment got the better of me. Apologies to all.

Ugh....no need to feel sorry.

I think people immediately made several unwarranted assumptions about you based on the title, coupled with the fact that some may not have done as well on yesterday's LSAT, etc, that they were unduly harsh.

I think you do make a valid point. I don't attend an Ivy, and the average SAT score to get into my school was between 2000~2100. But I've seen several people around me who got 174+ and the common denominator was that they all majored in majors that either required lots and lots of difficult reading (Philosophy, History) or lots of logical/critical thinking (engineering/math).

Again, I don't know how they did on the SAT, but I assume not higher than 2100 (otherwise, they would have gone to a higher-ranked school). So I think what you've done for the past 3 or 4 years in college really matters in addition to your natural talent.

So what was your major? Did you spend most of your weekends during the past 3 years holed up in your room trying to digest Kant, Hegel, etc? Or devour a 400-page history text?

[SublimeStyle]

The problem is really not the LSAT anymore, at least for me. It's more of an existential crisis--realizing that you're "mediocre."

So sad that a standardized test is defining your mediocrity. Also, isn't the massive grade inflation at Ivies and such schools pretty well known and accepted?

Depends on the Ivy and major. I got my undergrad at Cornell Engineering, and my gpa is a shitty 2.7. However the average GPA for our major is around a 3.0, so i'm fairly positive that if there is massive grade inflation then we got totally screwed. On the other hand, I know people in other majors like ILR or Natural Resources (LOL what?) that have 4.0s and are borderline retarded. One of my roomate's senior practice finals in natural resources asked how to calculate the circumference of the earth given it's diameter, and he asked me for help.

[adc18]

It really depends on the major. It's SO unfair to make a comment about all Ivies when you have NO CLUE what happens at specific schools.

I went to Penn.
College of Arts and Sciences: mostly HEAVILY grade inflated, but still dependent on major. No real curves at all.
Nursing: wouldn't call it grade inflated, but it's not exactly easy, either. Lot of work, but mostly good grades.
Wharton: Not grade inflated. Look up the standard Wharton curve. You're looking at around a 25%/35% A/B split or a 20/40 in drastic cases. 30/30 is pretty lucky and occurs sometimes. 25/35 is standard in core classes and that or a similar curve applies to every Wharton class.
Engineering: average GPA was like 3.0 at best in engineering. No way does engineering grade inflate, although Penn's engineering seems to always be shat on.

[ali_vigh]

wow internet people...you are so low in self confidence...i mean that desperate? really?

[hotchkiss1]

don't flaunt your ivy, I mean GWB went to Yale. flaunt your LSAT scores if you can.

[soj]

The problem is really not the LSAT anymore, at least for me. It's more of an existential crisis--realizing that you're "mediocre."

So sad that a standardized test is defining your mediocrity. Also, isn't the massive grade inflation at Ivies and such schools pretty well known and accepted?

Sweeping generalization.

yea, i don't understand the hate on ivies-oh wait jealousy. frankly, most undergrads suffer from massive grade inflation. you can look it up and find that ivies generally have the highest LSAT scores. Also, honestly, we do have smarter people lol. I'm sure he would have had a 4.0 in a lot of the schools these haters went to or probably even higher.

I have no reason to be jealous since I went to an Ivy. I audited some classes at a state school and have many friends at state schools as well as ivies. Most ivies inflate egregiously and I have a hard time believing ivy league students would have gotten higher GPAs had they gone to other schools.

[emkay625]

I think it's very, very silly to equate GPA/quality of school with LSAT score. The LSAT does not test how smart you are. I have a 173 but would NOT consider myself to be in the 99th percentile of all people based upon general intelligence. The LSAT tests 1. your ability to reason logically and 2. your ability to read dense material. This is not the same as overall intelligence. That's like 2 out of probably 6/7 skills that would make up overall intelligence.

I also think it is BALLS to equate school with intelligence. I got into 2 ivy's but did not go because my state flagship school combined with a local endowment offered me a full-ride. My family didn't have the money to pay 160,000 for me to go to either of my dream schools and taking out 160,000 in loans seemed stupid and silly. Yes, you might find MORE smart people at ivy's but that does not mean that any given person who goes to an ivy is going to be smarter than someone who went to a non-ivy......if you can't find the flaw in that argument this would perhaps explain poor LSAT performance.

[hotchkiss1]

I think it's very, very silly to equate GPA/quality of school with LSAT score. The LSAT does not test how smart you are. I have a 173 but would NOT consider myself to be in the 99th percentile of all people based upon general intelligence. The LSAT tests 1. your ability to reason logically and 2. your ability to read dense material. This is not the same as overall intelligence. That's like 2 out of probably 6/7 skills that would make up overall intelligence.

I also think it is BALLS to equate school with intelligence. I got into 2 ivy's but did not go because my state flagship school combined with a local endowment offered me a full-ride. My family didn't have the money to pay 160,000 for me to go to either of my dream schools and taking out 160,000 in loans seemed stupid and silly. Yes, you might find MORE smart people at ivy's but that does not mean that any given person who goes to an ivy is going to be smarter than someone who went to a non-ivy......if you can't find the flaw in that argument this would perhaps explain poor LSAT performance.

I take that you have an optimistic outlook, that's something good to have. It is very compatitable with your username.

[ColumbiaChamp]

I think it's very, very silly to equate GPA/quality of school with LSAT score. The LSAT does not test how smart you are. I have a 173 but would NOT consider myself to be in the 99th percentile of all people based upon general intelligence. The LSAT tests 1. your ability to reason logically and 2. your ability to read dense material. This is not the same as overall intelligence. That's like 2 out of probably 6/7 skills that would make up overall intelligence.

I also think it is BALLS to equate school with intelligence. I got into 2 ivy's but did not go because my state flagship school combined with a local endowment offered me a full-ride. My family didn't have the money to pay 160,000 for me to go to either of my dream schools and taking out 160,000 in loans seemed stupid and silly. Yes, you might find MORE smart people at ivy's but that does not mean that any given person who goes to an ivy is going to be smarter than someone who went to a non-ivy......if you can't find the flaw in that argument this would perhaps explain poor LSAT performance.

Y U SEWW WISE? you probably are in 99th percentile of people in the world<3

[emkay625]

I think it's very, very silly to equate GPA/quality of school with LSAT score. The LSAT does not test how smart you are. I have a 173 but would NOT consider myself to be in the 99th percentile of all people based upon general intelligence. The LSAT tests 1. your ability to reason logically and 2. your ability to read dense material. This is not the same as overall intelligence. That's like 2 out of probably 6/7 skills that would make up overall intelligence.

I also think it is BALLS to equate school with intelligence. I got into 2 ivy's but did not go because my state flagship school combined with a local endowment offered me a full-ride. My family didn't have the money to pay 160,000 for me to go to either of my dream schools and taking out 160,000 in loans seemed stupid and silly. Yes, you might find MORE smart people at ivy's but that does not mean that any given person who goes to an ivy is going to be smarter than someone who went to a non-ivy......if you can't find the flaw in that argument this would perhaps explain poor LSAT performance.

For the record, this is not really directed at OP. Moreso directed at other ridiculous people ITT.

[emkay625]

I think it's very, very silly to equate GPA/quality of school with LSAT score. The LSAT does not test how smart you are. I have a 173 but would NOT consider myself to be in the 99th percentile of all people based upon general intelligence. The LSAT tests 1. your ability to reason logically and 2. your ability to read dense material. This is not the same as overall intelligence. That's like 2 out of probably 6/7 skills that would make up overall intelligence.

I also think it is BALLS to equate school with intelligence. I got into 2 ivy's but did not go because my state flagship school combined with a local endowment offered me a full-ride. My family didn't have the money to pay 160,000 for me to go to either of my dream schools and taking out 160,000 in loans seemed stupid and silly. Yes, you might find MORE smart people at ivy's but that does not mean that any given person who goes to an ivy is going to be smarter than someone who went to a non-ivy......if you can't find the flaw in that argument this would perhaps explain poor LSAT performance.

I take that you have an optimistic outlook, that's something good to have. It is very compatitable with your username.

......i see what you did there.

: )

[emkay625]

I think it's very, very silly to equate GPA/quality of school with LSAT score. The LSAT does not test how smart you are. I have a 173 but would NOT consider myself to be in the 99th percentile of all people based upon general intelligence. The LSAT tests 1. your ability to reason logically and 2. your ability to read dense material. This is not the same as overall intelligence. That's like 2 out of probably 6/7 skills that would make up overall intelligence.

I also think it is BALLS to equate school with intelligence. I got into 2 ivy's but did not go because my state flagship school combined with a local endowment offered me a full-ride. My family didn't have the money to pay 160,000 for me to go to either of my dream schools and taking out 160,000 in loans seemed stupid and silly. Yes, you might find MORE smart people at ivy's but that does not mean that any given person who goes to an ivy is going to be smarter than someone who went to a non-ivy......if you can't find the flaw in that argument this would perhaps explain poor LSAT performance.

Y U SEWW WISE? you probably are in 99th percentile of people in the world<3

You know i love you Columbia.

[89vision]

I feel for you. My SAT score was 96-98th percentile, my IQ is in the 98th percentile (proctored exam during grade school), and I couldn't hit 170 after 3 months of studying. It's frustrating, but I could have put more time into studying. Maybe because I have a short attention span. Figures I got an RX for ADD meds today. It could have helped a month ago. Oh well. Good luck.

[foxylaxy]

My low LSAT was 164
My high LSAT was 171.
My lowest practice test was 165 and highest practice test was 175.
I've always excelled at standardized tests, but this was the first time I actually studied for one.
(So no, I didn't score over 173, but my practice tests from that LSAT prep time averaged 173-174).

1. Figure out which sections are weaknesses and strengths
You should practice sections that are weaknesses more than those that are strengths.

For myself, I scheduled something like this:
LSAT practice test every other Saturday, then score the test and practice every other day or so the next test.

2. Figure out what KIND of questions in each section are problematic:
For LG, did I have a hard time with "circle" games?
For LR, did I have a hard time with "assumption" questions?
For RC, did I have a hard time with "method of argument" questions? Or else, did I have difficulty with hard science sections?

3. What were your errors in reasoning?
Do you choose an answer that is an incorrect inference?
Do you make an incorrect assumption?
Do you switch clauses in arguments?

4. Practice the problematic question types and focus on your previous errors.
After figuring out what were my weaknesses, I would use on of my Actual, Real LSAT books (where I had already predetermined the question types) to focus on those questions. By looking at my previous errors and forcing myself to see the errors in a new set, I trained myself to recognize what was not a correct answer. If it was not improving, I'd go back to reading the introductory parts of the Powerscore books and go over the practice sections there.

I'd repeat this cycle, which took about 20 weeks since I used an Actual, Real LSAT book for my tests.

Additional tips:
1. Read
I would search science, humanities etc. type articles from lexis or else at the library and make copies. I'd practice marking them up as I would on the test. Then I'd look for subsections in the text that looked like they had "arguments" and tried to glean the Method of Argument, the Assumption, the Inference etc. from it. I tried to read more to increase my speed. I also would choose the heavier material so I could practice understanding the logic behind the piece as if it was part of the RC.

2. Relax
By my last few practice LSATs, I plateaued. I started freaking out about it and chose to stop my prep in order to more relaxed for the test. This ultimately helped me as on my second LSAT, I freaked out on my first section (LG) because it is my best section and I could not finish it. I learned to hold it all in and make it through the test, and luckily, it was the experimental section. It did affect me, but not as much as it would have if I didn't learn how to relax and move on.

3. Eat and Sleep
I am not a morning person. I realized that I made a huge mistake taking my first LSAT at 8am, coming out of undergrad with classes all in the PM. My first section had more incorrect answers than the rest of my test COMBINED. I needed the extra sleep to wake my brain up. You also want to be comfortable, so bring layers, water and snacks if you're hungry.

4. Logic
I scored a perfect LG in both of my LSATs. Maybe this is because I took logic classes in college.
I learned how to symbolize logical clauses and what logic rules were. Doing this, I was able to easily determine what "hidden" rules there were in the game. Sometimes, these hidden rules would be the answer to another question. Other times, they would lead me to a new inference about the game.

5. Determining your strengths and weaknesses on the test and answer them that way
Doing this in high school helped me get through standardized tests. By quickly skimming questions, I answered them easiest to hardest so I would have time to answer the difficult ones at the end. I used this for both LR and RC. Every two pages for LR, I'd write an abbreviation for the question type "a" for assumption "f" for flaw etc. Then I'd answer easiest for me to hardest. I also would do the RC questions that way-answer the "main point" questions first.

6. Keeping track of time
I practiced so many sections and tests that I knew approximately how many questions should be done after 5 minutes or 7 etc. I would use that to determine if I needed to skip a question. During prep, I also timed my question types and determined which ones took more time and practiced those more as well to bring myself up to speed.

I also read advice from a different forum. Someone had become an LSAT tutor and he/she stated that it helped him/her really get to know the material-as it needs to be taught. It also provides you with an insane amount of actual test material to use. Also, he/she did two LSATs in a row, which prepped him to get through the test without mental fatigue.

[roranoa]

Your 4.0 is completely irrelevant, as is your prior university. Despite your "prestigious" background, you aren't entitled to a 99th percentile score on the LSAT. Moreover, you won't be entitled to a high class ranking in law school. And a 167 is not a poor score.

Actually, speaking in terms of general intelligence, amount of background knowledge, level of academic training, OP's GPA and undergrad is very relevant to his LSAT potential. Plus, he's not saying that he's "entitled" to anything so telling him that he is not entitled to a 99th % score is irrelevant here.

You have to understand his/her question. OP's basically saying that he/she never had trouble doing well academically up until this point.

[BiglawOrBust]

Advice to the OP:

Obtain a few live hornets and release them in the room while you're taking PTs -- if you can concentrate under those conditions, you will concentrate like a phenom on test day.

Also, every morning, take a sheet of loose-leaf paper, write LSAT in big letters on it, and eat the entire page. Do this for, say, a month preceding the test. This will develop the mindset that you are going to eat up and shit out the LSAT.

[fumagalli]

Advice to the OP:

Obtain a few live hornets and release them in the room while you're taking PTs -- if you can concentrate under those conditions, you will concentrate like a phenom on test day.

Also, every morning, take a sheet of loose-leaf paper, write LSAT in big letters on it, and eat the entire page. Do this for, say, a month preceding the test. This will develop the mindset that you are going to eat up and shit out the LSAT.

Are you trying to be funny?

[willwash]

When people talk about new SAT scores I get lost. I got a 1320 on the SAT

[rinkrat19]

When people talk about new SAT scores I get lost. I got a 1320 on the SAT

I think the new one is 3 800-point sections instead of 2.

You got into an Ivy with 1320? Isn't that kind of low? I had a 1400 and was told Ivies were a reach. (Paying for them would have also been a huge reach, so I went to a state school with a scholarship.)

[BiglawOrBust]

Advice to the OP:

Obtain a few live hornets and release them in the room while you're taking PTs -- if you can concentrate under those conditions, you will concentrate like a phenom on test day.

Also, every morning, take a sheet of loose-leaf paper, write LSAT in big letters on it, and eat the entire page. Do this for, say, a month preceding the test. This will develop the mindset that you are going to eat up and shit out the LSAT.

Are you trying to be funny?

Not at all.

[spinsrap]

When people talk about new SAT scores I get lost. I got a 1320 on the SAT

I think the new one is 3 800-point sections instead of 2.

You got into an Ivy with 1320? Isn't that kind of low? I had a 1400 and was told Ivies were a reach. (Paying for them would have also been a huge reach, so I went to a state school with a scholarship.)

Unlike with law school, undergraduate extracurriculars are huge. There was a guy at my high school who had a 1600 (on the old one), was on some national physics team, and was doing paid Protein Research at a school nearby. Rejected at two out of three of HYP. On the other hand, there are a serious amount of exceptions (within reason) that are allowed for sports like basketball and football, and for legacies.

Having taken a number of classes at three undergraduate programs, there really isn't a huge difference in the quality of the student. There's always some over their heads, and some insanely, ridiculously smart people. But to say that there's no difference in the percentages of those two categories just isn't true. At least in my experience.

Further, what people are forgetting here (and yes, I know, it doesn't factor into USNWR so law schools "don't care") is that there is a massive difference in instructor quality, class size, and some other relevant factors at the really top schools. I have a few friends that are professors (yes, they make me feel like I've done nothing with myself) at certain top state schools and a significant factor is going somewhere they don't have to teach. If you take a look at a top school where the teachers are expected to teach undergrad, you'll see a serious difference in the quality of education (again, not necessarily the students).

OP: Don't apologize! Every sticky on this board encourages people to share their full stats and people yell at you to come back and post with more information. If you've been fortunate enough to have gone to a good school, they then proceed to mock you for arrogance. How dare you have gotten into and accepted life at a strong school.

I was doing the same thing for a while with the LSAT. I teach it, so I was at the point where I could get every question right but also was making unnecessary deductions in the games, nearly memorizing the reading passages, and articulating nearly every flaw in every argument possible. Put a timer on and things can go haywire, sometimes especially if you have a very logical thought process and have a hard time turning off further possible deductions when presented with data. I got over it by putting away the LSAT and reading everything. Take a practice test every week or so, timed, but focus on chilling out and not forcing it. When I stopped respecting the test and seeing it as something tricky or tough was when I consistently broke into the >175 range. This is never advice that I'd give to someone who wasn't scoring well or didn't fully grasp the logic of the test, but if you're stuck just at 170 and understanding what's going on in the test isn't the problem, this might help. PM me if you don't want to incur the wrath of some venomous posters on here. (I'm sure I've got some coming now...)

Good luck!

[Skunky Bumps]

The butthurt jealousy in this thread is hilarious. OP provides relevant information to show he/she isn't stupid, which is proceeded by everyone declaring OP stupid.

[Grizz]

The butthurt jealousy in this thread is hilarious. OP provides relevant information to show he/she isn't stupid, which is proceeded by everyone declaring OP stupid.

Butthurt? I don't give a fuck about Cornell.

[smokeylarue]

For what it's worth, you probably can get into Gtown and Cornell with these numbers. UVA ED as well maybe. So T14 is well within your reach already.

[7ED]

Take all the preptests, A,B,C, 1-64 + June 2007. Use 1-20 for experimental sections (yes, u can get 1-6+8+17). Take the rest under test taking conditions but under THIRTY MINUTE timings. Be very strict with yourself on that, moment 30 minutes are up, move on to the next section.

Reason for that is its impossible to simulate an actual test situation no matter how exact you are. The 5 minute penalty makes up for nerves issues, unexpected circumstances, etc., that come up during the exam. I have a sneaking suspicion that you definitely have anxiety problems in high pressure situations.

Also, ignore the people who toss insults ur way for ur pedigree.

The quality of the LSAT mark is a function of whether it meets your expectations. If you know that you can do better than a 167, I don't see why you should consider 167 a decent mark. You can do better.

Good luck. If you have any specific questions, PM me.