151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions Forum
- Vaulter
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:43 pm
151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions
Long time member. First time poster. Ask away.
- CardozoLaw09
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:58 pm
Re: 151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions
Was your first score an underperformance?
-
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:47 pm
Re: 151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions
In what time frame? Explanation for the improvement? What contributed the most to the improvement?
- Vaulter
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:43 pm
Re: 151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions
I had taken Kaplan classes. I did the best I could do at that time.
- superpippo
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:25 am
Re: 151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions
I'm a former Kaplan class taker who is thinking about retaking. Scored 164 and I want a 170+. How big of a factor was switching test prep companies/methods in your improvement?Vaulter wrote:I had taken Kaplan classes. I did the best I could do at that time.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Vaulter
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:43 pm
Re: 151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions
Time frame: I took the first one in 2003. I actually took one in between the two in February 2009 and got a 155. The last one I took was December 2010.Bobnoxious wrote:In what time frame? Explanation for the improvement? What contributed the most to the improvement?
Explanation for the improvement: Pithypike's guide
What contributed the most to the improvement: doing 10 logic games almost everyday for 4 months
- Vaulter
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:43 pm
Re: 151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions
I think it's whatever you identify best with.superpippo wrote:I'm a former Kaplan class taker who is thinking about retaking. Scored 164 and I want a 170+. How big of a factor was switching test prep companies/methods in your improvement?Vaulter wrote:I had taken Kaplan classes. I did the best I could do at that time.
- 052220151
- Posts: 2418
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:58 am
Re: 151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions
Why is your tar 180 if you only got 167?
- Vaulter
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:43 pm
Re: 151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions
It's just for the idea of getting a 180.
-
- Posts: 908
- Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 9:59 pm
Re: 151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions
here is my question. Why does your avatar say 180 when you got a 167?Vaulter wrote:Long time member. First time poster. Ask away.
EDIT: oh lol someone already asked that
- mindarmed
- Posts: 957
- Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 2:16 pm
Re: 151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions
Why did you make a taking questions thread? Is 167 supposed to be impressive?
- ManoftheHour
- Posts: 3486
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm
Re: 151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions
I think from a 151, it's impressive. I know people that scored in that range and never even got above a 160. Keep in mind that his/her 151 is on an actual exam, not one taken at Kaplan and whatnot. Of course, its impressiveness depends on how much OP actually studied prior to his/her 151 or not (Just because you take a class, doesn't mean you've prepped). Having taken two LSATs, I know there are people out there that take the exam completely cold and talk about hoping to get into Chapman.armedwithamind wrote:Why did you make a taking questions thread? Is 167 supposed to be impressive?
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Ruxin1
- Posts: 1275
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:12 pm
Re: 151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions
I liked the idea of it more than I actually like it.Vaulter wrote:It's just for the idea of getting a 180.
- PDaddy
- Posts: 2063
- Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am
Re: 151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions
Although by TLS's outrageous and mostly unrealistic standards (only 3% of test-takers can reach the top-3%, right?!) a 167 may not be considered to be "impressive", it is an impressive score on its face. Only a very elite class of test-takers ever gets past 165. Look up the stats and translate them to real numbers. By almost any standard, 90th percentile or better on anything should be impressive.
The 16-POINT JUMP OP made is downright scary, because it makes clear that it is possible to jump from 160 to 176 by using the pithypike method. Think about that for a minute...let it marinate. How many T2 law students might have gotten into Harvard if they had spent more time and effort practicing the test. Don't knock OP's hustle.
Maybe OP simply never innately possessed the reading speed or hand-eye coordination - which both matter when taking standardized tests - to get above 170. People obscure the fact that, beyond testing reasoning abilities, the LSAT is a speed-reading exam that only tests some of the skills necessary for law school success. It also tests, to a very small degree, one's vision (mostly out of our control), ability to control one's central nervous system, and one's hand-eye coordination.
Based on innate, deeply established factors OP may have "maxed out". That's a clear victory, because most test-takers don't teach their optimum score.
Factors like sleep depravation, physical stamina, etc. all factor into scores. To manage so many factors on test day and come out with a win like that is damn impressive, IMO.
The 16-POINT JUMP OP made is downright scary, because it makes clear that it is possible to jump from 160 to 176 by using the pithypike method. Think about that for a minute...let it marinate. How many T2 law students might have gotten into Harvard if they had spent more time and effort practicing the test. Don't knock OP's hustle.
Maybe OP simply never innately possessed the reading speed or hand-eye coordination - which both matter when taking standardized tests - to get above 170. People obscure the fact that, beyond testing reasoning abilities, the LSAT is a speed-reading exam that only tests some of the skills necessary for law school success. It also tests, to a very small degree, one's vision (mostly out of our control), ability to control one's central nervous system, and one's hand-eye coordination.
Based on innate, deeply established factors OP may have "maxed out". That's a clear victory, because most test-takers don't teach their optimum score.
Factors like sleep depravation, physical stamina, etc. all factor into scores. To manage so many factors on test day and come out with a win like that is damn impressive, IMO.
-
- Posts: 3086
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm
Re: 151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions
Hmm, while I don't doubt the conclusion, and while your statement is extremely weak ("it is possible"), there seem to be some implications that I don't quite agree with.PDaddy wrote:The 16-POINT JUMP OP made is downright scary, because it makes clear that it is possible to jump from 160 to 176 by using the pithypike method.
Mainly that a 16-point jump from any X to any X+16 is equal. I don't think that's the case. Going from a 140 to a 156 is much easier than a 164 to 180, for example. In the middle of the "curve", it's closer, but once you get to the extremes, it starts to break down.
- mindarmed
- Posts: 957
- Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 2:16 pm
Re: 151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions
ITT some special snowflake brags about getting a 167.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- tuffyjohnson
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:07 pm
Re: 151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions
I didn't read any bragging.armedwithamind wrote:ITT some special snowflake brags about getting a 167.
- gaud
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:58 am
Re: 151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions
Don't hate on dude if he's trying to help give other posters hope/advice, bro.armedwithamind wrote:ITT some special snowflake brags about getting a 167.
If he doesn't, hate away.
- mindarmed
- Posts: 957
- Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 2:16 pm
Re: 151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions
the whole idea of this thread GRINDS MY GEARSgaud wrote:Don't hate on dude if he's trying to help give other posters hope/advice, bro.armedwithamind wrote:ITT some special snowflake brags about getting a 167.
If he doesn't, hate away.
- gaud
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:58 am
Re: 151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions
That's fair lol
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- 052220151
- Posts: 2418
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:58 am
Re: 151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions
armed, you scared off OP, now there can be no lulz.
- mindarmed
- Posts: 957
- Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 2:16 pm
Re: 151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions
sorry brotherdeputydog wrote:armed, you scared off OP, now there can be no lulz.
- Vaulter
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:43 pm
- Pneumonia
- Posts: 2096
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:05 pm
Re: 151 -> 167 (Real LSAC Administered Tests) - Taking Questions
That website is golden.Vaulter wrote:Also, if you think you need help with Logic Games, I offer one on one tutoring/coaching over phone/skype exclusively for the logic games section. For more info:
If it is in fact real then problem with OP trying to make a buck, but TLS probably isn't the best place for a 167'er that went -4 on LG to advertise tutoring services. It's easy to find people who did lots better charging significantly less.
After looking over the website more this seems to pretty obviously be a troll.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login