Need Advice: High 150s to 170+ Forum

[perfunctory]

Hi! I'm currently studying for the February LSAT and I was hoping to receive some advice from all you high scorers on this forum. I'm currently scoring in the high 150s/low 160s and I just can't seem to get over this range. It's not like I don't know the question types, and I feel like I've seen enough guides to understand the test, but I think something more fundamental needs to change. For those of you who have made the jump from 150s to 170s, what sort of changes should I incorporate into my studying? I usually get like 16/23 on LG, 17~20/27 on RC, and -5 on each LR section. I'd really appreciate any sort of advice!

[WaitersIsland]

Post deleted

[gamerish]

You haven't actually revealed anything substantive about your study method so it's difficult to suggest appropriate changes. What prep books/classes have you used, how often do you PT, how many hours a day do you drill, are most of the questions you miss the result of inaccuracy or running out of time, etc?

I also wouldn't underestimate how difficult it is to pull a 10-15 point increase, especially to the 170+ range, in less than a month. It's not impossible, but if you're really counting on getting at least a 170, you very well may have to retake in June which is something you want to keep in mind when restructuring your study habits.

[perfunctory]

You haven't actually revealed anything substantive about your study method so it's difficult to suggest appropriate changes. What prep books/classes have you used, how often do you PT, how many hours a day do you drill, are most of the questions you miss the result of inaccuracy or running out of time, etc?

I also wouldn't underestimate how difficult it is to pull a 10-15 point increase, especially to the 170+ range, in less than a month. It's not impossible, but if you're really counting on getting at least a 170, you very well may have to retake in June which is something you want to keep in mind when restructuring your study habits.

Hey thanks for responding (to the poster above too) So for my study method, I've been studying since August 2015 for about 3 hrs avg a day. I started off with the Powerscore books, kinda looked through LSAT trainer, and did the Cambridge packets for my weak sections in LG and LR: complex ordering, in-n-out, grouping, difficult games, point, flaw, etc. I think I need to do the NA and SA packets for February. I downloaded a majority of past tests and I've just been doing section practices with them rather than doing full timed tests. When doing the Cambridge packets for LR, I circle the ones I got wrong and I look for the solutions online and write down what I thought and what the cr is and keep a word doc. I haven't done any packets for RC but it seems like I have the most trouble with inference questions because all the answers seem to kinda make sense and are so vague that I just choose the wrong one. If I eliminate this weakness, it looks like I can gain 3 raw points or so. Also, I feel really helpless on passages like the black swan one. For LG packets, I do them first, look at the ones I got wrong, look at the relevant 7sage video, and do them again. I'd like to think I did a lot of questions, but on the real thing, there are so many types of questions (with varying levels of difficulty) that I can get tested on that, this randomness and instability is what kills me (and you also get a game like g3 dec 2015).

It seems like I've been following the credited advice you see on here but my score is just not improving. My scores fluctuate so much and this instability is why I think something more fundamental needs to change. When you say I shouldn't underestimate a 10-15 point increase, what do you think you know at the 170 level that you didn't know at the 150s level? My goal is to get around a 164 so I figured I need to be PTing around 166 at least before Feb. Was just curious what it takes to get around the 170s. Thanks again!

Edit: also, I got very little sleep the night before the test and I think this is a huge factor. I'm going to try to condition myself from now on. Apparently, our body works on an ultradian rhythm so I'm going to make my body be more focused in early mornings.

Edit: so I get around 5+ wrong per LR section and it seems like there are always 2 questions which I legitimately don't have a clue about, but for the rest, it's like "uhh, why did I choose that?" I usually have time to check one or two questions at the end.

Edit: I started off at the low 140s. I know some of you have 150/160 diagnostics which I think is unbelievable. I never learned anything similar to LSAT logic in undergrad and it's kind of unsettling to know I lived my whole life w/o this type of structured, logical thinking while some of you have. I'm beginning to think there is at least some difference in innate ability between me and 170 scorers, but I really don't want to go down that hole and am really trying to bite the bullet one last time.

Edit: I realize high scorers complain less. I think I have to realize that randomness is part of the test and I have to account for that. I bet the Feb test is going to have something ridiculous as well and the answer is to prepare myself by doing all the questions I can find.

[gamerish]

It sounds to me like your studying has been too narrowly focused. From what I can tell, you've drilled your weaknesses very heavily at the cost of other question types. That you note the sheer amount of different types of questions on full tests as especially challenging seems to indicate that much to me. So on that front, I'd recommend broadening your drilling: do every single type of LR question, LG and RC passage. I see the reasoning for focusing most of your studying exclusively on your weaknesses, but if you're scoring in the 150s you likely have a weaker grasp of the test as a whole rather than difficulty with a few specific question types. Along that vein, it may also do you some good to actually sit down and read the LSAT Trainer. It explains LR and RC in a way you might find more insightful than Powerscore (at least that's the general consensus, I really don't remember too much of the Trainer myself).

Next point, you need to PT. Pulling full tests into individual sections is a very good way to work on timing (I did it myself) but it comes with a couple caveats. First, don't pull *too many* into sections, especially the more recent PTs, since you could very well dry up your reserves of fresh PTs that way. Second, it won't help as much with accuracy as it does with timing, and the former seems to be more your issue. The point of untimed drilling - and why it's where the bulk of the fundamental understanding of the LSAT comes from - is to emphasis accuracy because you're not working under the pressure of a clock. When you drill, you can take as much time as you need to in order to internalize a question and analyze its structure, why the right answer is right, why the wrongs answers are wrong, etc. Once you do have that foundation built, incorporating full PTs becomes very important so you can build stamina, be exposed to working on multiple question/game/passage types at once and start to work on your timing.

You should also start working on RC more consistently. You'll have a very, very difficult time hitting the 170s (or the high 160s even, unless you really master the other sections) if you don't improve beyond the -10 range consistently. Your LG score leaves something to be desired for someone who's studied as long as you have as well. I had major difficulties with LG for a similar length of time during my own studying and I didn't really start going -0/-1 consistently until I'd gone through every single LG packet in the Cambridge bundle twice (having already read the Powerscore LG Bible, the Manhattan LG book, the Trainer and watching the 7Sage videos for every game I did). You might benefit from the 7Sage method of mastering LG (you can find this with a quick google search). Some people love it, others hate it, but it's worth a shot.

As for what separates 170 scores from other scorers, it depends. In comparison to someone scoring in the 150s, a 170 scorer probably has a much better grasp of the fundamentals in addition to being able to apply that knowledge much more quickly. The difference between a high 160s scorer and a 170+er is probably more the latter issue, but everyone is different.

[perfunctory]

Thank you for the detailed advice! I definitely did not look at it this way. I'll try to incorporate the things you said into my routine. It really amazes me sometimes the amount of effort some of you put in. I think what you wrote will be really useful for others who'll see this, b/c I know a lot of people who study for months or years and don't really see a score improvement. Really can't thank you enough for this perspective.