141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
muscleboundlaw

Bronze
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:20 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby muscleboundlaw » Thu Jul 21, 2016 12:55 pm

This is an interesting thread. I am much like Odrama in my goals. I got a cold 150 and am shooting for 170 to 175. I am studying 15 hours a week since I do work full time. Began studying about three weeks ago. I want to take the december tests and am beginning to see some return from the studying I have done. Still, it seems like some of you are dedicating close to 30 hours a week in order to hit that target. I may have to re-calibrate the amount of studying I am doing. I firmly believe that the LSAT can be mastered. In the sense that as long as you put every ounce of passion into it, it will most likely reward you.

Don't be threatened by the LSAT. Use your time studying by enjoying it. Look at it as an interesting challenge that you get to figure more and more about as time goes on. For me, it is a puzzle that begins to form as I continue to study it. After three weeks of studying, I am already seeing patterns and having "AHA!" moments daily. It's a beautiful thing.

Of course, there are days when I feel like I took a step back but I don't let that discourage me. Just keep on pushing.

User avatar
RamTitan

Silver
Posts: 1092
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:45 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby RamTitan » Thu Jul 21, 2016 1:07 pm

I've chimed in a few times on threads like these, so I want it to be known that I'm not bragging, but.....I did go from a 146 to a 169, and had practice tests in the 170s on a regular basis. You can definitely improve a lot on this test.

HonestAdvice

Bronze
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 12:33 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby HonestAdvice » Thu Jul 21, 2016 3:51 pm

MyNameIsntJames wrote:
HonestAdvice wrote:It's rare, and the responders above are an unrepresentative sample. They're more driven than most people, and were able to use the computer to find resources to boost their scores. The percentage of people who go from
a 140 to 170 is very low. We're talking about one person out of about every 10,000 taking a given test. To put this in perspective, by Vegas odds, it's likelier that Johnny Manziel wins Super Bowl MVP this year than a particular person with a 140 breaks a 170.



I don't even understand this post. Most people with a 140 diag. probably never had a stated goal of getting to 170+ to begin with so this doesn't match the situation. Op has specifically said he wants to get 170+. If he studies hard and diligently then he'll get there. The only "odds" he needs to rely on are the odds that he sits down like a big boy, learns the material and consistently practices. Period.

He should definitely try, but your logic that it's him vs. the test on a scaled test also apply to being #1 at his law school.

MyNameIsntJames

Bronze
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 8:18 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby MyNameIsntJames » Thu Jul 21, 2016 3:56 pm

HonestAdvice wrote:
MyNameIsntJames wrote:
HonestAdvice wrote:It's rare, and the responders above are an unrepresentative sample. They're more driven than most people, and were able to use the computer to find resources to boost their scores. The percentage of people who go from
a 140 to 170 is very low. We're talking about one person out of about every 10,000 taking a given test. To put this in perspective, by Vegas odds, it's likelier that Johnny Manziel wins Super Bowl MVP this year than a particular person with a 140 breaks a 170.



I don't even understand this post. Most people with a 140 diag. probably never had a stated goal of getting to 170+ to begin with so this doesn't match the situation. Op has specifically said he wants to get 170+. If he studies hard and diligently then he'll get there. The only "odds" he needs to rely on are the odds that he sits down like a big boy, learns the material and consistently practices. Period.

He should definitely try, but your logic that it's him vs. the test on a scaled test also apply to being #1 at his law school.



It doesn't because the test isn't graded on a curve like that. Everyone in the country could get a 180 in theory. If he gets a certain amount of questions right (give or take 2 or 3 depending on the pseudo-curve they use) then he's guaranteed that score, point blank. In law school everyone in your class won't get an A no matter how hard everyone works. Law school curves guarantee there will be distributions in the B or C category regardless of overall performance.


Realistically, we could take a high schooler and drill and prep him to death for a year and he'll probably break 170. Its a one exam vs. a cumulative of multiple classes in law school and its a very learnable exam that hasn't really changed in structure in the last decade.

HonestAdvice

Bronze
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 12:33 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby HonestAdvice » Thu Jul 21, 2016 3:59 pm

MyNameIsntJames wrote:
HonestAdvice wrote:
MyNameIsntJames wrote:
HonestAdvice wrote:It's rare, and the responders above are an unrepresentative sample. They're more driven than most people, and were able to use the computer to find resources to boost their scores. The percentage of people who go from
a 140 to 170 is very low. We're talking about one person out of about every 10,000 taking a given test. To put this in perspective, by Vegas odds, it's likelier that Johnny Manziel wins Super Bowl MVP this year than a particular person with a 140 breaks a 170.



I don't even understand this post. Most people with a 140 diag. probably never had a stated goal of getting to 170+ to begin with so this doesn't match the situation. Op has specifically said he wants to get 170+. If he studies hard and diligently then he'll get there. The only "odds" he needs to rely on are the odds that he sits down like a big boy, learns the material and consistently practices. Period.

He should definitely try, but your logic that it's him vs. the test on a scaled test also apply to being #1 at his law school.



It doesn't because the test isn't graded on a curve like that. Everyone in the country could get a 180 in theory. If he gets a certain amount of questions right (give or take 2 or 3 depending on the pseudo-curve they use) then he's guaranteed that score, point blank. In law school everyone in your class won't get an A no matter how hard everyone works. Law school curves guarantee there will be distributions in the B or C category regardless of overall performance.


Realistically, we could take a high schooler and drill and prep him to death for a year and he'll probably break 170. Its a one exam vs. a cumulative of multiple classes in law school and its a very learnable exam that hasn't really changed in structure in the last decade.

Look at the #'s though. What percentage of people get 170s? You're going to say, well, because most people taking the test aren't that well prepared or intelligent, but this is also true for people at shitty law schools.

User avatar
Desert Fox

Diamond
Posts: 18302
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby Desert Fox » Thu Jul 21, 2016 4:01 pm

cm4998 wrote:My LSAT diagnostic test was a 141. I honestly got lucky on a few so I'm guessing realistically it's a bit lower. This was my first time taking an LSAT and before that, I had only studied inconsistently for about a month, doing a few logic games. I plan to take the LSAT in June or September of 2017, as I have 3 semesters left of undergrad. I just started a 2 month blueprint LSAT course that ends in September, which I've heard, considering you put in significant effort, can increase your score dramatically. After that, I plan on self studying, with Powerscore bibles, all the LSAC pt's and perhaps 7sage online prep until June 2017.

I understand that 170 is ridiculously hard for someone with a very low diagnostic score and that a 30 point increase is very rare. However, I read a post by someone on here who said they started at 139 and ended up pt-ing at 176 in 6 months time with 4-6 hours of prep daily. I realize that in order to achieve this, I will have to commit myself completely and entirely but I'm worried that I will not have the discipline to do so, as I still have school work and I procrastinate a lot. I also realize that I will have to improve incrementally. First to 150, then aim for 160 and so forth. Considering the fact that I have a little over a year until the LSAT, and if I'm able to study intensely, consistently and without burning out, is it possible, or even realistic, to achieve a score above 165 or even 170+?

My dream has always been to be a lawyer and attend NYU law, even from a young age (middle school). Can I achieve my score or should I kiss the NYU dream good bye?


I think diagnostics are pretty useless because not knowing the format of the test can lead to some seriously bad scores. But 141 is some real waterhead territory.

What did you score on your SAT or ACT?
Last edited by Desert Fox on Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

MyNameIsntJames

Bronze
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 8:18 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby MyNameIsntJames » Thu Jul 21, 2016 4:09 pm

HonestAdvice wrote:
MyNameIsntJames wrote:
HonestAdvice wrote:
MyNameIsntJames wrote:
HonestAdvice wrote:It's rare, and the responders above are an unrepresentative sample. They're more driven than most people, and were able to use the computer to find resources to boost their scores. The percentage of people who go from
a 140 to 170 is very low. We're talking about one person out of about every 10,000 taking a given test. To put this in perspective, by Vegas odds, it's likelier that Johnny Manziel wins Super Bowl MVP this year than a particular person with a 140 breaks a 170.



I don't even understand this post. Most people with a 140 diag. probably never had a stated goal of getting to 170+ to begin with so this doesn't match the situation. Op has specifically said he wants to get 170+. If he studies hard and diligently then he'll get there. The only "odds" he needs to rely on are the odds that he sits down like a big boy, learns the material and consistently practices. Period.

He should definitely try, but your logic that it's him vs. the test on a scaled test also apply to being #1 at his law school.



It doesn't because the test isn't graded on a curve like that. Everyone in the country could get a 180 in theory. If he gets a certain amount of questions right (give or take 2 or 3 depending on the pseudo-curve they use) then he's guaranteed that score, point blank. In law school everyone in your class won't get an A no matter how hard everyone works. Law school curves guarantee there will be distributions in the B or C category regardless of overall performance.


Realistically, we could take a high schooler and drill and prep him to death for a year and he'll probably break 170. Its a one exam vs. a cumulative of multiple classes in law school and its a very learnable exam that hasn't really changed in structure in the last decade.

Look at the #'s though. What percentage of people get 170s? You're going to say, well, because most people taking the test aren't that well prepared or intelligent, but this is also true for people at shitty law schools.



Wouldn't even say its an intelligence thing. Not only do most people not put that level of prep into it, but most people also don't care to crack 170. TLS is an anomaly in the general world of LSAT takers. Your average LSAT taker who gets a 165, for instance, is content with that and will go about his way. There's tens of thousands of kids like that who sit for this exam and are completely satisfied with scores in the 150s and 160s. Perhaps they wished for a 170 at some point, but when they got their first test back they said "screw it this is good enough. I can probably get into here, here and here and I'm tired of studying for that stupid test anyway" and go about their business.

You can't waive that off like its an insignificant factor either ^. There's a LOTTTT of people who don't have a fraction of the amount of knowledge about this whole law school process that we do. There's a lot of people that half ass take the exam, don't study for it, try it out multiple times etc.

Also consider the fact that only people who are considering law school take this exam. There are a high amount of brilliant individuals in medicine, science, technology and research that would probably murder this exam too if they put their efforts toward it.

So yes, I truly believe that the difference between the top 1% of LSAT scorers and the other 99% lies nearly entirely in pure preparation. You have to look at this from the other side. At this point, tens of thousands of people have scored 170+ over the years that this test has existed. We've seen people from Universities of varying qualities, varying majors and GPAs hit 170+. There's no common denominator for 170+ scorers. That to me indicates that its comprised of people who actually busted their ass enough to get the score.


Stats never tell the full story. Stat-wise, if you have access to clean water, a car you drive, your own laptop, maybe a $1,000 in the bank, and some other assets, then you're probably in the top 10% wealthiest people on planet earth. Would you use that statistic to predict that it would be extremely difficult for someone to get to where you are right now in life?

HonestAdvice

Bronze
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 12:33 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby HonestAdvice » Thu Jul 21, 2016 4:26 pm

MyNameIsntJames wrote:
HonestAdvice wrote:
MyNameIsntJames wrote:
HonestAdvice wrote:
MyNameIsntJames wrote:
HonestAdvice wrote:It's rare, and the responders above are an unrepresentative sample. They're more driven than most people, and were able to use the computer to find resources to boost their scores. The percentage of people who go from
a 140 to 170 is very low. We're talking about one person out of about every 10,000 taking a given test. To put this in perspective, by Vegas odds, it's likelier that Johnny Manziel wins Super Bowl MVP this year than a particular person with a 140 breaks a 170.



I don't even understand this post. Most people with a 140 diag. probably never had a stated goal of getting to 170+ to begin with so this doesn't match the situation. Op has specifically said he wants to get 170+. If he studies hard and diligently then he'll get there. The only "odds" he needs to rely on are the odds that he sits down like a big boy, learns the material and consistently practices. Period.

He should definitely try, but your logic that it's him vs. the test on a scaled test also apply to being #1 at his law school.



It doesn't because the test isn't graded on a curve like that. Everyone in the country could get a 180 in theory. If he gets a certain amount of questions right (give or take 2 or 3 depending on the pseudo-curve they use) then he's guaranteed that score, point blank. In law school everyone in your class won't get an A no matter how hard everyone works. Law school curves guarantee there will be distributions in the B or C category regardless of overall performance.


Realistically, we could take a high schooler and drill and prep him to death for a year and he'll probably break 170. Its a one exam vs. a cumulative of multiple classes in law school and its a very learnable exam that hasn't really changed in structure in the last decade.

Look at the #'s though. What percentage of people get 170s? You're going to say, well, because most people taking the test aren't that well prepared or intelligent, but this is also true for people at shitty law schools.



Wouldn't even say its an intelligence thing. Not only do most people not put that level of prep into it, but most people also don't care to crack 170. TLS is an anomaly in the general world of LSAT takers. Your average LSAT taker who gets a 165, for instance, is content with that and will go about his way. There's tens of thousands of kids like that who sit for this exam and are completely satisfied with scores in the 150s and 160s. Perhaps they wished for a 170 at some point, but when they got their first test back they said "screw it this is good enough. I can probably get into here, here and here and I'm tired of studying for that stupid test anyway" and go about their business.

You can't waive that off like its an insignificant factor either ^. There's a LOTTTT of people who don't have a fraction of the amount of knowledge about this whole law school process that we do. There's a lot of people that half ass take the exam, don't study for it, try it out multiple times etc.

Also consider the fact that only people who are considering law school take this exam. There are a high amount of brilliant individuals in medicine, science, technology and research that would probably murder this exam too if they put their efforts toward it.

So yes, I truly believe that the difference between the top 1% of LSAT scorers and the other 99% lies nearly entirely in pure preparation. You have to look at this from the other side. At this point, tens of thousands of people have scored 170+ over the years that this test has existed. We've seen people from Universities of varying qualities, varying majors and GPAs hit 170+. There's no common denominator for 170+ scorers. That to me indicates that its comprised of people who actually busted their ass enough to get the score.


Stats never tell the full story. Stat-wise, if you have access to clean water, a car you drive, your own laptop, maybe a $1,000 in the bank, and some other assets, then you're probably in the top 10% wealthiest people on planet earth. Would you use that statistic to predict that it would be extremely difficult for someone to get to where you are right now in life?

Yes, I would. There's an economic principle on this point - it's basically that if you took 2 people and made them start from scratch, the more successful one is way more than 50% likely to become more successful again. Also, the greatest predictor of how good someone is as something is not how they start (like you said), but it's also not how they work. It's the rate and ease of improvement. How somebody starts will mostly be tied to their environment and whether they're used to thinking in a particular way, but the rate of improvement is much more indicative of ability. It's like when you look at elite athletes - a football player may be too raw at basketball to touch a court, but in a year take a huge step forward. We see this happen in pro sports all the time, and these people frequently become generational talents. The LSAT is the same thing, as are most academic, athletic, business, artistic pursuits, etc.

But the %ages are what they are. It's possible, but these are atypical sample sizes. There are differences in aptitude as well. Most people at t-14's don't study that hard and most people at shitty law schools don't slack off that much, and yet the latter are 10x more likely to fail the bar. I agree with your advice because there's no risk to studying hard other than losing time, but the idea that the LSAT is 99% prep is false.

MyNameIsntJames

Bronze
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 8:18 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby MyNameIsntJames » Thu Jul 21, 2016 8:24 pm

HonestAdvice wrote:
MyNameIsntJames wrote:
HonestAdvice wrote:
MyNameIsntJames wrote:
HonestAdvice wrote:
MyNameIsntJames wrote:
HonestAdvice wrote:It's rare, and the responders above are an unrepresentative sample. They're more driven than most people, and were able to use the computer to find resources to boost their scores. The percentage of people who go from
a 140 to 170 is very low. We're talking about one person out of about every 10,000 taking a given test. To put this in perspective, by Vegas odds, it's likelier that Johnny Manziel wins Super Bowl MVP this year than a particular person with a 140 breaks a 170.



I don't even understand this post. Most people with a 140 diag. probably never had a stated goal of getting to 170+ to begin with so this doesn't match the situation. Op has specifically said he wants to get 170+. If he studies hard and diligently then he'll get there. The only "odds" he needs to rely on are the odds that he sits down like a big boy, learns the material and consistently practices. Period.

He should definitely try, but your logic that it's him vs. the test on a scaled test also apply to being #1 at his law school.



It doesn't because the test isn't graded on a curve like that. Everyone in the country could get a 180 in theory. If he gets a certain amount of questions right (give or take 2 or 3 depending on the pseudo-curve they use) then he's guaranteed that score, point blank. In law school everyone in your class won't get an A no matter how hard everyone works. Law school curves guarantee there will be distributions in the B or C category regardless of overall performance.


Realistically, we could take a high schooler and drill and prep him to death for a year and he'll probably break 170. Its a one exam vs. a cumulative of multiple classes in law school and its a very learnable exam that hasn't really changed in structure in the last decade.

Look at the #'s though. What percentage of people get 170s? You're going to say, well, because most people taking the test aren't that well prepared or intelligent, but this is also true for people at shitty law schools.



Wouldn't even say its an intelligence thing. Not only do most people not put that level of prep into it, but most people also don't care to crack 170. TLS is an anomaly in the general world of LSAT takers. Your average LSAT taker who gets a 165, for instance, is content with that and will go about his way. There's tens of thousands of kids like that who sit for this exam and are completely satisfied with scores in the 150s and 160s. Perhaps they wished for a 170 at some point, but when they got their first test back they said "screw it this is good enough. I can probably get into here, here and here and I'm tired of studying for that stupid test anyway" and go about their business.

You can't waive that off like its an insignificant factor either ^. There's a LOTTTT of people who don't have a fraction of the amount of knowledge about this whole law school process that we do. There's a lot of people that half ass take the exam, don't study for it, try it out multiple times etc.

Also consider the fact that only people who are considering law school take this exam. There are a high amount of brilliant individuals in medicine, science, technology and research that would probably murder this exam too if they put their efforts toward it.

So yes, I truly believe that the difference between the top 1% of LSAT scorers and the other 99% lies nearly entirely in pure preparation. You have to look at this from the other side. At this point, tens of thousands of people have scored 170+ over the years that this test has existed. We've seen people from Universities of varying qualities, varying majors and GPAs hit 170+. There's no common denominator for 170+ scorers. That to me indicates that its comprised of people who actually busted their ass enough to get the score.


Stats never tell the full story. Stat-wise, if you have access to clean water, a car you drive, your own laptop, maybe a $1,000 in the bank, and some other assets, then you're probably in the top 10% wealthiest people on planet earth. Would you use that statistic to predict that it would be extremely difficult for someone to get to where you are right now in life?

Yes, I would. There's an economic principle on this point - it's basically that if you took 2 people and made them start from scratch, the more successful one is way more than 50% likely to become more successful again. Also, the greatest predictor of how good someone is as something is not how they start (like you said), but it's also not how they work. It's the rate and ease of improvement. How somebody starts will mostly be tied to their environment and whether they're used to thinking in a particular way, but the rate of improvement is much more indicative of ability. It's like when you look at elite athletes - a football player may be too raw at basketball to touch a court, but in a year take a huge step forward. We see this happen in pro sports all the time, and these people frequently become generational talents. The LSAT is the same thing, as are most academic, athletic, business, artistic pursuits, etc.

But the %ages are what they are. It's possible, but these are atypical sample sizes. There are differences in aptitude as well. Most people at t-14's don't study that hard and most people at shitty law schools don't slack off that much, and yet the latter are 10x more likely to fail the bar. I agree with your advice because there's no risk to studying hard other than losing time, but the idea that the LSAT is 99% prep is false.



The LSAT is 99% prep. If you're able to read & comprehend the English level on at least a 12th grader's level then you can perceivably get a 180.

HonestAdvice

Bronze
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 12:33 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby HonestAdvice » Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:39 pm

How are you getting this 99% figure? All the data we have disagrees with you, and you're appealing to a small sample of unrepresentative people who have already taken the test. You're right in that a 160 starting vs a 155 probably doesn't matter, and depending on which questions they're getting wrong, the 155 could be in a better position. Improving requires understanding why you're getting things wrong, which requires a certain level of aptitude.

Ask anyone who transferred from the bottom to the top tier, and they'll tell you there is a huge variation in the average student's aptitude. That doesn't prove that the lower tiered people couldn't get the same LSAT scores, but suggests there are differences between these students unrelated to the LSAT or education.

timmyd

Bronze
Posts: 370
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:50 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby timmyd » Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:52 pm

Ehhh...I transferred from a third tier school to UT/vandy and frankly didn't perceive much of a difference in student quality. That's doesn't disprove what you're saying; but it does fly in the face of "ask any student that has transferred..." So many variables go into why a student scores as they do on the lsat. I would say that chief among them is preparation rather than intellect. But I have no way of proving that and it's rank speculation.

timmyd

Bronze
Posts: 370
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:50 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby timmyd » Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:56 pm

And that's one of the most dangerous things about attending a low ranked school banking on good grades. I know for a fact that, at least at my school, there were a good percentage of kids (I include myself in this group) that didn't care about getting a high score, didn't prep at all, and simply rolled the dice. Admittedly, that's incredibly stupid, but there were certainly a fair if not large number of kids at the school who could have at least gotten tier one scores if they put their all into it. Again, I have no way of proving that. It's my own opinion testimony based on personal experience and observations.

MyNameIsntJames

Bronze
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 8:18 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby MyNameIsntJames » Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:34 am

HonestAdvice wrote:How are you getting this 99% figure? All the data we have disagrees with you, and you're appealing to a small sample of unrepresentative people who have already taken the test. You're right in that a 160 starting vs a 155 probably doesn't matter, and depending on which questions they're getting wrong, the 155 could be in a better position. Improving requires understanding why you're getting things wrong, which requires a certain level of aptitude.

Ask anyone who transferred from the bottom to the top tier, and they'll tell you there is a huge variation in the average student's aptitude. That doesn't prove that the lower tiered people couldn't get the same LSAT scores, but suggests there are differences between these students unrelated to the LSAT or education.



I'm just making it up. Basically it's my euphemism for saying the LSAT is all prep. 1% luck, talent or what have you.

"average student aptitude"

An unqualified assumption. How seriously you pursue law school and the LSAT doesn't speak to general aptitude.


Your argument would make complete sense if OP had never stated he wanted a 170+ and we were looking at him in a vacuum as just a 141 diagnostic scorer. But we're not. He's on TLS, he's analyzing the resources here and he's shown he's clearly serious enough to make a profile here and solicit info and advice about getting a 170+. This isn't an odds game and I don't even understand what correlation/analogy you're trying to create between a DIAGNOSTIC and a TTTT law school student. Where are your stats on diagnostic scorers coming from?


The whole concept of a diagnostic is overrated. I started at like a 146 diag and I went to 150s my second exam just by virtue of googling what the hell the LSAT is and how it works & playing around w a few sample questions that made me say "Ohh." On a diagnostic you don't know how to pace, diagram, or what to expect. Most people are becoming familiar w the test itself on a diag. When I toon mine I had never even seen an LSAT problem before. I didn't have to put in a lot of work to start PTing in the 160s. There's some people who diag really high and then plateau before the 170s.

141 is also just 10 points below national average for students who actually went on LSAC's website and paid $175 to wake up at 8 am and take this exam. Think about that. The average for those people is 151/152. That's damn near half the questions wrong on the exam. Truthfully your avg scorer is really probably even lower. 151/152 is the average of everyone even including the thousands of T14-T1/T30 kids who probably hit anywhere from 160 and above. How many people must be taking that test and getting below 150 on the exam for the average to be at 151/152? Based on that alone that indicates that most people don't take this exam that seriously.

You gotta take yourself out of a TLS context. Everyone here is smart, gunning their asses off for law schools and will probably jump off a bridge if they don't break 170. Your average LSAT test taker doesn't give a fuck about this exam, as hard as that is to believe. Most kids have done little to no research on law schools, don't even know what the profession is about, what scores they need or if they even like law itself and they just sit down for the exam with a week or more of prep, if that. How do you think Cooley can successfully enroll students every year? Most people still believe in the 1980's philosophy on the legal profession that says "As long as I get into some law school somewhere and graduate and pass the bar then I'm an attorney and I can make loads of money." Where do you think all this advice on TLS & everywhere else suddenly came from? The thousands of people who thought that very same thing, half assed the LSAT, didn't take law school seriously and just assumed the loans without any thorough planning and came out unemployed angry at the world. Why do you think everyone so T-14 or bust in these forums? Students have literally just caught on in like the last decade or so that if your law school doesn't have prestige then you're fucked and probably out of major $$+time. This information hasn't gotten all the way down to John Doe. The few who take law seriously enough to research the profession, stumble upon TLS & research everything are primarily the ones gunning for 170+.

I would bet my left nut that if every single LSAT test taker was required to watch a 2 hour video about the decline in the law profession, employment stats at lower schools, required LSAT scores for top school admission & other real ass facts ... The nationwide score would probably jump to an average of 160. At least.

To beat this point further, based on distributions and points available, the SAT has a Very similar median score:

There's 3 sections on SAT

MATH
WRITING
CRITICAL READING

*AVG down the center is 1000/1600 cumulatively. For those scores you need to answer a total of 26/58 on math+25/52 on reading+26/44 on writing which is 77/154 total right. That's 50% correct. For LSAT, the avg is about 57% correct, however many less questions.

It's not a coincidence the distributions are nearly identical. Just about anyone can take an SAT nowadays from those Ivy League kids on down to the kid that never comes to school, been suspended 5 times & arrested 4 times, yet the average is still at 50% flat.

*From Collegeboard's website

Also:



You're trying to say that the top 1% of scorers is proportionate to the top 1% of students, aptitude-wise and that couldn't be more false. If that was the case then the concept of LSAT high splitters would be damn near non existent. As I mentioned before, kids with sub 3.0-3.4 GPAs knocking out 170+ is clue one. We can conclude that surely anyone who's getting a 170+ on the LSAT can probably pull a GPA well above 3.0. Most of academia, Ivy League included, is separated primarily by the factor of who studies/prepares more. I'm not willing to go so far as to say that T-14 kids are objectively smarter than T4 kids entirely. They might put a hell of a lot more effort into things, but idk if I can qualify them all as smarter.

But I digress... Main point is I don't think a diag really means shit & to say someone's potential is limited or unlikely based on a diag is silly. Barring a mental disability, anyone with the intelligence to graduate with a Bachelor's from a 4 year school that doesn't have Lil Romeo advertising them on TV is probably smart enough to get a 170. The threshold of intelligence required to hit 170+ is significantly below that of most people. If you can get one question right on this exam, you can get them all right.
Last edited by MyNameIsntJames on Fri Jul 22, 2016 1:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Hikikomorist

Platinum
Posts: 7790
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 12:05 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby Hikikomorist » Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:44 am

Barack O'Drama wrote:The truth is, most people who end up scoring in the 170s study for about a year. I don't have anything but anecdata, but I have spent a long time researching some general trends. There seems to be 2 common types of people who get 170s and the most common are those who studied for about a year.

LOL. No way.

User avatar
Barack O'Drama

Gold
Posts: 3268
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby Barack O'Drama » Fri Jul 22, 2016 1:42 am

Hikikomorist wrote:
Barack O'Drama wrote:The truth is, most people who end up scoring in the 170s study for about a year. I don't have anything but anecdata, but I have spent a long time researching some general trends. There seems to be 2 common types of people who get 170s and the most common are those who studied for about a year.

LOL. No way.


That was probably a bit hyperbolic and inaccurate. I re-read what I wrote, and my estimation is probably somewhere around 60% of 170ers probably study for about a year. Also, to be clear, I don't mean they are studying 365, but with time taken into account for their retake(s).

I would have thought that notion was ridiculous up until about a month and half ago when I branched out and started hanging on the 7Sage forums, Reddit LSAT forums, and Manhattan forums. I think TLS is just a small sample of LSAT takers. From what I have read on those sites, it seems like a lot more people than I would have originally thought end up studying for a lot longer than I thought. Perhaps a year is a bit or an exaggeration though.

My new corrected statement: Most people (~60%) who end up scoring in the 170s, study for over 3-4 months. This number includes those who retake and spend additional time prepping for said retake. I think this is a more fair assessment of what I am seeing on the interwebz. :D
Last edited by Barack O'Drama on Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Desert Fox

Diamond
Posts: 18302
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby Desert Fox » Fri Jul 22, 2016 1:51 am

Barack O'Drama wrote:
Hikikomorist wrote:
Barack O'Drama wrote:The truth is, most people who end up scoring in the 170s study for about a year. I don't have anything but anecdata, but I have spent a long time researching some general trends. There seems to be 2 common types of people who get 170s and the most common are those who studied for about a year.

LOL. No way.


That was probably a bit hyperbolic and inaccurate. I re-read what I wrote, and my estimation is probably somewhere around 60% of 170ers probably study for about a year. Also, to be clear, I don't mean they are studying 365, but with time taken into account for their retake(s).

I would have thought that notion was ridiculous up until about a month and half ago when I branched out and started hanging on the 7Sage forums, Reddit LSAT forums, and Manhattan forums. I think TLS is just a small sample of LSAT takers. From what I have read on those sites, it seems like a lot more people than I would have originally thought end up studying for a lot longer than I thought. Perhaps a year is a bit or an exaggeration though.

My new corrected statement: Most people (~60%) who end up scoring in the 170s, study for over 3-4 months. This number includes those who retake and spend additional time prepping for said retake. I think this is a more fair assessment of what I am seeing on the interwebz. :D


My guess is the average 170+ did less than 10 pts.
Last edited by Desert Fox on Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Barack O'Drama

Gold
Posts: 3268
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby Barack O'Drama » Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:04 am

Desert Fox wrote:
Barack O'Drama wrote:
Hikikomorist wrote:
Barack O'Drama wrote:The truth is, most people who end up scoring in the 170s study for about a year. I don't have anything but anecdata, but I have spent a long time researching some general trends. There seems to be 2 common types of people who get 170s and the most common are those who studied for about a year.

LOL. No way.


That was probably a bit hyperbolic and inaccurate. I re-read what I wrote, and my estimation is probably somewhere around 60% of 170ers probably study for about a year. Also, to be clear, I don't mean they are studying 365, but with time taken into account for their retake(s).

I would have thought that notion was ridiculous up until about a month and half ago when I branched out and started hanging on the 7Sage forums, Reddit LSAT forums, and Manhattan forums. I think TLS is just a small sample of LSAT takers. From what I have read on those sites, it seems like a lot more people than I would have originally thought end up studying for a lot longer than I thought. Perhaps a year is a bit or an exaggeration though.

My new corrected statement: Most people (~60%) who end up scoring in the 170s, study for over 3-4 months. This number includes those who retake and spend additional time prepping for said retake. I think this is a more fair assessment of what I am seeing on the interwebz. :D


My guess is the average 170+ did less than 10 pts.


You mean they started from a diagnostic in the 160s? Yeah, I agree with that. I think the last thing you said made a lot of sense too. When you're unfamiliar with the format of the test, it is easy to score below your potential. I took my first diagnostic and got a 151 without having ever having read anything about the LSAT. After just reading the first 3 chapters of the LSAT Trainer, I took another and ended up with a 157. So just knowing the format and what to expect can give you a nice increase.

Still though, I think yore right and the majority of 170+ tend to be those whose diagnostic was in the 160s.
Last edited by Barack O'Drama on Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mwells56

Silver
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2016 9:08 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby mwells56 » Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:47 am

Barack O'Drama wrote:The reason why the jump to a low diagnostic to a higher score is rare is based on the fact that there is this LSAT-prep-industry orthodoxy that 3-4 months to prepare is adequate for most people to max out there score. This idea was created by the LSAT prep companies who want to maximize their profits, and the students happily accept that notion because it sounds way better than the truth.


I found this point funny at the beginning of 7sage because they had just sold me a 3 month subscription for $180.

User avatar
Barack O'Drama

Gold
Posts: 3268
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby Barack O'Drama » Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:58 am

mwells56 wrote:
Barack O'Drama wrote:The reason why the jump to a low diagnostic to a higher score is rare is based on the fact that there is this LSAT-prep-industry orthodoxy that 3-4 months to prepare is adequate for most people to max out there score. This idea was created by the LSAT prep companies who want to maximize their profits, and the students happily accept that notion because it sounds way better than the truth.


I found this point funny at the beginning of 7sage because they had just sold me a 3 month subscription for $180.



That was pretty ironic to say the least. I might need to upgrade to Ultimate + now to get another 3 months, lol. :lol:
Last edited by Barack O'Drama on Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hikikomorist

Platinum
Posts: 7790
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 12:05 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby Hikikomorist » Fri Jul 22, 2016 8:24 am

Barack O'Drama wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Barack O'Drama wrote:
Hikikomorist wrote:
Barack O'Drama wrote:The truth is, most people who end up scoring in the 170s study for about a year. I don't have anything but anecdata, but I have spent a long time researching some general trends. There seems to be 2 common types of people who get 170s and the most common are those who studied for about a year.

LOL. No way.


That was probably a bit hyperbolic and inaccurate. I re-read what I wrote, and my estimation is probably somewhere around 60% of 170ers probably study for about a year. Also, to be clear, I don't mean they are studying 365, but with time taken into account for their retake(s).

I would have thought that notion was ridiculous up until about a month and half ago when I branched out and started hanging on the 7Sage forums, Reddit LSAT forums, and Manhattan forums. I think TLS is just a small sample of LSAT takers. From what I have read on those sites, it seems like a lot more people than I would have originally thought end up studying for a lot longer than I thought. Perhaps a year is a bit or an exaggeration though.

My new corrected statement: Most people (~60%) who end up scoring in the 170s, study for over 3-4 months. This number includes those who retake and spend additional time prepping for said retake. I think this is a more fair assessment of what I am seeing on the interwebz. :D


My guess is the average 170+ did less than 10 pts.


You mean they started from a diagnostic in the 160s? Yeah, I agree with that. I think the last thing you said made a lot of sense too. When you're unfamiliar with the format of the test, it is easy to score below your potential. I took my first diagnostic and got a 151 without having ever having read anything about the LSAT. After just reading the first 3 chapters of the LSAT Trainer, I took another and ended up with a 157. So just knowing the format and what to expect can give you a nice increase.

Still though, I think yore right and the majority of 170+ tend to be those whose diagnostic was in the 160s.

PTs=practice tests.

User avatar
PrezRand

Gold
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:31 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby PrezRand » Fri Jul 22, 2016 9:59 am

“Ask yourself whether the dream of heaven and greatness should be left waiting for us in our graves-or whether it should be ours here and now and on this earth.”-Ayn Rand

User avatar
Barack O'Drama

Gold
Posts: 3268
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby Barack O'Drama » Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:00 am

Hikikomorist wrote:
Barack O'Drama wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Barack O'Drama wrote:
Hikikomorist wrote:
Barack O'Drama wrote:The truth is, most people who end up scoring in the 170s study for about a year. I don't have anything but anecdata, but I have spent a long time researching some general trends. There seems to be 2 common types of people who get 170s and the most common are those who studied for about a year.

LOL. No way.


That was probably a bit hyperbolic and inaccurate. I re-read what I wrote, and my estimation is probably somewhere around 60% of 170ers probably study for about a year. Also, to be clear, I don't mean they are studying 365, but with time taken into account for their retake(s).

I would have thought that notion was ridiculous up until about a month and half ago when I branched out and started hanging on the 7Sage forums, Reddit LSAT forums, and Manhattan forums. I think TLS is just a small sample of LSAT takers. From what I have read on those sites, it seems like a lot more people than I would have originally thought end up studying for a lot longer than I thought. Perhaps a year is a bit or an exaggeration though.

My new corrected statement: Most people (~60%) who end up scoring in the 170s, study for over 3-4 months. This number includes those who retake and spend additional time prepping for said retake. I think this is a more fair assessment of what I am seeing on the interwebz. :D


My guess is the average 170+ did less than 10 pts.


You mean they started from a diagnostic in the 160s? Yeah, I agree with that. I think the last thing you said made a lot of sense too. When you're unfamiliar with the format of the test, it is easy to score below your potential. I took my first diagnostic and got a 151 without having ever having read anything about the LSAT. After just reading the first 3 chapters of the LSAT Trainer, I took another and ended up with a 157. So just knowing the format and what to expect can give you a nice increase.

Still though, I think yore right and the majority of 170+ tend to be those whose diagnostic was in the 160s.

PTs=practice tests.


Yeah, sorry if I misread that for points instead of PTs.

That is the way it would appear on this forum, but even going to 7Sage and looking on their forum you'll see a lot more people than you think end up taking around 30 PTs, and studying for 6+ months. I can think of like 4-5 sages off the top who studied for more than 6 months to get to a 170. So these people are out there. For example, Nicole Hopkins, one of the more popular sages, said she took 80 PTs (some were redos) over the course of almost a year before she scored her 170.

I mean I'll grant you that a majority of them might start in the 160s, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that the average 170er takes less than 10 PTs. But I don't have any hard stats...just speculation. :lol:
Last edited by Barack O'Drama on Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

laggyking

New
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 4:25 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby laggyking » Sat Jul 23, 2016 12:38 pm

my first timed PT was 143. Keep one thing in mind, Im not a native english speaker, I couldnt even understand what does either..or.. mean in LSAT for a while. My current PTs are around 165. You dont have to finish every single question in the test, but make sure everything you put on the paper is the right answer. good luck.

User avatar
RamTitan

Silver
Posts: 1092
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:45 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby RamTitan » Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:08 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
Barack O'Drama wrote:
Hikikomorist wrote:
Barack O'Drama wrote:The truth is, most people who end up scoring in the 170s study for about a year. I don't have anything but anecdata, but I have spent a long time researching some general trends. There seems to be 2 common types of people who get 170s and the most common are those who studied for about a year.

LOL. No way.


That was probably a bit hyperbolic and inaccurate. I re-read what I wrote, and my estimation is probably somewhere around 60% of 170ers probably study for about a year. Also, to be clear, I don't mean they are studying 365, but with time taken into account for their retake(s).

I would have thought that notion was ridiculous up until about a month and half ago when I branched out and started hanging on the 7Sage forums, Reddit LSAT forums, and Manhattan forums. I think TLS is just a small sample of LSAT takers. From what I have read on those sites, it seems like a lot more people than I would have originally thought end up studying for a lot longer than I thought. Perhaps a year is a bit or an exaggeration though.

My new corrected statement: Most people (~60%) who end up scoring in the 170s, study for over 3-4 months. This number includes those who retake and spend additional time prepping for said retake. I think this is a more fair assessment of what I am seeing on the interwebz. :D


My guess is the average 170+ did less than 10 pts.

Do you genuinely believe that? Very few people are natural high scorers on the LSAT.

Hikikomorist

Platinum
Posts: 7790
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 12:05 pm

Re: 141 Diagnostic. Is 165 or 170+ possible or even realistic?

Postby Hikikomorist » Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:35 pm

RamTitan wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Barack O'Drama wrote:
Hikikomorist wrote:
Barack O'Drama wrote:The truth is, most people who end up scoring in the 170s study for about a year. I don't have anything but anecdata, but I have spent a long time researching some general trends. There seems to be 2 common types of people who get 170s and the most common are those who studied for about a year.

LOL. No way.


That was probably a bit hyperbolic and inaccurate. I re-read what I wrote, and my estimation is probably somewhere around 60% of 170ers probably study for about a year. Also, to be clear, I don't mean they are studying 365, but with time taken into account for their retake(s).

I would have thought that notion was ridiculous up until about a month and half ago when I branched out and started hanging on the 7Sage forums, Reddit LSAT forums, and Manhattan forums. I think TLS is just a small sample of LSAT takers. From what I have read on those sites, it seems like a lot more people than I would have originally thought end up studying for a lot longer than I thought. Perhaps a year is a bit or an exaggeration though.

My new corrected statement: Most people (~60%) who end up scoring in the 170s, study for over 3-4 months. This number includes those who retake and spend additional time prepping for said retake. I think this is a more fair assessment of what I am seeing on the interwebz. :D


My guess is the average 170+ did less than 10 pts.

Do you genuinely believe that? Very few people are natural high scorers on the LSAT.

I'd believe it. I doubt the median 170-scorer studies much more than the median 160-scorer.



Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 20 guests