170 on the LSAT Forum

[cherylann]

Do you think if everyone made time OR had a great deal of time study (10 months) and they study 30 hours a week, testmasters, and take every practice test, go through and study extensively the errors and why they made them that they could break the 170?

I realize less than 5 percent can get a 170, but could that be because some that dont score 170, dont possibly have 1 year or 10 months to prepare extensively for it? I hate when people say that some just have the aptitude for it.

[akasabian]

I don't think everyone is able to get a 170. Some people will not be able to grasp the concepts, no matter how much studying they go through. Granted, I think that more than 5% of the test takers could score a 170 (well if the curve remains the same), but most people do not study for enough time or study correctly. I know that for myself, I did not score a 170 because of time, especially considering my first diagnostic, due to the lack of time I devoted to it.

[Tiago Splitter]

It's probably true that not everyone can get a 170, but it sounds like you're preparing yourself for failure before you've even started studying. Why go in with such a self-defeating attitude?

[Typhoon24]

There's no way to know for sure and I can't speak for everyone, but I like to believe that when there's a will, there's a way.

[Aawaldrop]

I think anyone who scored below a 170 could study and get a higher score.

[emciosn]

I got a 170 doing only self study ~ 5 hours a week for like 5 months (increased over the last couple weeks taking full tests). I know people who studied a lot less than me that did the same or worse. I have also seen some people post on these boards that have done better than that while studying less. 170 is like the 97.5 percentile if I remember correctly from when I took it. That is getting up there and I think a certain amount of aptitude certainly comes in to play. I think there are just some people that will never get up there no matter the amount of studying due to lack of aptitude, either for the material or just standardized tests in general.

On the flip side, I have met a lot of really smart transfers and just people at lower ranked schools who barely studied for the LSAT. I think that if they would have studied as much as me or more they would have received very good scores. I know there are some people who didn't think you were "supposed" to study for the LSAT at all. So, perhaps if everyone studied consistently for like 6 months we would see more 170+ scores. But, I think that some people just can't get there, just like some people can get a 175 by just taking a couple preptests.

I hope I didn't just feed the troll

ETA: I guess we wouldn't see more 170+ scores since it is based on percentiles but we would see steeper curves for the 170 (like -5 or -6 or something)

[rcthebigred1]

Do you think if everyone made time OR had a great deal of time study (10 months) and they study 30 hours a week, testmasters, and take every practice test, go through and study extensively the errors and why they made them that they could break the 170?

I realize less than 5 percent can get a 170, but could that be because some that dont score 170, dont possibly have 1 year or 10 months to prepare extensively for it? I hate when people say that some just have the aptitude for it.

Some people do just have an aptitude for it. Others have to put in more time, but that doesn't mean they're incapable of a good, or even great, score.

[dietcoke0]

Cold test of 151 to 170. It's of course possible, but not probable. Test is hard for a reason, but everyone can do better with a long enough timeline and enough resources.

[mr.hands]

Don't study for 10 months. More time is't necessarily better. You'll burn out and plateau.

Work hard for 3-4 months. Spend a lot of time taking tests but much, much more time reviewing those tests. That's the most important part.

[LaBarrister]

It's probably true that not everyone can get a 170, but it sounds like you're preparing yourself for failure before you've even started studying. Why go in with such a self-defeating attitude?

She never said she was planning on taking the LSAT, much less imply that she would feel defeated with a score less than 170.

[LaBarrister]

I would assume that the exponential function played a part in someone's growth.

For example, it may take just as much concentrated effort to go from a 150 to a 165 as it would to go from a 165 to a 170.

Either way, everyone has their own natural plateau that they would reach based on their aptitude.

[warandpeace]

anyone can do it. take special snowflake syndrome and apply it to this case, just this once. if you believe it, you can achieve it. ~lol~

[KidStuddi]

Do you think if everyone made time OR had a great deal of time study (10 months) and they study 30 hours a week, testmasters, and take every practice test, go through and study extensively the errors and why they made them that they could break the 170?

I realize less than 5 percent can get a 170, but could that be because some that dont score 170, dont possibly have 1 year or 10 months to prepare extensively for it? I hate when people say that some just have the aptitude for it.

Sigh. Are you really trying to suggest that variances in aptitude don't exist?

If you don't understand that not everyone is capable of getting a 170, you need to take a stroll through some other parts of town. You sound like those trust fund babies who so vehemently argue that everyone could be as rich and successful as them if they worked as hard. Life doesn't work that way.

The answer to your question is, by definition, no. The LSAT is an equated test. 170 does not say how you actually did on the exam, it's a representation of how well you did compared to others. Studying your ass off to the point that you only miss 10 questions doesn't guarantee you a 170 every year. To argue that everyone is capable hitting a floating target that raises so that it cannot be universally hit would be inane. If the test were so well mastered that half the people taking it got -0, -1 would become a 120.

Loosening the semantics a bit, the answer is still no. If you have sixteen years of first-world education, read English at a relatively high level and are good at comprehending formal and structured arguments (college level textbooks), undergrad was probably easy for you and, yes, if you have a sufficient amount and time and money to devote to the quest, you can probably hit 170. Admittedly, that describes the majority of people posting here, and maybe even everyone in your social circle, but it does not describe anything close to "everyone." Not even a majority of people seriously considering applying to law school. These language skills are essentially the "aptitude" for the LSAT, and one year or 10 months isn't going to make up for marked deficiencies that definitely do exist.

I could go on for pages and link you studies, but in consideration of the ever-present TL;DR worry: the reality is, if you busted your ass for four years as an undergraduate and still only pulled a 3.2, you're probably not going to turn around and get a 170 one year later just by continuing to bust your ass. Suggesting that anyone who doesn't achieve the same outcome isn't working as hard is both patronizing and shockingly naive.

[Tiago Splitter]

The answer to your question is, by definition, no. The LSAT is an equated test. 170 does not say how you actually did on the exam, it's a representation of how well you did compared to others. Studying your ass off to the point that you only miss 10 questions doesn't guarantee you a 170 every year. To argue that everyone is capable hitting a floating target that raises so that it cannot be universally hit would be inane. If the test were so well mastered that half the people taking it got -0, -1 would become a 120.

Everybody taking the June test could get a 170.