Tips for improving from low 170s to high 170s Forum

[AngryAvocado]

In the same situation as you, except I already have a low 170s score on the record.

Thanks for all the tips, guys.

Just curious: why do you think your cycle didn't go that great? you seem to have pretty strong numbers

Weak softs, mediocre PS/LORs. No "why X" addendums to schools outside of T5. + increase in applications means that schools are going to be trying to increase their medians, which makes my numbers much less impressive. I should also add, shitty UG.

Getting in atleast one of CCN would be a consolation....

I couldn't understand how you didn't crack MVP, but the bolded explains a lot. Why did you write Why Essays for the schools that don't need (and possibly even discourage) them, but ignore writing them for at least 1-2 of the schools where they have documented value?

Anyhow, I don't mean to rub salt on an open wound-- and you're in at a top 10 so I hardly think it's been disastrous for you-- but I think that decision might be a big part of your misfortune elsewhere thus far. Looks like you've still got a shot at cracking CCN, though, so good luck!

[crossingforHYS]

Great Thread!!

[Ragged]

In the same situation as you, except I already have a low 170s score on the record.

Thanks for all the tips, guys.

Just curious: why do you think your cycle didn't go that great? you seem to have pretty strong numbers

Weak softs, mediocre PS/LORs. No "why X" addendums to schools outside of T5. + increase in applications means that schools are going to be trying to increase their medians, which makes my numbers much less impressive. I should also add, shitty UG.

Getting in atleast one of CCN would be a consolation....

I couldn't understand how you didn't crack MVP, but the bolded explains a lot. Why did you write Why Essays for the schools that don't need (and possibly even discourage) them, but ignore writing them for at least 1-2 of the schools where they have documented value?

Anyhow, I don't mean to rub salt on an open wound-- and you're in at a top 10 so I hardly think it's been disastrous for you-- but I think that decision might be a big part of your misfortune elsewhere thus far. Looks like you've still got a shot at cracking CCN, though, so good luck!

Its fine. I would not attend MPV even if I got in anyway (atleast not before I take another stab at the LSAT) so its not really a big deal.

[thsmthcrmnl]

Make sure you recognize that there is one correct answer and four wrong ones. If you're deciding between two choices that sort of work, then you are missing something.

And get -0 on LG. No need to lose points there.

[AngryAvocado]

Its fine. I would not attend MPV even if I got in anyway (atleast not before I take another stab at the LSAT) so its not really a big deal.

Well, in that case, good luck with the retake. I retook and jumped up considerably, part of it due to actually prepping (lawl oops) but also partly due to just knowing what to expect with the whole process and being comfortable. Hopefully you'll have the same sort of experience the second time around as I did.

[bostonlawchick]

I was just going to ask a similar question when I saw this thread... I've only taken a few tests and I've been scoring in the high 160s low 170s. Going through my mistakes, at least 75% of them are pretty cringeworthy forehead slap type mistakes... missing the NOT, misreading "if L is third" as "if L is second", forgetting pieces of the stimulus or missing huge inferences... That said, I do all my practice and study when I get home from 9 hours of work or school. Hopefully these mistakes are just because I'm tired. The advice in this thread seems like it will be really helpful

[Knock]

Great Thread!!

Completely agree. So much great advice shared here, thanks to everyone that contributed!

Make sure you recognize that there is one correct answer and four wrong ones. If you're deciding between two choices that sort of work, then you are missing something.

And get -0 on LG. No need to lose points there.

Good point.

I was just going to ask a similar question when I saw this thread... I've only taken a few tests and I've been scoring in the high 160s low 170s. Going through my mistakes, at least 75% of them are pretty cringeworthy forehead slap type mistakes... missing the NOT, misreading "if L is third" as "if L is second", forgetting pieces of the stimulus or missing huge inferences... That said, I do all my practice and study when I get home from 9 hours of work or school. Hopefully these mistakes are just because I'm tired. The advice in this thread seems like it will be really helpful

I agree, maybe not 75% for me but I seem to miss 1 to 3 or 4 questions for cringeworthy reasons. "Except" questions I have a bad history with, a few times i've missed the "except" and then crossed out the correct answer and then wondered why I couldn't figure it out lol. Good luck to you though, hopefully we can cut down on dumb errors through practice and maximize our score.

Good luck to everyone studying.

[Ragged]

Its fine. I would not attend MPV even if I got in anyway (atleast not before I take another stab at the LSAT) so its not really a big deal.

Well, in that case, good luck with the retake. I retook and jumped up considerably, part of it due to actually prepping (lawl oops) but also partly due to just knowing what to expect with the whole process and being comfortable. Hopefully you'll have the same sort of experience the second time around as I did.

Thanks for the good luck. I'm still clinging to a glimps of hope that it won't have to come to this though.

[skip james]

This is unnecessarily critical, but don't you think his score evened out after 7 or 8 years because he'd been taking the test FOR SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS? If you've taken that many tests, and you don't get 180s every time you're probably exceptional, and not in a good way.

The guessing advice is very solid advice. But this guy can't get every question right with 100% confidence after 8 years of taking the test?

I think you are being a bit unreasonable and Robin's explanation is perfectly reasonable given the timeline. You should realize that he first started taking the test right around prep test 1 (slightly before but whatever). So, if you think of it that way, it makes sense that he didn't even have enough prep tests to really get a deeper understanding of the patterns in the lsat. At the least he was at a considerable disadvantage to students today, who have amazing resources to study. Today, we have access to over 60 (1-59, Superprep, and Feb 1997), which I think people take for granted.

So, according to the timeline then, he started hitting consistent 180s around prep test 16. Since he started taking the lsat right at the beginning of the transition to modern tests, i.e. prep test 1, and since games where all over the goddamn place in the early tests, not quite as predictable as they are today, I think his accomplishments are pretty impressive.

[honestabe84]

When I interviewed for TM, I asked Robin Singh what it was that lead him to hit consistent 180s (if you look at the TM website, you'll see his distribution of scores jumps around A LOT until about 7 or 8 years after his first test), and he told me that he thinks it was two things:

1) that there were more tests available so he could study more of them, have a better understanding of the test in general.

2) he became a better guesser. if he was stuck between two answer choices, i.e. between answer choice (A) where he could see a flimsy reason why it was wrong but tempting reasons for it to be the correct answer and choice (B) something he totally didn't understand, he would eliminate A (since he could see a reason why it'd be wrong) and choose B, even though he didn't understand it.

I thought that was pretty interesting.

Personally, the difference for me was that I got better at RC. I scored 172 the first time I took the test, and a 177 the second, and I know my RC proficiency was the reason for the discrepancy.

What did you do to improve on RC?

[skip james]

When I interviewed for TM, I asked Robin Singh what it was that lead him to hit consistent 180s (if you look at the TM website, you'll see his distribution of scores jumps around A LOT until about 7 or 8 years after his first test), and he told me that he thinks it was two things:

1) that there were more tests available so he could study more of them, have a better understanding of the test in general.

2) he became a better guesser. if he was stuck between two answer choices, i.e. between answer choice (A) where he could see a flimsy reason why it was wrong but tempting reasons for it to be the correct answer and choice (B) something he totally didn't understand, he would eliminate A (since he could see a reason why it'd be wrong) and choose B, even though he didn't understand it.

I thought that was pretty interesting.

Personally, the difference for me was that I got better at RC. I scored 172 the first time I took the test, and a 177 the second, and I know my RC proficiency was the reason for the discrepancy.

What did you do to improve on RC?

I taught the Critical Reading section of the SAT for about six months. It was very enlightening.

[jpSartre]

This is unnecessarily critical, but don't you think his score evened out after 7 or 8 years because he'd been taking the test FOR SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS? If you've taken that many tests, and you don't get 180s every time you're probably exceptional, and not in a good way.

The guessing advice is very solid advice. But this guy can't get every question right with 100% confidence after 8 years of taking the test?

I think you are being a bit unreasonable and Robin's explanation is perfectly reasonable given the timeline. You should realize that he first started taking the test right around prep test 1 (slightly before but whatever). So, if you think of it that way, it makes sense that he didn't even have enough prep tests to really get a deeper understanding of the patterns in the lsat. At the least he was at a considerable disadvantage to students today, who have amazing resources to study. Today, we have access to over 60 (1-59, Superprep, and Feb 1997), which I think people take for granted.

So, according to the timeline then, he started hitting consistent 180s around prep test 16. Since he started taking the lsat right at the beginning of the transition to modern tests, i.e. prep test 1, and since games where all over the goddamn place in the early tests, not quite as predictable as they are today, I think his accomplishments are pretty impressive.

http://www.testmasters.net/lsat/whyWeAr ... ction.aspx

How does this guy take so many actually administered tests? I believe you have to sign something before the test saying your sole reason for taking the test is for law school admissions. Didn't LSAC catch on after 3?

edit for the interested: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =6&t=60375

[redsox]

answer fewer questions incorrectly

No, that won't necessarily work.

Answer more questions correctly.

[hellojd]

answer fewer questions incorrectly

No, that won't necessarily work.

Answer more questions correctly.

lol

[melinda.corbin]

answer fewer questions incorrectly

No, that won't necessarily work.

Answer more questions correctly.

lol

At this level when you are looking to improve 170s then do soemthing totally different;
READING COMPREHENSION-Read the longest (At least 1000 words) and nastiest paragraphs of science, geology and Microbiology with 35 different scientific terms. In that passage explore these things:
-Author's attitude
-Criticism, contrast, hypothesis
-tone
-Scope
-Main idea, purpose
You can find these passages in Top notch science journals or magazines in any library. Find the nastiest passage and do it in less time than what you will get in Actual exam so your speed, difficulty level and accuracy level-all three issues are addressed at same time. If exam will allow you to finish a question of 700 word passage in 90 seconds then do 1000 word passage in 75 second so you are really really prepared for 178 - 180 score just like christian kucab though his last name sounds like afghani but anyways Here is his story:

http://today.appstate.edu/kucab/

You see you are increasing the level of difficulty and decreasing the given time so that means that you really making your self ready for 178+ LSAT score.

LOGICAL GAMES:
Explore the most complex questions from powerscore LR Bible and other blogs, Preptests etc and do those with time frame reduced by at least 15 second each question. Means if average questions should be finished in 90 seconds then practice the most complex questions to finish in 75 seconds because this practice will make you LSAT Gladiator.

LOGICAL REASONING:

SAME METHOD

[Shrimps]

I'll say it for the umpteenth time: there are HUNDREDS of RC passages available for LSAT, MCAT, GMAT practice. There's no need to read any magazines or anything of that sort to prepare for the test. Reading difficult texts is something you should've done DAILY while in college. Now is the time to develop particular test-taking skills, and you need actual questions for that.

What I need is logic games. I am running out. I already have all the PT's, I have over 70 fake games from 'Ace the Logic Games', there are over 20 free Atlas logic games (that are not similar to real games - but are very tough and good practice nonetheless, from what I've heard).. and it's not enough.

I need at least 80 more logic games. I also wouldn't mind a few hundred more LR questions (I already have over 200 LR questions from GMAT plus a few dozens from the Oxford TSA test). I need more.

[yeff]

My suggestion is additional practice to improve endurance to improve focus.

You can do 5 consecutive sections to replicate the actual test (don't forget to include annoying orders such as LG LR LR LR RC from time to time) and even 6, 7, 8, etc.

Cut down the section time so you are comfortable finishing in 30-32 minutes. I found it really helpful to have LOTS of time on the handful of clearly more difficult LR questions. Since I was confident I'd have the time, I circled and skipped several tough ones, then returned at the end to crawl through them.

[yeff]

Oh, also, try to mentally prepare yourself for the interminable waiting that precedes the test.

A hardcore, but potentially genius idea, which I now wish I had tried: sit in a room with nothing but your pencil and watch for 60-90 minutes, then take a 5 section preptest. This aspect definitely threw me a bit.

[jpSartre]

answer fewer questions incorrectly

No, that won't necessarily work.

Answer more questions correctly.

lol

At this level when you are looking to improve 170s then do soemthing totally different;
READING COMPREHENSION-Read the longest (At least 1000 words) and nastiest paragraphs of science, geology and Microbiology with 35 different scientific terms. In that passage explore these things:
-Author's attitude
-Criticism, contrast, hypothesis
-tone
-Scope
-Main idea, purpose
You can find these passages in Top notch science journals or magazines in any library. Find the nastiest passage and do it in less time than what you will get in Actual exam so your speed, difficulty level and accuracy level-all three issues are addressed at same time. If exam will allow you to finish a question of 700 word passage in 90 seconds then do 1000 word passage in 75 second so you are really really prepared for 178 - 180 score just like christian kucab though his last name sounds like afghani but anyways Here is his story:

http://today.appstate.edu/kucab/

OMG OMG 15 practice tests!??! This kid is fucking dedicated

[melinda.corbin]

Instead of focusing on humor you better focus on exam preparation.

[skip james]

Instead of focusing on humor you better focus on exam preparation.

you don't sound like someone i'd like to go to school with.

[Shrimps]

This is just about the most worthless thread ever.

[Knock]

This is just about the most worthless thread ever.

I beg to differ. I've gotten a lot out of this thread.

Anyways, any tips to shave off some LR misses? i've been averaging about -8 with both LR sections combined, and i'd like to cut those misses in half.

[Shrimps]

The conditional/formal logic chapters in the bible shaved at least 2 points off on average from each LR section for me. I averaged about 4 mistakes per each LR section before I read the Bible, and 1.4 mistakes per section over the last 10 LR sections. I found the rest of the LRB somewhat useless.

Apart from that, I don't really know. Obviously reviewing each mistake with an eye not for the correct answer (who cares about it?), but for your own thinking process - WHY did you make the mistake? WHY did you pick the wrong answer? What was going on in your head at that moment? Hopefully, you'll notice a pattern (mine are still with me - dismissing correct answers that I didn't immediately understand being the worst offender for me).

Sadly, there are also the parallel reasoning/principle mistakes. These are by far the hardest questions and quickly "abstractizing" the stimulus is a matter of practice, I suppose. I am slowly getting better at those.

[Knock]

The conditional/formal logic chapters in the bible shaved at least 2 points off on average from each LR section for me. I averaged about 4 mistakes per each LR section before I read the Bible, and 1.4 mistakes per section over the last 10 LR sections. I found the rest of the LRB somewhat useless.

Apart from that, I don't really know. Obviously reviewing each mistake with an eye not for the correct answer (who cares about it?), but for your own thinking process - WHY did you make the mistake? WHY did you pick the wrong answer? What was going on in your head at that moment? Hopefully, you'll notice a pattern (mine are still with me - dismissing correct answers that I didn't immediately understand being the worst offender for me).

Sadly, there are also the parallel reasoning/principle mistakes. These are by far the hardest questions and quickly "abstractizing" the stimulus is a matter of practice, I suppose. I am slowly getting better at those.

Hmm, good advice, thank you.

What are your practice test scores looking like, and whats your goal score?