[December 2010] TLSer Score Predictions Forum

[robotclubmember]

LR1: -10
RC: -4
LR2: -3
LG: -5

161

You bombed LR 1 that bad? Are you sure?

I'm sure. I'm generally pretty accurate on my predictions. It was my first section. I got held up on a few of the early ones and narrowed it down to two and thought I'd have time to go back to it...

Then they called 5 mins and I basically blind guessed on between 4-6 Q's and the few that I narrowed it down to two...I forgot which two letters I narrowed it down to and basically blind guessed on them also. It was brutal.

Was hoping it was experimental. Wasn't.

I tend to do a bit of skipping around on LR when needed as well. But usually when I've exhausted 2 minutes on a question (the point at which I climb out and move on to another one), I will have narrowed it down to two choices. I will write the two choices I narrowed it down to in huge letters next to the question, lol (i.e., B/E), and then bubble one of those in on the scantron, circle the number on the scantron, and then come back to it at the end of the section if I have time (erasing the circle around the question number on the scantron at the end of course).

Just thought I'd throw that out there as a way of tracking progress on abandoned questions and marking an educated guess down just in case you don't have time to return.

[kkklick]

LR1: -10
RC: -4
LR2: -3
LG: -5

161

You bombed LR 1 that bad? Are you sure?

I'm sure. I'm generally pretty accurate on my predictions. It was my first section. I got held up on a few of the early ones and narrowed it down to two and thought I'd have time to go back to it...

Then they called 5 mins and I basically blind guessed on between 4-6 Q's and the few that I narrowed it down to two...I forgot which two letters I narrowed it down to and basically blind guessed on them also. It was brutal.

Was hoping it was experimental. Wasn't.

I tend to do a bit of skipping around on LR when needed as well. But usually when I've exhausted 2 minutes on a question (the point at which I climb out and move on to another one), I will have narrowed it down to two choices. I will write the two choices I narrowed it down to in huge letters next to the question, lol (i.e., B/E), and then bubble one of those in on the scantron, circle the number on the scantron, and then come back to it at the end of the section if I have time (erasing the circle around the question number on the scantron at the end of course).

Just thought I'd throw that out there as a way of tracking progress on abandoned questions and marking an educated guess down just in case you don't have time to return.

That is exactly what I usually do, but I left a Q in LR blank, and when I realized as time was called I panicked and bubbled any letter, unfortunately it wasn't the letter I narrowed it down to :\

[stargazin]

I feel like at worst I did 170 and with a friendly curve and favorable guessing on RC, I could go as high as 180. Realistically though I'm thinking:

LG: -0/-1
RC: -2/-5
LR combined: -2/-5

Best case and hopefully: -4, 177-180 depending on curve
Worse case: -11: 170-172 depending on curve

I would be happy enough to not bother retaking with anything at or above 173.

Oh and of course the possibility exists that I messed something up horribly and will open it up to somewhere in the 160's at which point disappointment will set in.


This was a retake for me btw from 168 in October.

170 at worst, nice! What do you think made the difference for you (Oct test vs this one)? Did you study more, manage time better, etc.?

I took an online class which kept me accountable to doing section work. Before I went through the bibles, but did so in a half assed way, and I only did practice tests. The class I took let you make quizzes for yourself where it would randomly compile 4 games from real PTs and make games sections up for you and I did at least 15 of those which I think is one of the main reasons I was able to finish LG.

Also for whatever reason, something just clicked after October, maybe it was just less pressure knowing I had been through it before and that I was okay applying next year if I needed to. The first PT I took after October though was 175, which would have been one of my highest before October where I averaged 171-172.

Thanks! That's great that you were able to get a lot from the class. I've been self studying with the PTs and topping out at 168-170, thinking about whether it'd be worth it to take some sort of class. (And since I'm broke, it would have to be REALLY worth it since I might have to do without milk or something to pay for it, LOL).

[Dr. Strangelove]

LR 1: -2
RC: -3
LG: -1
LR 2: -3

-9
173

The only question I'm 100% sure I got wrong so far was one question on the LG section (damn Coworker problem..)

Some of the RC questions left me a little wary.. the last three passages went well for me- it was just that lichen passage I think I might have screwed up on..

[kkklick]

LR 1: -2
RC: -3
LG: -1
LR 2: -3

-9
173

The only question I'm 100% sure I got wrong so far was one question on the LG section (damn Coworker problem..)

Some of the RC questions left me a little wary.. the last three passages went well for me- it was just that lichen passage I think I might have screwed up on..

I thought the lichens passage was very easy, medical illustrations even easier. Not doubting you, just saying be cautious about predicting LR, lots of difficult questions.

[jwmalone87]

I'll bet my first born that I got that analogous lichens question wrong. RC was an exercise in picking the least shitiest answer for me.

[fosterp]

I'll bet my first born that I got that analogous lichens question wrong. RC was an exercise in picking the least shitiest answer for me.

that seems to be the trend these days

[cardinals03]

RC = -3/4
LR = -5
LR = -3
LG = -6/8

82 or 85 for 164 - 167 depending on curve and if 1 gets removed (doubtful) - hell, I would not be shocked with a 162.....hopefully not though. I was PT'ing in the 168 range, but LG kicked my stained glass ass.

[bigkahuna2020]

164 retake. PTed 165-169. Expecting 165-167 even with a -9/-10 on games and blind guessing three on the first LG (forgot to clock the bitch, 5 minutes left at question 17) b/c I'm seeing -1/-2's on the other two sections. Hoping for a -18/167, so I really need a good curve

[Sandro]

164 retake. PTed 165-169. Expecting 165-167 even with a -9/-10 on games and blind guessing three on the first LG (forgot to clock the bitch, 5 minutes left at question 17) b/c I'm seeing -1/-2's on the other two sections. Hoping for a -18/167, so I really need a good curve

Prediction/retake twins! lol

[jd20132013]

Retook my 161, where I got -13 LG and -12 in LR and RC (total) with -5 on RC. I'm pretty sure I cut RC down to at least -2 and cut the -7 LR to at least -4.

So with a raw six points higher (estimated) i'm reasonably confident predicting a 164-165. That's the conservaive estimate. I did about as well on LG as I did in October(where, btw I missed every single guess) So if I hit some guesses we could be looking high 160s.

I'll go with a solid 165

[fosterp]

.

[Nonok]

I changed my prediction to 175+.

[delusional]

My vote was 175+. There's hope. And if you can't humiliate yourself in front of anonymous internet people, who can you humiliate yourself in front of?

[chopper]

With a hard LG I probably got around a 153-155, was aiming for a 162, so hopefully I got lucky.

PTs I had a big range in them so who knows.

[SrLaw]

I will be a pessimistic and say 162.

I have zero confidence in my predicting skills.

165+ and I would be all good.

[LeParadisTerrestre]

LR: 0 or -1
LR: 0 or -1
RC: -1 to -2
LG: -13 to -15

Thus -14 to -19

With a -13/-14 curve: 165 to 170... Come on 169... please...

[veragood]

LG: missed 3 - 4

Everything else: missed 1-3

So, between -4 and -7. What is that range, 179 - 175?

[Revolver066]

Hmm avr about 175 in my latest pts, but I'm expecting about 168, 169 just mostly because I keep reading you get lower on the actual thing. That being said I think a 163-177 is all in play.

[3ThrowAway99]

I'm guessing a 160-164 but wishing for a 165+. If not for the stupid games, I would be confident of a 170+.

I hear you on this- I was disproportionately weak on the games, even after a lot of practice. They cut down the amount of games questions once in the history of the LSAT, so maybe they'll do it again (certainly it would be after both of us have completed the test). Studies have shown that the games measure a different type of intelligence or ability than the other test sections and I believe it has been called into question sometimes how strongly success on games really correlates to law school performance and lawyering skills (and I believe the previous reduction in games on LSAT was a result of this type of questioning). I think the games def measure an ability to quickly organize and analyze information which is an important skill, but I feel that people who have a background in studying disciplines such as engineering, math, physics and other strictly analytical disciplines have an advantage going into the games over someone who does not have that background. I suppose the advantage could work the other way if the games were left out, but as someone who hasn't taken a math class since my sophomore year of HS, I feel I would have really been in better shape going into the games if I had a few more years of math word problems under my belt (after all, the games can be reduced to a form of Boolean algebra).

[3ThrowAway99]

LG: missed 3 - 4

Everything else: missed 1-3

So, between -4 and -7. What is that range, 179 - 175?

Wow. That is some precision. Hope your expectations are met!

[Flips88]

Last 3 PTs before test: 170, 172, 172

Prediction:

LR1: -6 to -8 (First section of the test, really flustered. Had to answer 7 questions in the last 5 minutes. Bad news bears.)
RC: -3 to -5
LR2: -4 to -6
LG: -0 to -5 (depends on if i did well or not on the last few on Conferences and Stained Glass. I was happy I got the rule replace question right this time around).

Assuming -14 Curve
Best Case Scenario: -14 for a 170
Worst case scenario: -24 for a 163.

Predicted score: -18 for a 167

[Sandro]

Predicted score: -18 for a 167

Welcome to the club.

[KevinP]

I'm guessing a 160-164 but wishing for a 165+. If not for the stupid games, I would be confident of a 170+.

I hear you on this- I was disproportionately weak on the games, even after a lot of practice. They cut down the amount of games questions once in the history of the LSAT, so maybe they'll do it again (certainly it would be after both of us have completed the test). Studies have shown that the games measure a different type of intelligence or ability than the other test sections and I believe it has been called into question sometimes how strongly success on games really correlates to law school performance and lawyering skills (and I believe the previous reduction in games on LSAT was a result of this type of questioning). I think the games def measure an ability to quickly organize and analyze information which is an important skill, but I feel that people who have a background in studying disciplines such as engineering, math, physics and other strictly analytical disciplines have an advantage going into the games over someone who does not have that background. I suppose the advantage could work the other way if the games were left out, but as someone who hasn't taken a math class since my sophomore year of HS, I feel I would have really been in better shape going into the games if I had a few more years of math word problems under my belt (after all, the games can be reduced to a form of Boolean algebra).

Yeah, I can see the games as being a killer. I'm actually really good at them, December is just an an anomaly for me

[Sandro]

I would love to see some studies on LG's relation to LSAT score as a predictor of 1l success. I would bet my life it has the lowest correlation between the 3 diff types of sections.