Advice and Guidance Forum

[Verity]

He said "Highest PT was a 169 and this felt better for the most part than that PT"

I don't think its "making things up" to rephrapse he thinks "this felt better for the most part than [the highest PT hes ever got]" to "he thinks its better than hes ever done before"

And where does the OP mention random guessing? Whose the one making things up?

Wow. Let's hear from OP:

I walked in and before I knew it, I was through LR1 completing all the questions in time; something that was never a guarantee and usually didn't happen. I had some hiccups in games, but I made it through LG2 and 3 without guessing once [So, OP implies s/he may have guessed on LG4?], and pretty confident and in a good zone.

Stayed in the zone during the break, sat down and continued what I thought was a great test with getting through 25/26 LR, with one guess. Relatively confident of the accuracy of my answers aside from the last 3 or 4. At this point I distinctly remember feeling like I was having my best test ever and deducing my final section is RC, which I am generally -2/-5, once my worst section (thanks Voyager!) led me to imagine a 170 may not be unattainable. I turned to Section 5, but kept that same determination as previous...except.

Adios confidence. Hello LSAT Reading Comprehension. Brilliant test composition, it seems I wasn't the only one with an easier time in the other sections. Lull them to sleep and then douche it up with what I thought was the hardest reading comp section I'd encountered in 24 tests and countless practice sections.

I've bolded the evidence. Just for you.

But the main point is if he ends up on the lowest end of what he thinks is possible, 167, he can retake without any penalty at the T14s that he has a shot at anyway. If he ends up in the middle of his range, he doesn't need to retake.

His/her range is what's at issue. You seem to be operating under the delusion that OP's middle range is between 167-178, a monumental gain over his/her PTs. OP's stated PT average is in the mid 160's. Don't change facts.

I can't argue this any further. OP, if you end up not cancelling, I truly hope you got lucky. But if not, don't say I didn't warn you.

[SgtL]

Actually, I should have been clearer by LG 2 and 3 I meant sections 2 and 3 of my exam. I had LR(1) LG(2) LG(3) LR(4) and RC(5).

[SgtL]

He said "Highest PT was a 169 and this felt better for the most part than that PT"

I don't think its "making things up" to rephrapse he thinks "this felt better for the most part than [the highest PT hes ever got]" to "he thinks its better than hes ever done before"

And where does the OP mention random guessing? Whose the one making things up?

Wow. Let's hear from OP:

I walked in and before I knew it, I was through LR1 completing all the questions in time; something that was never a guarantee and usually didn't happen. I had some hiccups in games, but I made it through LG2 and 3 without guessing once [So, OP implies s/he may have guessed on LG4?], and pretty confident and in a good zone.

Stayed in the zone during the break, sat down and continued what I thought was a great test with getting through 25/26 LR, with one guess. Relatively confident of the accuracy of my answers aside from the last 3 or 4. At this point I distinctly remember feeling like I was having my best test ever and deducing my final section is RC, which I am generally -2/-5, once my worst section (thanks Voyager!) led me to imagine a 170 may not be unattainable. I turned to Section 5, but kept that same determination as previous...except.

Adios confidence. Hello LSAT Reading Comprehension. Brilliant test composition, it seems I wasn't the only one with an easier time in the other sections. Lull them to sleep and then douche it up with what I thought was the hardest reading comp section I'd encountered in 24 tests and countless practice sections.

I've bolded the evidence. Just for you.

But the main point is if he ends up on the lowest end of what he thinks is possible, 167, he can retake without any penalty at the T14s that he has a shot at anyway. If he ends up in the middle of his range, he doesn't need to retake.

His/her range is what's at issue. You seem to be operating under the delusion that OP's middle range is between 167-178, a monumental gain over his/her PTs. OP's stated PT average is in the mid 160's. Don't change facts.

I can't argue this any further. OP, if you end up not cancelling, I truly hope you got lucky. But if not, don't say I didn't warn you.

Your advice is noted and appreciated. Thats what I'm here for. I'll make sure to post an update when I decide and if I choose to keep my score, I'll make sure to post it here when it comes in. Thanks again.

[splitmuch]

He said "Highest PT was a 169 and this felt better for the most part than that PT"

I don't think its "making things up" to rephrapse he thinks "this felt better for the most part than [the highest PT hes ever got]" to "he thinks its better than hes ever done before"

And where does the OP mention random guessing? Whose the one making things up?

Wow. Let's hear from OP:

I walked in and before I knew it, I was through LR1 completing all the questions in time; something that was never a guarantee and usually didn't happen. I had some hiccups in games, but I made it through LG2 and 3 without guessing once [So, OP implies s/he may have guessed on LG4?], and pretty confident and in a good zone.

Stayed in the zone during the break, sat down and continued what I thought was a great test with getting through 25/26 LR, with one guess. Relatively confident of the accuracy of my answers aside from the last 3 or 4. At this point I distinctly remember feeling like I was having my best test ever and deducing my final section is RC, which I am generally -2/-5, once my worst section (thanks Voyager!) led me to imagine a 170 may not be unattainable. I turned to Section 5, but kept that same determination as previous...except.

Adios confidence. Hello LSAT Reading Comprehension. Brilliant test composition, it seems I wasn't the only one with an easier time in the other sections. Lull them to sleep and then douche it up with what I thought was the hardest reading comp section I'd encountered in 24 tests and countless practice sections.

I've bolded the evidence. Just for you.

But the main point is if he ends up on the lowest end of what he thinks is possible, 167, he can retake without any penalty at the T14s that he has a shot at anyway. If he ends up in the middle of his range, he doesn't need to retake.

His/her range is what's at issue. You seem to be operating under the delusion that OP's middle range is between 167-178, a monumental gain over his/her PTs. OP's stated PT average is in the mid 160's. Don't change facts.

I can't argue this any further. OP, if you end up not cancelling, I truly hope you got lucky. But if not, don't say I didn't warn you.

Where the hell are you pulling that from? I've loked at all his posts and don't see that anywhere. My "delusion" is based on the estimates he gave.

[Verity]

Where the hell are you pulling that from? I've loked at all his posts and don't see that anywhere. My "delusion" is based on the estimates he gave.

That was in his original post, which he removed. It is posted on the first page, but most of it was stricken through by another poster.

"My first diagnostic was a 148 on 31 March. This was demoralizing and really put the test in perspective for me, and probably contributed significantly to my work ethic. As time progressed my improvement was at first very gradual, but then the difference was noticeable. My diagnostics and PTs were commonly breaking 160s generally in the mid range, with my final test being my highest score with a 169."


OP states s/he hit a 172 a few weeks ago, but doesn't count this score since s/he took breaks in between each section.

Did you even read any of this?

[splitmuch]

Where the hell are you pulling that from? I've loked at all his posts and don't see that anywhere. My "delusion" is based on the estimates he gave.

That was in his original post, which he removed. It is posted on the first page, but most of it was stricken through by another poster.

"My first diagnostic was a 148 on 31 March. This was demoralizing and really put the test in perspective for me, and probably contributed significantly to my work ethic. As time progressed my improvement was at first very gradual, but then the difference was noticeable. My diagnostics and PTs were commonly breaking 160s generally in the mid range, with my final test being my highest score with a 169."


OP states s/he hit a 172 a few weeks ago, but doesn't count this score since s/he took breaks in between each section.

Did you even read any of this?

I didn't see any of that I just read the OP, and saw his estimate of how many he got wrong which, if accurate, would be a good test for someone usually mid 160s with a high of 169. The info I did not see explains alot of the different perspectives. I would tend to agree that the 172 doesn't really count as a predictive score if he took breaks between sections, but it also establishes different maximums for each section and the issue becomes stamina which is definitely improvable.

If OP is confident in the range he gave I'd stick to my recommendation of not cancelling, but witht the info from the other post I'm not so sure. The only thing that keeps me on the "see what you got" bandwagon is that OP is likely not going to have a shot at HYSCCN no matter what and beyond that retakes don't really hurt.

[Verity]

Where the hell are you pulling that from? I've loked at all his posts and don't see that anywhere. My "delusion" is based on the estimates he gave.

That was in his original post, which he removed. It is posted on the first page, but most of it was stricken through by another poster.

"My first diagnostic was a 148 on 31 March. This was demoralizing and really put the test in perspective for me, and probably contributed significantly to my work ethic. As time progressed my improvement was at first very gradual, but then the difference was noticeable. My diagnostics and PTs were commonly breaking 160s generally in the mid range, with my final test being my highest score with a 169."


OP states s/he hit a 172 a few weeks ago, but doesn't count this score since s/he took breaks in between each section.

Did you even read any of this?

I didn't see any of that I just read the OP, and saw his estimate of how many he got wrong which, if accurate, would be a good test for someone usually mid 160s with a high of 169. The info I did not see explains alot of the different perspectives. I would tend to agree that the 172 doesn't really count as a predictive score if he took breaks between sections, but it also establishes different maximums for each section and the issue becomes stamina which is definitely improvable.

If OP is confident in the range he gave I'd stick to my recommendation of not cancelling, but witht the info from the other post I'm not so sure. The only thing that keeps me on the "see what you got" bandwagon is that OP is likely not going to have a shot at HYSCCN no matter what and beyond that retakes don't really hurt.

With a 3.48 and a low score on the record they do, especially if we're talking BMVPDNC.

Clearly, OP is not confident of the range he gave (or didn't give), or of Monday's performance for that matter. OP should err on the side of caution. This is the LSAT, not the craps table.

[splitmuch]

You don't get free rolls at a craps table.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/retaking-the-lsat.html

[kwais]

OP, how do you "know" that CLS and NYU are averagers?

[CanadianWolf]

Although a few years old now, the NYU law school profile on TLS clearly states that multiple LSAT scores are averaged.

[splitmuch]

As does the article I linked, but I really don't think CCN is realistically n the discussion here

[Flips88]

It ought to be pointed out that OP's GPA (3.48) is pretty low for his desired schools of Colubmia and NYU. So you'll need a 173+ probably to have a fighting chance, more likely a 175. Getting a 170 will probably get you wait listed.

[kwais]

Although a few years old now, the NYU law school profile on TLS clearly states that multiple LSAT scores are averaged.

I know what they say, but with the system working in its current fashion, what is the incentive for a school to average scores? I think it makes sense to say it to light a fire under test takers, but that is different from actually doing it. (small sample size disclaimer) I got into CLS with 2 scores, the first of which and the the average of which are woefully insufficient for admission

[CanadianWolf]

No advantage other than to distinguish their transfer admission standards from other law schools. However, I am not sure that this policy is still in effect, although I believe that Harvard "frowns upon" multiple LSAT scores. The Yale law application asks applicants whether or not they took an LSAT prep course.

[SgtL]

OP, how do you "know" that CLS and NYU are averagers?

Thats just what I've read on the forum, although I have seen instances on LSN and posters here who go against this trend, and thus the reason why I've been leaning towards keeping. If I scored high enough to even be considered, I'd be devastated if s*** (Sorry) hit the fan in October, i.e. I get sick, get put on a surprise deployment, mission, etc.

I will do what I need to do to at least be considered for CLS/NYU. If that means cancelling and taking my chances in October (not chancing my score, chances on nothing going wrong), then so be it. Although I personally prefer to keep because as my brother reminded me yesterday, I am a worst case scenario person, I always think the worst and take it for granted as the truth.

Again appreciate all the advice. Is it a consensus that with a 165 on the June test (Worst case), no matter what I score in October (aside from 178+) I have no shot at CLS or NYU?

[SgtL]

I've decided to keep my score. Worst case is mid 160's, in which case an improvement of 7-10+ will hopefully make me more appealing to T14. Best case mid 170's in which case it wont get much better and I can get my apps together. If I cancel, I've used up my one free pass which I may need considering the nature of my occupation, or if something goes wrong on game day in October.

Thanks to everyone for all your time and input. Not going to wait until scores come out to start prep again though, got PT 1-56 ready to rock.

[kwais]

OP, how do you "know" that CLS and NYU are averagers?

Thats just what I've read on the forum, although I have seen instances on LSN and posters here who go against this trend, and thus the reason why I've been leaning towards keeping. If I scored high enough to even be considered, I'd be devastated if s*** (Sorry) hit the fan in October, i.e. I get sick, get put on a surprise deployment, mission, etc.

I will do what I need to do to at least be considered for CLS/NYU. If that means cancelling and taking my chances in October (not chancing my score, chances on nothing going wrong), then so be it. Although I personally prefer to keep because as my brother reminded me yesterday, I am a worst case scenario person, I always think the worst and take it for granted as the truth.

Again appreciate all the advice. Is it a consensus that with a 165 on the June test (Worst case), no matter what I score in October (aside from 178+) I have no shot at CLS or NYU?

163/173 In at CLS. No consensus. not saying its a lock. Just make sure you send the app