The Official June 2017 Study Group Forum

[Slippin' Jimmy]

I'm glad this forum exists because no one else will understand my frustration with scoring a 169 instead of my usual score yesterday.

Yep! I had a (hopefully stray) 166 the other day and freaked out. All my friends said "isn't that still a really good score?" And I said "not when it's below median everywhere I plan to apply except one school."

When I first hit a 165 my coworker who's going to a TTTT and couldn't hit 150 told me "I hope you get that on the real thing!" I wanted to punch his stupid face.

Had a girl who's currently at a TT tell me "anything over a 160 and you'll be fine." I really wish that was the case.

That really is the mindset of 95% of test takers, and was mine before I found this site and /r/lawschooladmissions back in January.

I attended one meeting of my UG's pre law society shortly after taking my diagnostic and they were going over their scores from their most recent PT that they all took together. The highest score was a 149! And everyone was all excited for that person talking about how smart they are! I do go to a TTT undergrad but still, I thought our student body was at least smarter than THAT.

[saf18hornet]

Also what do you consider your "usual" score? I've heard we all have a +/-5 point range from a certain score.

Just my personal opinion, but I think your scores should be extremely consistent, +/- 1, mayyybe +/- 2 for maximum 5 point range, say 167-169 (166-170). Anything larger than that, you should really question your current level of understanding. If you can bounce around from 173, 165, 169, 164, 171....to me that means you are occasionally getting lucky on your guesses once you've narrowed it down to 2 choices, and other times you aren't.

To really feel confident you are understanding the concepts, your score should be very repeatable with the occasional outlier that is obviously so.

[Future Ex-Engineer]

Also what do you consider your "usual" score? I've heard we all have a +/-5 point range from a certain score.

Just my personal opinion, but I think your scores should be extremely consistent, +/- 1, mayyybe +/- 2 for maximum 5 point range, say 167-169 (166-170). Anything larger than that, you should really question your current level of understanding. If you can bounce around from 173, 165, 169, 164, 171....to me that means you are occasionally getting lucky on your guesses once you've narrowed it down to 2 choices, and other times you aren't.

To really feel confident you are understanding the concepts, your score should be very repeatable with the occasional outlier that is obviously so.

Ehh, I don't know if I agree with that.
My current range is 170-176 over the past 5 tests with an average of 173.2
I think that's totally within the range of possibility. The 170 was -11 and the 176 was -7. Took the 170 under pretty rough conditions on purpose and the 176 was also under less than desirable conditions, but not as crazy as the 170. I think the distractions contributed to two misses on RC and a mis-read of an LR question for the 170.

I think if anything, to me that indicates that once you get to a high level of test taking, slight fluctuations in the test have a more noticeable impact on your scaled score

[ms9]

This is not a drill

I have just gotten off the phone with the LSAC and a representative told me they have abolished the three takes in two years restriction. Her words were "Now you can take it as many times as you want."


!!!!!!!!

wait what. for real?

Yes! There is another thread with a tweet from Spivey on it as well. Call them and see what they say!

Footnote: Please don't call them today

Sorry! You know I am surprised that they shared the info on the phone without putting out a statement or updating the website first. Not doing the greatest work controlling the narrative...

Oh if you mean LSAC call the heck out of them. I just meant don't call SCG, and specifically I meant don't call me

[Walliums]

This is not a drill

I have just gotten off the phone with the LSAC and a representative told me they have abolished the three takes in two years restriction. Her words were "Now you can take it as many times as you want."


!!!!!!!!

wait what. for real?

Yes! There is another thread with a tweet from Spivey on it as well. Call them and see what they say!

Footnote: Please don't call them today

Sorry! You know I am surprised that they shared the info on the phone without putting out a statement or updating the website first. Not doing the greatest work controlling the narrative...

Oh if you mean LSAC call the heck out of them. I just meant don't call SCG, and specifically I meant don't call me

Oh, yes, I had meant the LSAC! Should I tell people to call you today though? Doesn't sound like you are very busy...

[saf18hornet]

Also what do you consider your "usual" score? I've heard we all have a +/-5 point range from a certain score.

Just my personal opinion, but I think your scores should be extremely consistent, +/- 1, mayyybe +/- 2 for maximum 5 point range, say 167-169 (166-170). Anything larger than that, you should really question your current level of understanding. If you can bounce around from 173, 165, 169, 164, 171....to me that means you are occasionally getting lucky on your guesses once you've narrowed it down to 2 choices, and other times you aren't.

To really feel confident you are understanding the concepts, your score should be very repeatable with the occasional outlier that is obviously so.

Ehh, I don't know if I agree with that.
My current range is 170-176 over the past 5 tests with an average of 173.2
I think that's totally within the range of possibility. The 170 was -11 and the 176 was -7. Took the 170 under pretty rough conditions on purpose and the 176 was also under less than desirable conditions, but not as crazy as the 170. I think the distractions contributed to two misses on RC and a mis-read of an LR question for the 170.

I think if anything, to me that indicates that once you get to a high level of test taking, slight fluctuations in the test have a more noticeable impact on your scaled score

As scores improve, the deviation should and can increase. Folks in the 170s can have a larger variance, while those in the 160s should be much tighter, especially where 2-3 questions is only a 1 pt score difference. You could have a 10 pt raw score difference, say 73 vs 83, and only be 4 pts lower on the 180 scale.

[zkyggi]

Took PT 78 today:

LR1: -1
LG: -0
LR2: -0
RC: -3

177

Really happy to be consistently scoring well on LR now, now if only my RC scores would hold steady instead of fluctuating. I tried to do the passages with more Q's first, and then I rushed when I felt like I was taking too long. In the end I had 3 extra minutes, gotta work on that.

[MediocreAtBest]

Took PT 78 today:

LR1: -1
LG: -0
LR2: -0
RC: -3

177

Really happy to be consistently scoring well on LR now, now if only my RC scores would hold steady instead of fluctuating. I tried to do the passages with more Q's first, and then I rushed when I felt like I was taking too long. In the end I had 3 extra minutes, gotta work on that.

Really jealous of your LR. Went -1 on a section I drilled today but of course ended up -5 on the second section I did. If I can go a combined -4 I'll be satisfied since I'm -0 on LG and -0/-1 on RC.

[saf18hornet]

Took PT 78 today:

LR1: -1
LG: -0
LR2: -0
RC: -3

177

Really happy to be consistently scoring well on LR now, now if only my RC scores would hold steady instead of fluctuating. I tried to do the passages with more Q's first, and then I rushed when I felt like I was taking too long. In the end I had 3 extra minutes, gotta work on that.

I took 78 on Saturday:
LR1: -3
LG: -1
LR2: -7 (ouch, but learned a key takeaway on something that should fix a minor issue i have with strengthen questions)
RC: -1 (got the MP question on the 2nd passage wrong, but perfect score on the tokens)

169

Looking forward to taking PT 79 after work tonight

[zkyggi]

Took PT 78 today:

LR1: -1
LG: -0
LR2: -0
RC: -3

177

Really happy to be consistently scoring well on LR now, now if only my RC scores would hold steady instead of fluctuating. I tried to do the passages with more Q's first, and then I rushed when I felt like I was taking too long. In the end I had 3 extra minutes, gotta work on that.

Really jealous of your LR. Went -1 on a section I drilled today but of course ended up -5 on the second section I did. If I can go a combined -4 I'll be satisfied since I'm -0 on LG and -0/-1 on RC.

How are you reviewing the questions you get wrong? And what types are they?

[zkyggi]

Took PT 78 today:

LR1: -1
LG: -0
LR2: -0
RC: -3

177

Really happy to be consistently scoring well on LR now, now if only my RC scores would hold steady instead of fluctuating. I tried to do the passages with more Q's first, and then I rushed when I felt like I was taking too long. In the end I had 3 extra minutes, gotta work on that.

I took 78 on Saturday:
LR1: -3
LG: -1
LR2: -7 (ouch, but learned a key takeaway on something that should fix a minor issue i have with strengthen questions)
RC: -1 (got the MP question on the 2nd passage wrong, but perfect score on the tokens)

169

Looking forward to taking PT 79 after work tonight

I missed all of my RC questions in the tokens passage. I knew I didn't understand the passage well but I did it second so I was worried about going over. I need to work on getting the "feel" of time in RC.

Good luck on PT79!

[MediocreAtBest]

Took PT 78 today:

LR1: -1
LG: -0
LR2: -0
RC: -3

177

Really happy to be consistently scoring well on LR now, now if only my RC scores would hold steady instead of fluctuating. I tried to do the passages with more Q's first, and then I rushed when I felt like I was taking too long. In the end I had 3 extra minutes, gotta work on that.

Really jealous of your LR. Went -1 on a section I drilled today but of course ended up -5 on the second section I did. If I can go a combined -4 I'll be satisfied since I'm -0 on LG and -0/-1 on RC.

How are you reviewing the questions you get wrong? And what types are they?

I usually give them a second try after I mark them wrong to see if I can get the right answer, then I spend some time breaking down why it's correct/incorrect, I'll go on manhattan forums if I'm having some trouble. I'm kind of all over the place, tbh, I'm going back over a few things like SA and justify this week. I normally find that about 2/3 questions I do get wrong are just dumb mistakes. I'm fairly confident a little refresher on a couple principles and more attentive reading by me will get me to where I need to be.

[zkyggi]

I usually give them a second try after I mark them wrong to see if I can get the right answer, then I spend some time breaking down why it's correct/incorrect, I'll go on manhattan forums if I'm having some trouble. I'm kind of all over the place, tbh, I'm going back over a few things like SA and justify this week. I normally find that about 2/3 questions I do get wrong are just dumb mistakes. I'm fairly confident a little refresher on a couple principles and more attentive reading by me will get me to where I need to be.

Good luck!

[zkyggi]

I usually give them a second try after I mark them wrong to see if I can get the right answer, then I spend some time breaking down why it's correct/incorrect, I'll go on manhattan forums if I'm having some trouble. I'm kind of all over the place, tbh, I'm going back over a few things like SA and justify this week. I normally find that about 2/3 questions I do get wrong are just dumb mistakes. I'm fairly confident a little refresher on a couple principles and more attentive reading by me will get me to where I need to be.

Good luck!

[Neil_Gorsuch]

Also what do you consider your "usual" score? I've heard we all have a +/-5 point range from a certain score.

Just my personal opinion, but I think your scores should be extremely consistent, +/- 1, mayyybe +/- 2 for maximum 5 point range, say 167-169 (166-170). Anything larger than that, you should really question your current level of understanding. If you can bounce around from 173, 165, 169, 164, 171....to me that means you are occasionally getting lucky on your guesses once you've narrowed it down to 2 choices, and other times you aren't.

To really feel confident you are understanding the concepts, your score should be very repeatable with the occasional outlier that is obviously so.

I'd tend to agree with this, especially if the variance is dipping down below 170 into the 160s. As established, variance within the 170s is much more understandable.

[Future Ex-Engineer]

Also what do you consider your "usual" score? I've heard we all have a +/-5 point range from a certain score.

Just my personal opinion, but I think your scores should be extremely consistent, +/- 1, mayyybe +/- 2 for maximum 5 point range, say 167-169 (166-170). Anything larger than that, you should really question your current level of understanding. If you can bounce around from 173, 165, 169, 164, 171....to me that means you are occasionally getting lucky on your guesses once you've narrowed it down to 2 choices, and other times you aren't.

To really feel confident you are understanding the concepts, your score should be very repeatable with the occasional outlier that is obviously so.

Ehh, I don't know if I agree with that.
My current range is 170-176 over the past 5 tests with an average of 173.2
I think that's totally within the range of possibility. The 170 was -11 and the 176 was -7. Took the 170 under pretty rough conditions on purpose and the 176 was also under less than desirable conditions, but not as crazy as the 170. I think the distractions contributed to two misses on RC and a mis-read of an LR question for the 170.

I think if anything, to me that indicates that once you get to a high level of test taking, slight fluctuations in the test have a more noticeable impact on your scaled score

As scores improve, the deviation should and can increase. Folks in the 170s can have a larger variance, while those in the 160s should be much tighter, especially where 2-3 questions is only a 1 pt score difference. You could have a 10 pt raw score difference, say 73 vs 83, and only be 4 pts lower on the 180 scale.

Yeah, so you're literally agreeing with me. When you're high in score, a 6 point swing (170-176 or 173-179) does not indicate that you should be questioning your level of understanding. It means you tripped up on a certain test.

That is different if you are swinging from 164-170. In this instance, that is a much larger number of questions being missed -> probably not understanding everything as you should.

[tuna_wasabi]

Hey all,

Could anyone PM me the answer keys for PT 77 (and the raw score distribution)? I returned the PT to my friend earlier.

[tuna_wasabi]

Anybody making nutritional changes for June?

Gonna bring bananas to the test center like it's nobody's business

[marcos2011]

Hi guys, new member here. I'm a little terrified and would appreciate your help. Been studying for the past month but the most i've gotten in a prep test-- only taken a few-- has been 150. Today's the deadline to change the LSAT date. Should I switch to the September one? I'm not familiar with the general consensus here when it comes to taking the official test twice. Is the philosophy here among the 95th+ percentile "One and Done"?

Well obviously it depends on what is your plan. If you want to get in some T30-T40 school, I'd go for September. I mean, I don't think that you can go from a 150 to more or less 160 in one month. Even though a retake doesn't affect your file, this is just useless.

If you plan to attend a school where you are competitive with a 153/155, then you should try this round. However that is something I wouldn't recommend... 10 points more and you are in a completely different school.

Right, i mean I have in mind registering for the September LSAt anyway, I just wanted an opinion whether or not two LSAT scores look way worse than just one really good one, even when there's like a 20 point increase for example.

[Slippin' Jimmy]

Just took PT 71

LR1 -4 LG -6 LR2 -0 RC -5 Scaled 169

Not happy with that LG still, and RC I am very surprised to have missed that many as I felt I did very well on the section. LR is still around my average as a whole but it would have been nice to be more consistent on the first section, -4 is still too high.

On a positive note I think its safe to say that I've broken out of my 167 plateau with my last 3 PTs being 171, 169, 169 over 69, 70 and 71.

Going to review the LG Bible over the next few days, and will be drilling all 3 sections Wednesday-Friday. Then I've got the electronic administration Saturday and will probably do PT 72 on Sunday.

[Mint-Berry_Crunch]

Saturday e test roll call

[Slippin' Jimmy]

Saturday e test roll call

I'm interested to see if it will be new, previously undisclosed material or just an already released PT. I assume it would have to be new stuff in order to get an accurate measurement, because most people like us who sign up for it have probably gone through most of the recent PTs.

[Saylor1720]

Took PT69 today and scored a 169... (Rob Gronkowski approves)
LR1: -3
LG: -2
RC: -5
LR2: -2

Made 2 simple mistakes on LG keeping me out of the 170's. I also was running a little low on time for the last RC passage about Dodo's and got 3 of my wrong from that passage alone. Overall, really happy with this score. Still looking to get into the 170's with some consistency before test day. Going to make every experimental from here on out an RC section to help with 1) RC 2) endurance, since I find RC to be the most mentally taxing. Good luck all!

[Mint-Berry_Crunch]

Saturday e test roll call

I'm interested to see if it will be new, previously undisclosed material or just an already released PT. I assume it would have to be new stuff in order to get an accurate measurement, because most people like us who sign up for it have probably gone through most of the recent PTs.

It's probably a feb test

[Slippin' Jimmy]

I am an absolute moron. The reason I took so long on game 2 and missed 2 questions was I COMPLETELY ignored a rule that I had written down correctly and numbered while I was answering the Qs. If I just read what I wrote I would be looking at another 170+