. Forum

[Clearly]

I know that sounds reasonable to you, but seriously it's just not true. I've had students, smart 3.8 already graduated kids, 3 takes, study for well over a year, strong materials, can't break 161. We're an interesting an self selecting group here, but for every 170 there's a 130, and they all graduated college too. I'm telling you guys, spend time teaching this test for companies that attract students from across the range of scores and you'd meet the majority that won't ever touch 160 if they dedicated their whole lives to it.

[RamTitan]

I know that sounds reasonable to you, but seriously it's just not true. I've had students, smart 3.8 already graduated kids, 3 takes, study for well over a year, strong materials, can't break 161. We're an interesting an self selecting group here, but for every 170 there's a 130, and they all graduated college too. I'm telling you guys, spend time teaching this test for companies that attract students from across the range of scores and you'd meet the majority that won't ever touch 160 if they dedicated their whole lives to it.

Dang.....that makes me very grateful that I've been able to get to where I am now.

[HYPSM]

I know that sounds reasonable to you, but seriously it's just not true. I've had students, smart 3.8 already graduated kids, 3 takes, study for well over a year, strong materials, can't break 161. We're an interesting an self selecting group here, but for every 170 there's a 130, and they all graduated college too. I'm telling you guys, spend time teaching this test for companies that attract students from across the range of scores and you'd meet the majority that won't ever touch 160 if they dedicated their whole lives to it.

I think I can accept your general argument, but that example sounds REALLY extreme to me.

161 after over a year of studying, 3 takes, and strong material (not to mention private tutoring)? I suspect they had other responsibilities or did not commit fully if that is the case (especially if they graduated with a 3.8 GPA from a reputable, or even decent, school).

Or perhaps your assumption that they were smart is simply false, I don't know.

[Clearly]

I know that sounds reasonable to you, but seriously it's just not true. I've had students, smart 3.8 already graduated kids, 3 takes, study for well over a year, strong materials, can't break 161. We're an interesting an self selecting group here, but for every 170 there's a 130, and they all graduated college too. I'm telling you guys, spend time teaching this test for companies that attract students from across the range of scores and you'd meet the majority that won't ever touch 160 if they dedicated their whole lives to it.

I think I can accept your general argument, but that example sounds REALLY extreme to me.

161 after over a year of studying, 3 takes, and strong material (not to mention private tutoring)? I suspect they had other responsibilities or did not commit fully if that is the case (especially if they graduated with a 3.8 GPA from a reputable, or even decent, school).

Or perhaps your assumption that they were smart is simply false, I don't know.

Or, perhaps you're blind to the fact that not everyone excels at the lsat? That some people freak out on standardized tests? I mean seriously, you think any random college grad can best 97% of lsat takers if they just try? Fwiw that particular person EDd into the T14 and excelled.

I can't prove anything to you beyond the obvious (that if 170 is 97th percentile, and any person could get 170, that fully 97% of test takers just didn't try, which is absurd), but the best I can ask of you is to just take my word for it as someone who has taught huge classes in nyc for multiple companies over multiple years and private tutored hundreds more. I've worked very closely with literally hundreds of dedicated testers, and I can assure you the vast majority of testers will never sniff 170, just like curve suggests, and anyone who has interacted with test takers outside of tls's bubble will verify.

[HYPSM]

I know that sounds reasonable to you, but seriously it's just not true. I've had students, smart 3.8 already graduated kids, 3 takes, study for well over a year, strong materials, can't break 161. We're an interesting an self selecting group here, but for every 170 there's a 130, and they all graduated college too. I'm telling you guys, spend time teaching this test for companies that attract students from across the range of scores and you'd meet the majority that won't ever touch 160 if they dedicated their whole lives to it.

I think I can accept your general argument, but that example sounds REALLY extreme to me.

161 after over a year of studying, 3 takes, and strong material (not to mention private tutoring)? I suspect they had other responsibilities or did not commit fully if that is the case (especially if they graduated with a 3.8 GPA from a reputable, or even decent, school).

Or perhaps your assumption that they were smart is simply false, I don't know.

Or, perhaps you're blind to the fact that not everyone excels at the lsat? That some people freak out on standardized tests? I mean seriously, you think any random college grad can best 97% of lsat takers if they just try? Fwiw that particular person EDd into the T14 and excelled.

I can't prove anything to you beyond the obvious (that if 170 is 97th percentile, and any person could get 170, that fully 97% of test takers just didn't try, which is absurd), but the best I can ask of you is to just take my word for it as someone who has taught huge classes in nyc for multiple companies over multiple years and private tutored hundreds more. I've worked very closely with literally hundreds of dedicated testers, and I can assure you the vast majority of testers will never sniff 170, just like curve suggests, and anyone who has interacted with test takers outside of tls's bubble will verify.

Naw, I don't think that "any random college grad can best 97% of lsat takers." I was just saying that the particular example you cited seemed unusual, given the fact that 161 is not even close to besting "97% of lsat takers" or even 90%.

Like I said, I accept your general argument, namely that we may be underestimating how difficult it is for the average person to get 170+. However, I still think your example is extreme/is probably an outlier.

[Justtrying2help]

White girl from my undergrad with a 3.95 gpa and 165 (studied for well over a year and never broke 170 in study) Cali'd/ received book prizes for having the best grade in half of her 1l classes at a t-14 (she applied early decision). Having a 170 LSAT score is awesome but actually being good in law school is more important. Yeah if she scored a 173 or so she may have been Harvard eligible but going up 8 points after dedicating a year to study is unlikely and rare. Sometimes you have to realize that scoring a 170 may not happen for you within a reasonable amount of time and you should adjust your focus to your actual career goals. The timed nature of the LSAT causes many people to panic or struggle when they take it live. The test is important as heck but your career isn't determined or ruined by it.

[izha]

The presumption, of course, is that the individual puts in the necessary time -- whether that be 6 months or a year (perhaps two, three, etc.).

Does everyone have the capacity to score 170, or are some people just "intellectually" limited, even if they put in the hours? I'm more interested in what people think about those with average intelligence, though (it goes without saying that those with lower than average intelligence will probably not score 170.)

Please explain down below!

I absolutely believe anyone could break 170 with enough time & preparation. It's not unfathomable. Your average individual could become extraordinarily proficient at logic games with a month of dedicated prep and study. Proficient to the point of -0.

I absolutely believe that no one with average intelligence would ever say this.

I'm not the person you quoted, but could you elaborate as to why? (E.g., RC is not as learnable, etc.)

There is no undergrad school with average LSAT above 166 (may be even 164).
Princeton, Stanford, MIT, whatever. So it's either that most of graduates of those schools are idiots, or taking LSAT just for fun.

[HYPSM]

White girl from my undergrad with a 3.95 gpa and 165 (studied for well over a year and never broke 170 in study) Cali'd/ received book prizes for having the best grade in half of her 1l classes at a t-14 (she applied early decision). Having a 170 LSAT score is awesome but actually being good in law school is more important. Yeah if she scored a 173 or so she may have been Harvard eligible but going up 8 points after dedicating a year to study is unlikely and rare. Sometimes you have to realize that scoring a 170 may not happen for you within a reasonable amount of time and you should adjust your focus to your actual career goals. The timed nature of the LSAT causes many people to panic or struggle when they take it live. The test is important as heck but your career isn't determined or ruined by it.

Definitely see where you're coming from. But for people who don't have 3.95 GPAs and can't afford a T-14 law school without a substantial scholarship (both of which that white girl apparently had or could do), the LSAT actually will determine their careers.

I'm one of those people, unfortunately Heck, it'll determine whether I can go to law school or not in the first place.

[Justtrying2help]

White girl from my undergrad with a 3.95 gpa and 165 (studied for well over a year and never broke 170 in study) Cali'd/ received book prizes for having the best grade in half of her 1l classes at a t-14 (she applied early decision). Having a 170 LSAT score is awesome but actually being good in law school is more important. Yeah if she scored a 173 or so she may have been Harvard eligible but going up 8 points after dedicating a year to study is unlikely and rare. Sometimes you have to realize that scoring a 170 may not happen for you within a reasonable amount of time and you should adjust your focus to your actual career goals. The timed nature of the LSAT causes many people to panic or struggle when they take it live. The test is important as heck but your career isn't determined or ruined by it.

Definitely see where you're coming from. But for people who don't have 3.95 GPAs and can't afford a T-14 law school without a substantial scholarship (both of which that white girl apparently had or could do), the LSAT actually will determine their careers.

I'm one of those people, unfortunately Heck, it'll determine whether I can go to law school or not in the first place.

How are you scoring currently on the LSAT and what's the lowest ranked school you would attend at what COA?