Top Law Schools

im a sophomore at uconn and just took the june 2006 lsat as a practice and got a 151. what are my chances of moving up and how far do you think? thanks for the help

I went from 151 to a 169 and I think I would have done better if I'd taken the studying a bit more seriously especially as far as disecting my wrong answers. My highest PT was a 176 I think. You're fine.

abodetti wrote:im a sophomore at uconn and just took the june 2006 lsat as a practice and got a 151. what are my chances of moving up and how far do you think? thanks for the help

Dude, no one but you can really answer that question. It depends on how hard you want to study, whether your willing and able to take a LSAT prep course, understanding what is the best study options for you and of course you aptitude. That's like asking, "How fast could I run if I bought a new pair of running shoes?" Too many things to factor in to know for sure. With some studying and some help, you could bust out a 180 or go into the test center, get stage fright and pull a depressing 146.

practice, practice, practice. take a few more tests and see if it gets easier. if it doesn't, maybe a prep course would be a good idea.

.

A 151 cold is not bad, especially since you have never practiced logic games before.

146 to 167, study a lot imo

lawduder wrote:146 to 167, study a lot imo

Impressive. How did you study? Did you take a class?

143 to 166. No worries.

BruceBarr wrote:143 to 166. No worries.

The same question goes for you too. What in the world did you do to make that jump?

154 to 176. Can be done. I see people go from low 150's to mid 160's pretty regularly in my classes. They do occasionally go higher.

Helps to know the breakdown, too. If you were completely bombing games but doing pretty well on reading comp and okay on LR, then you're a great candidate for improvement. If you bombed RC and did well on games, you're in bigger trouble, though you can still improve in anything.

ps494 wrote:

lawduder wrote:146 to 167, study a lot imo

Impressive. How did you study? Did you take a class?

self study with the bibles and many, many PTs

I got 156 cold my first time, studied for two days the week of the test, and got 159. Yeah, I did it wrong, I know. Study a lot, and you will probably move up a lot more than I did.

tomwatts wrote:154 to 176. Can be done. I see people go from low 150's to mid 160's pretty regularly in my classes. They do occasionally go higher.

Helps to know the breakdown, too. If you were completely bombing games but doing pretty well on reading comp and okay on LR, then you're a great candidate for improvement. If you bombed RC and did well on games, you're in bigger trouble, though you can still improve in anything.

why is it that your in bigger trouble if you didnt do well on rc as opposed to games?

I'd say take your score, add back all the points lost in LG and then assume you got as many wrong as your last verbal (i.e you got a 700, you got 10 wrong) and rescore
...

that really doesnt matter on your diagnostic

but another i guess that would is subtract all LG lost and then subtract half of LR and maybe 1/4-1/2 of RC off


... this is assuming you're going to study so much that you couldnt possibly have done anu better on your real LSAT

abodetti wrote:why is it that your in bigger trouble if you didnt do well on rc as opposed to games?

Easier to improve games, harder to improve RC. Still possible, just harder.

s0ph1e2007 wrote:I'd say take your score, add back all the points lost in LG and then assume you got as many wrong as your last verbal (i.e you got a 700, you got 10 wrong) and rescore
...

that really doesnt matter on your diagnostic

but another i guess that would is subtract all LG lost and then subtract half of LR and maybe 1/4-1/2 of RC off


... this is assuming you're going to study so much that you couldnt possibly have done anu better on your real LSAT

That's quite a jump for RC. Especially if you were to cut your wrong answers in half on RC.

ps494 wrote:

BruceBarr wrote:143 to 166. No worries.

The same question goes for you too. What in the world did you do to make that jump?

Studied for about 4 months. 5 days a week, 3 hours a day. It sucks... it REALLY sucks, but it is absolutely worth it.

151 to 161

I studied about 6 hours a week for a month and a half. Sadly, I missed some points in LG - a little more time studying could've brought me to the mid-160s.

153 to 171.

used powerscore. studied over the summer about 4 hours a day, 5 days a week for 3 months. also did 2 PT a week.

BruceBarr wrote:

ps494 wrote:

BruceBarr wrote:143 to 166. No worries.

The same question goes for you too. What in the world did you do to make that jump?

Studied for about 4 months. 5 days a week, 3 hours a day. It sucks... it REALLY sucks, but it is absolutely worth it.

I really wish I could do that, but there is no way I could dedicate that amount of time while taking a full load of classes. I assume you studied over the summer and took the Sept. test?

152 cold, 167 on test day. RC was my worst. Also, it didn't really "click" until maybe 2 weeks before the sept 09 test, when i started to be able to see and break down my errors. Got unlucky on test day with double RC, which threw me off. Highest PT was 172.

It can definitely be done! Just start studying EARLY (don't kill yourself, just do it steadily, for the same amount of time every day). Time every single section or PT you do, and as soon as you get it start breaking down your PTs into sections and even question types that need improvement.

umichgrad wrote:152 cold, 167 on test day. RC was my worst. Also, it didn't really "click" until maybe 2 weeks before the sept 09 test, when i started to be able to see and break down my errors. Got unlucky on test day with double RC, which threw me off. Highest PT was 172.

It can definitely be done! Just start studying EARLY (don't kill yourself, just do it steadily, for the same amount of time every day). Time every single section or PT you do, and as soon as you get it start breaking down your PTs into sections and even question types that need improvement.

Why? So you can determine which sections your having trouble with and then work on them?

ps494 wrote:

umichgrad wrote:152 cold, 167 on test day. RC was my worst. Also, it didn't really "click" until maybe 2 weeks before the sept 09 test, when i started to be able to see and break down my errors. Got unlucky on test day with double RC, which threw me off. Highest PT was 172.

It can definitely be done! Just start studying EARLY (don't kill yourself, just do it steadily, for the same amount of time every day). Time every single section or PT you do, and as soon as you get it start breaking down your PTs into sections and even question types that need improvement.

Why? So you can determine which sections your having trouble with and then work on them?

Right. When you score your PTs, figure out which sections you're losing points on and then compare to others. So for example is the first section always your worst, regardless of content? You might need to warm up before the next one. Is RC always your worst? Don't waste time going over endless games until you fix your RC problems. It's not about how much you study, it's about studying efficiently and effectively.

Once you target the problem sections, target the problem question types. So if you're doing -4 on LG regularly and you're always missing the same type of problem (sequencing, matching, etc) then focus on understanding that type better. For LR, figure out if you're losing points on assumptions, etc. Fix the pieces one by one until you see your points go up.

tomwatts wrote:

abodetti wrote:why is it that your in bigger trouble if you didnt do well on rc as opposed to games?

Easier to improve games, harder to improve RC. Still possible, just harder.

I think that for the most part this is true, but it definitely depends on the person. I got a 154 on my diagnostic and I've been practicing in the 168-171 range (though Saturday is the only one that counts). On my diagnostic I missed 17 of the RC questions, on the most recent Preptest (September 09) I only missed 1. I usually miss between 2 and 4. If you're having trouble with RC don't worry, while there might not be as many techniques to help you with RC, exposure to the material and the process can go a long way.