The Official February 2010 Waiting Thread Forum

[charlesxavier]

I got a 161. What's weird is that is the same score as my lowest PT. That PT was also in the exact same order as my LSAT- LG LR LG LR RC. I remember going into the LSAT thinking that as long as the test and LG section didn't play towards my weaknesses like that PT I would be fine. Well, it was the exact same type of test and I got the same score . My PT average was around a 166. I am glad that I have a solid score and I am going to retake in June and hope to bump it up to my PT average.

[abbas123]

I'm most happy. I took this last Feb 2009 and got a 141 with really crummy studying. I decided to wait a year, do every lsat preptest I could find multiple times, practically memorize the three bibles, and I just walked away with a 179. I honestly didn't think I did THAT well as the LG section threw me a bit, or so I thought.

A 38 point jump; I think you just shattered a record on TLS. The biggest jumps I've seen on this forum are a 153 to 180 (27 point jump by bcjets212) and a 147 to 175 (28 point jump by kajosa).

O M G

congrats!!!

please post here http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =6&t=21382

[Ben2010]

I got a 166, which basically equals my PT average and a 5 pt. bump from Sept. 2009. (And much better than I thought I would do after taking the test.)

This will make sending out some last-minute applications this weekend much better.

[Giller]

Hi all. I'm wondering how the percentiles worked out for this test. My cousin wrote it and her email says that she scored 158, which is 46th %. That seems just absurd to me. I wrote in December, and according to the IRR Additional Info document a 158 was 75th %, which seems MUCH more reasonable. Was there an error in her email, or is a 158 on this test actually 46th %?

[Snuffie]

Hi all. I'm wondering how the percentiles worked out for this test. My cousin wrote it and her email says that she scored 158, which is 46th %. That seems just absurd to me. I wrote in December, and according to the IRR Additional Info document a 158 was 75th %, which seems MUCH more reasonable. Was there an error in her email, or is a 158 on this test actually 46th %?

Love the avatar, Giller. It's a good day to read Sickness Unto Death.

[nikkei325i]

-27 from my PTs. Yeah, do not ask.

I know you said do not ask, and I know you're feeling bad, but how is that even possible? Did you time yourself honestly on PTs?

Yeah, I strictly timed myself on all of the PTs I had taken. I think it had to due with me losing confidence/motivation during the test when I realized that I didn't get to finish the LG section of my exam. I HEAVILY rely on getting everything on the LG section correct + around -6 to -5 on both LR sections and around -7 to -8 on the RC section in order to hit my goal of 167 to 168 (depending on the curve). Well I got the LG section first on Feb LSAT, and from then on felt really discouraged about my whole performance and could not think about anything else but picking myself up during the exam, walking out and heading straight home to cancel my exam.

[nikkei325i]

Way to dodge his question.

Hi all. I'm wondering how the percentiles worked out for this test. My cousin wrote it and her email says that she scored 158, which is 46th %. That seems just absurd to me. I wrote in December, and according to the IRR Additional Info document a 158 was 75th %, which seems MUCH more reasonable. Was there an error in her email, or is a 158 on this test actually 46th %?

Love the avatar, Giller. It's a good day to read Sickness Unto Death.

[Giller]

Hi all. I'm wondering how the percentiles worked out for this test. My cousin wrote it and her email says that she scored 158, which is 46th %. That seems just absurd to me. I wrote in December, and according to the IRR Additional Info document a 158 was 75th %, which seems MUCH more reasonable. Was there an error in her email, or is a 158 on this test actually 46th %?

Love the avatar, Giller. It's a good day to read Sickness Unto Death.

Haha, to be honest I have only read are Fear and Trembling, and Philosophical Fragments by Mr. K. F&T is easily one of my favourite books of any sort, though. Poetic Dialect FTW!

[Giller]

Way to dodge his question.

Hi all. I'm wondering how the percentiles worked out for this test. My cousin wrote it and her email says that she scored 158, which is 46th %. That seems just absurd to me. I wrote in December, and according to the IRR Additional Info document a 158 was 75th %, which seems MUCH more reasonable. Was there an error in her email, or is a 158 on this test actually 46th %?

Love the avatar, Giller. It's a good day to read Sickness Unto Death.

Yes, anyone have an answer for me please? I am baffled.

[WWAD]

No that's wrong. I got a lower score and higher percentage. I think it should be around 70+.

[Giller]

No that's wrong. I got a lower score and higher percentage. I think it should be around 70+.

Thank God. Time for me to console her that she did not score 46th %ile.


Thanks!

[raperez129]

I did better than expected.

[scribelaw]

Similar to Miznitic, I went from a 148 to a 169. To everyone who had a low first score - IT IS POSSIBLE TO IMPROVE!!!!! We are both living proof. Don't lose hope!!

Congrats!

That's an amazing jump, and you should feel awesome about it. You must have studied hard and well.

[tomwatts]

Now I get to claim an overall 26-point jump (154 to 180) instead of an overall 22-point jump, which is what I used to be able to claim. When I'm not postin this from my phone in between meeting with tutoring students, I'll be able to say more.

Congratulations to all who did well (or even just well enough), and my condolences to those who didn't.

[JasonR]

No that's wrong. I got a lower score and higher percentage. I think it should be around 70+.

Thank God. Time for me to console her that she did not score 46th %ile.


Thanks!

Does her email say both 158 and 46th percentile? Let's hope that it wasn't that the score that was reported incorrectly and the percentile correctly. 46th percentile is a 148; a 158 is 75th percentile.

[Giller]

No that's wrong. I got a lower score and higher percentage. I think it should be around 70+.

Thank God. Time for me to console her that she did not score 46th %ile.


Thanks!

Does her email say both 158 and 46th percentile? Let's hope that it wasn't that the score that was reported incorrectly and the percentile correctly. 46th percentile is a 148; a 158 is 75th percentile.

Scary thought! We'll have to wait for her to clear it up with LSAC, I suppose.

[nikkei325i]

I cannot take the LSAT more than 3 times in a 2 year period. FML.

[msesquire2b]

Now I get to claim an overall 26-point jump (154 to 180) instead of an overall 22-point jump, which is what I used to be able to claim. When I'm not postin this from my phone in between meeting with tutoring students, I'll be able to say more.

Congratulations to all who did well (or even just well enough), and my condolences to those who didn't.

May I ask what you did to study the second time around?

[Thirteen]

164 (5 point drop). FML.

[JCougar]

Sept. '09: 158
Dec. '09: 162





Feb. '10: 168!!! I finally hit my PT average!!!

[albanach]

Yeah, I strictly timed myself on all of the PTs I had taken. I think it had to due with me losing confidence/motivation during the test when I realized that I didn't get to finish the LG section of my exam.

I know hindsight is 20/20 and you've probably realized this already, but try never to get discouraged by a section before the break, as you won't know until afterward whether or not it was experimental.

[Close Diamond]

Yeah, I strictly timed myself on all of the PTs I had taken. I think it had to due with me losing confidence/motivation during the test when I realized that I didn't get to finish the LG section of my exam.

I know hindsight is 20/20 and you've probably realized this already, but try never to get discouraged by a section before the break, as you won't know until afterward whether or not it was experimental.

It is, hypothetically speaking, possible to see the first page of the fourth section through the thin last page of the third section. Hypothetically.

[chutzpah]

I think this test probably had a fairly standard curve (-11) based on the scores reported so far.

So far we've seen the following scores:

180
179
178
177
176
175
173
172
171
170

Did anyone get a 174?

Also, special shout out to Miznitic. Going from a 141 to a 179 is freakin' incredible and inspiring.

I got a 174 BUT I took the 2/20 makeup, which was a different exam... so different curve?

[albanach]

I cannot take the LSAT more than 3 times in a 2 year period. FML.

Plenty of folk have taken it more than three times in 2 years. If you really think next time will be better, get a lower ranked school to write to LSAC and you can take the test once more.

But it's only going to be worthwhile if you really think you can change something and get close to the score you desire.

[albanach]

It is, hypothetically speaking, possible to see the first page of the fourth section through the thin last page of the third section. Hypothetically.

I have wondered if LSAC consider this.

Knowing what section four is would only really be useful if section three were LG or RC and section four was the same.

You could then establish that (assuming the experimental section continues to be in part one) your current section is experimental. It would be pretty easy for LSAC to make sure that if section three is experimental and not LR, that section four will be LR.