Anyone Break 170 Yet? Forum

[ConsideringLawSchool]

While we're at it, today is my day to do this.

Sometimes people say that Princeton Review methods are not designed to get you to the 170+ range. I call BS. I've never looked at anything but Princeton Review materials. I've never seen Kaplan Mastery, Powerscore anything, or a Testmasters or Blueprint class, or whatever. I used Cracking the LSAT originally and have been working with Princeton Review course materials ever since. I know nothing but Princeton Review methods, so I can't help but use Princeton Review methods.

AND I GOT AN F-ING 180.

And I'm not the only one. The person who develops our materials is named Andrew Brody (semi-famous for his "LSAT Logic in Everyday Life" podcast, which I quite enjoy), and he got a 180, too. My students routinely (well, a few of them) score in the 170's. So anyone who says that our methods aren't good enough or aren't designed for whatever score, THEY'RE FULL OF IT. Your mileage may vary, depending on your individual teacher, but the methods are sound.

Okay, glad I got that out of my system.

I wouldn't say anything specifically negative about PR, but I would say that the prep materials of most companies really can't go beyond 170-175. At a certain point, you know all the tricks/gimmicks, and they cannot really get you those last points. Other than the LGB, the only materials I used were the practice tests.

As for why I would retake a 177, I know how I screwed up and feel confident I could get 179-180. My GPA is the one weakness in my app, so why not offset it with a 180?

[invisiblesun]

While we're at it, today is my day to do this.

Sometimes people say that Princeton Review methods are not designed to get you to the 170+ range. I call BS. I've never looked at anything but Princeton Review materials. I've never seen Kaplan Mastery, Powerscore anything, or a Testmasters or Blueprint class, or whatever. I used Cracking the LSAT originally and have been working with Princeton Review course materials ever since. I know nothing but Princeton Review methods, so I can't help but use Princeton Review methods.

AND I GOT AN F-ING 180.

And I'm not the only one. The person who develops our materials is named Andrew Brody (semi-famous for his "LSAT Logic in Everyday Life" podcast, which I quite enjoy), and he got a 180, too. My students routinely (well, a few of them) score in the 170's. So anyone who says that our methods aren't good enough or aren't designed for whatever score, THEY'RE FULL OF IT. Your mileage may vary, depending on your individual teacher, but the methods are sound.

Okay, glad I got that out of my system.

I self prepped and did worse than you (179)...I guess I should have used Princeton...

[Miznitic]

I just got a 179 through self study using preptests and the bibles. I personally think the ultimate way to learn this test, is to go through as many preptests as possible and use whatever method(kaplan, princeton, powerscore, whatever) that works best for you to understand each question. Review correct answers, review incorrect answers, and see why they work the way they do. The best method in the world is only a basic tool, it is the effort put into the practice tests that pays off the most. Several times throughout the test I was able to quickly get the answer because I recognized similarities between the question asked, and one I've done/analyzed previously.

[tomwatts]

At a certain point, you know all the tricks/gimmicks, and they cannot really get you those last points. Other than the LGB, the only materials I used were the practice tests.

It is true that no matter what you do, the bulk of your time should be spent working and reviewing real LSAT questions. Whether you self-study or prep with a class or tutor or whatever, you've got to do a lot of work on your own, too.

[skip james]

While we're at it, today is my day to do this.

Sometimes people say that Princeton Review methods are not designed to get you to the 170+ range. I call BS. I've never looked at anything but Princeton Review materials. I've never seen Kaplan Mastery, Powerscore anything, or a Testmasters or Blueprint class, or whatever. I used Cracking the LSAT originally and have been working with Princeton Review course materials ever since. I know nothing but Princeton Review methods, so I can't help but use Princeton Review methods.

AND I GOT AN F-ING 180.

And I'm not the only one. The person who develops our materials is named Andrew Brody (semi-famous for his "LSAT Logic in Everyday Life" podcast, which I quite enjoy), and he got a 180, too. My students routinely (well, a few of them) score in the 170's. So anyone who says that our methods aren't good enough or aren't designed for whatever score, THEY'RE FULL OF IT. Your mileage may vary, depending on your individual teacher, but the methods are sound.

Okay, glad I got that out of my system.

dude, you of all people should know that that is a bad argument. einstein could probably do differential equations with an abacus and a half broken pencil, but that doesn't mean that those tools are equally as effective for solving difficult math problems as, let's say, a graphing calculator or something.

not that i'm saying princeton review sucks, but dude, ease up there on the defensiveness.

and congrats on the 180. i hope to hit it myself one of these days.

[HiLine]

dude, you of all people should know that that is a bad argument. einstein could probably do differential equations with an abacus and a half broken pencil, but that doesn't mean that those tools are equally as effective for solving difficult math problems as, let's say, a graphing calculator or something.

not that i'm saying princeton review sucks, but dude, ease up there on the defensiveness.

and congrats on the 180. i hope to hit it myself one of these days.

To continue your analogy, the argument tomwatts was trying to make was that some people falsely believed an abacus and a half broken pencil are not designed to help you solve difficult math problem - a point of view that you just refuted. I don't think he made a further argument.

[TheLuckyOne]

While we're at it, today is my day to do this.

Sometimes people say that Princeton Review methods are not designed to get you to the 170+ range. I call BS. I've never looked at anything but Princeton Review materials. I've never seen Kaplan Mastery, Powerscore anything, or a Testmasters or Blueprint class, or whatever. I used Cracking the LSAT originally and have been working with Princeton Review course materials ever since. I know nothing but Princeton Review methods, so I can't help but use Princeton Review methods.

AND I GOT AN F-ING 180.

And I'm not the only one. The person who develops our materials is named Andrew Brody (semi-famous for his "LSAT Logic in Everyday Life" podcast, which I quite enjoy), and he got a 180, too. My students routinely (well, a few of them) score in the 170's. So anyone who says that our methods aren't good enough or aren't designed for whatever score, THEY'RE FULL OF IT. Your mileage may vary, depending on your individual teacher, but the methods are sound.

Okay, glad I got that out of my system.

I feel as if this was addressed to me since we'd had an argument with Tom awhile back.

Tom, do you really not consider that those were not PR books or methods or whatever, it was just your effort+time. I'm not saying (and have never said) PR tutors are bad, it's just the books themselves. Just like Kaplan with its HORRIBLE explanations... you know. Maybe PS tutors are of exact same quality as those at any other company, but PS managed to publish affordable EXCELLENT materials, and, hence, I admire them for doing so. They PRed (in a sense of Public Relations )themselves and were quite successful in doing so. I personally liked their way of approaching problems that I could read in their cheap books, so if I had a choice I would definitely prefer hiring PS tutor over any other.

If a company wants to show how good they are and why their methods are superior to all the other companies, then why publish crappy books with methods they don't really use. You, guys, have a very bad PR/Business Development department. Your books is the way to show public how good you are, not how bad you are.

Anyway, congrats on your stunning 180

[tikiman6]

While we're at it, today is my day to do this.

Sometimes people say that Princeton Review methods are not designed to get you to the 170+ range. I call BS. I've never looked at anything but Princeton Review materials. I've never seen Kaplan Mastery, Powerscore anything, or a Testmasters or Blueprint class, or whatever. I used Cracking the LSAT originally and have been working with Princeton Review course materials ever since. I know nothing but Princeton Review methods, so I can't help but use Princeton Review methods.

AND I GOT AN F-ING 180.

And I'm not the only one. The person who develops our materials is named Andrew Brody (semi-famous for his "LSAT Logic in Everyday Life" podcast, which I quite enjoy), and he got a 180, too. My students routinely (well, a few of them) score in the 170's. So anyone who says that our methods aren't good enough or aren't designed for whatever score, THEY'RE FULL OF IT. Your mileage may vary, depending on your individual teacher, but the methods are sound.

Okay, glad I got that out of my system.

I wouldn't say anything specifically negative about PR, but I would say that the prep materials of most companies really can't go beyond 170-175. At a certain point, you know all the tricks/gimmicks, and they cannot really get you those last points. Other than the LGB, the only materials I used were the practice tests.

As for why I would retake a 177, I know how I screwed up and feel confident I could get 179-180. My GPA is the one weakness in my app, so why not offset it with a 180?

Technically, you would offset it with a 177 and a 180. Most schools at the top at least notice it took you two tries to get a perfect score.

[ConsideringLawSchool]

While we're at it, today is my day to do this.

Sometimes people say that Princeton Review methods are not designed to get you to the 170+ range. I call BS. I've never looked at anything but Princeton Review materials. I've never seen Kaplan Mastery, Powerscore anything, or a Testmasters or Blueprint class, or whatever. I used Cracking the LSAT originally and have been working with Princeton Review course materials ever since. I know nothing but Princeton Review methods, so I can't help but use Princeton Review methods.

AND I GOT AN F-ING 180.

And I'm not the only one. The person who develops our materials is named Andrew Brody (semi-famous for his "LSAT Logic in Everyday Life" podcast, which I quite enjoy), and he got a 180, too. My students routinely (well, a few of them) score in the 170's. So anyone who says that our methods aren't good enough or aren't designed for whatever score, THEY'RE FULL OF IT. Your mileage may vary, depending on your individual teacher, but the methods are sound.

Okay, glad I got that out of my system.

I wouldn't say anything specifically negative about PR, but I would say that the prep materials of most companies really can't go beyond 170-175. At a certain point, you know all the tricks/gimmicks, and they cannot really get you those last points. Other than the LGB, the only materials I used were the practice tests.

As for why I would retake a 177, I know how I screwed up and feel confident I could get 179-180. My GPA is the one weakness in my app, so why not offset it with a 180?

Technically, you would offset it with a 177 and a 180. Most schools at the top at least notice it took you two tries to get a perfect score.

So you'd just let it be?

[r6_philly]

I think a good course help you reach your potential. Since we don't know what anyone's potential is, it is hard to predict how well anyone can score with the help of a good course/tutor. But obviously some will do better than others and no amount of help can massively overcome your potential. Maybe you get lucky and score a few points higher but the stats will say two thirds will fall within 1 standard deviation of your potential... We can debate how well each company/course can help you get to your potential, but to set a score goal is misguided - to say that 1 company can get you 180 while another can't - it depends on the test taker's potential and luck.

[tomwatts]

So you'd just let it be?

I'd just let it be. I don't think that a 177 with a 180 is going to offset anything in a way that a 177 by itself wouldn't.