Do you think I could go from a 160-170 in 3 weeks? Forum

[honestabe84]

Taking the LSAT 3 times looks really bad to most adcoms. I wouldn't recommend it. A 170 on the third try with 2 previous scores that are substantially lower is probably only equivalent to a mid 160s in their eyes anyways.

No.

actually agree with jwicker, even through traehekat is my comrade ....i took it thrice. from my acceptances, i got the feeling that adcomms averaged them out (i realize there are many other factors involved but still). they can say that they don't average, but if you're in their shoes and have a candidate with 160, 162 and 170 and another with 160 and 170, which one wins the score game in your mind (all else constant)? top schools are blatantly honest about looking at all scores and not the highest also. i had the same exact thought process as you. wish i wouldn't have taken my second one and just studied longer and better for the third (aka switched from kaplan to powerscore earlier).

My own flesh and blood! (metaphorically speaking, of course) ... I also took it three times, and I didn't really get a sense my scores were averaged. I totally understand the logic that if you have to choose between someone with a 158, 162, and a 170 versus someone with a 170, you would just go with the person who has the one score of 170. In reality though, that choice never actually has to be made - they are both just admitted or rejected. If the person with the three scores IS denied while the other is accepted, it is because something was either wrong with their application or fantastic about the other person's application. I also had a different experience speaking with schools regarding taking the LSAT three times - almost all of them said they flat out take the highest. I think only like, two or three schools (and you can guess which ones) actually average. A lot of them say they look at and consider all scores, but I think that is just more of a "politically correct" thing to say.

I really hope you're right. I was really banking on adcomms (at least at the schools that say they only look at the highest) taking my most recent LSAT (my higher one).

Note to the other two posters: Do actually have it on good authority that schools generally average, or is this just mere speculation?

[h4rryp0tter]

you are absolutely correct. i have no clue what you presently think you need/want/desire. but what i can say is that there are too many variables ahead that prevent you from locking yourself into a black and white/do or die condition of where you "need" to attend LS (note: based on your score mark, you are probably applying to schools where being in the range is no guarantee of an acceptance). i didnt mean to say you couldnt know what you might want in terms of a potential field of study/area of practice at the present moment; i was contending more against the notion that your goal(s) are going to be static throughout life. since this predominately not the case, its somewhat neurotic to delude oneself into thinking there's only one option. everyone wants a good Lsat score. everyone wants to go to the best school. you have to fit yourself into reality though and broaden your perspective/options. if you end up getting into your dream school, that's awesome--i hope you do. but be fair to yourself and look at the numbers (percentiles, acceptance rates etc) to form some alternative plans that might also lead to your goal. again goodluck

I know everyone wants a good lsat score, I am not denying that. I am also not denying that not everyone can get a high lsat score. I am denying though that I fit into the latter category. I know I can get a good lsat score. I just want to know what works for other people so I can gauge how/when I am going to study.

[j nyc]

-

[thechee]

A guy I went to school with did. This guy was a major slacker. Super smart, but a slacker to the core. His GPA was sub-3.0...

8 days before the LSAT, he goes out and buys the Princeton Review LSAT book. Takes a diagnostic: low-150s. Reads the book, no major studying, takes another (fake) test from the book. Result: low 160s. Goes in the next day to take the real deal. 174. Not even kidding.

To top it off, he only applied to HLS, CLS, YLS, and Minnesota (home state), just a few days from the deadline. Unsurprising rejections at H and Y, but he managed to last out the CLS waitlist through the end of the summer, when they finally rejected him. He ended up at Minnesota, with money. Did well, is now working at a decent firm in Minneapolis.

Not saying that this is typical, but it's a pretty good story.

[fenway]

I know everyone wants a good lsat score, I am not denying that. I am also not denying that not everyone can get a high lsat score. I am denying though that I fit into the latter category. I know I can get a good lsat score. I just want to know what works for other people so I can gauge how/when I am going to study.[/quote]


--I guess you and the other 2% (170) who validated such intuition. you've got swagger at the very least

[hairy_p]

never listen to these statements - "one need at least 3 months to score 170+" or "In three weeks you can maximum improve 10 points"- Always remember, Everything is possible and no preparation can guarantee anything ultimately everything is the test day-How you perform on this day- that is the key

Gee, I wish I lived in Never Never Land, too...

You do not have to live anywhere. Just focus on books and forums and prepare yourself for test day.

[JWicker10]

To clafity my 'source' regarding how unattractive taking the test 3 times actually is. First off, many schools average. Off the top of my head, NYU says they average and UCLA says they look at all scores when making a decision. I also had a discussion with an adcom from Harvard where she basically indicated to me that they won't even look at you if you've taken if more than twice. DO NOT take the LSAT more than 2 times, IT WILL hurt you.

[bk1]

To clafity my 'source' regarding how unattractive taking the test 3 times actually is. First off, many schools average. Off the top of my head, NYU says they average and UCLA says they look at all scores when making a decision. I also had a discussion with an adcom from Harvard where she basically indicated to me that they won't even look at you if you've taken if more than twice. DO NOT take the LSAT more than 2 times, IT WILL hurt you.

I think this is an oversimplification. Yes, taking it 3 times will hurt you. However, does going 150, 152, 169 make up for that? Possibly, I definitely wouldn't rule it out. If your third time will not significantly increase your score then I agree, don't do it. But if you can reasonably get a significant increase (understandably it is unlikely after 2 tests that one will jump that high, but there are extenuating circumstances) then I would say the 3rd time is worth it because its increase in value is greater than the stigma of 3 tests.

[jjlaw]

To clafity my 'source' regarding how unattractive taking the test 3 times actually is. First off, many schools average. Off the top of my head, NYU says they average and UCLA says they look at all scores when making a decision. I also had a discussion with an adcom from Harvard where she basically indicated to me that they won't even look at you if you've taken if more than twice. DO NOT take the LSAT more than 2 times, IT WILL hurt you.

I don't know about that one. I know someone who took it twice (with the second score being lower even) who is attending HLS in September.

[09042014]

To clafity my 'source' regarding how unattractive taking the test 3 times actually is. First off, many schools average. Off the top of my head, NYU says they average and UCLA says they look at all scores when making a decision. I also had a discussion with an adcom from Harvard where she basically indicated to me that they won't even look at you if you've taken if more than twice. DO NOT take the LSAT more than 2 times, IT WILL hurt you.

I don't know about that one. I know someone who took it twice (with the second score being lower even) who is attending HLS in September.

Even if HLS penalizes, other schools don't, and if you don't have a HLS worthy LSAT there is no penality.

[Miracle]

To clafity my 'source' regarding how unattractive taking the test 3 times actually is. First off, many schools average. Off the top of my head, NYU says they average and UCLA says they look at all scores when making a decision. I also had a discussion with an adcom from Harvard where she basically indicated to me that they won't even look at you if you've taken if more than twice. DO NOT take the LSAT more than 2 times, IT WILL hurt you.

I don't know about that one. I know someone who took it twice (with the second score being lower even) who is attending HLS in September.

He said more than 2 times, not 2 times.

[honestabe84]

To clafity my 'source' regarding how unattractive taking the test 3 times actually is. First off, many schools average. Off the top of my head, NYU says they average and UCLA says they look at all scores when making a decision. I also had a discussion with an adcom from Harvard where she basically indicated to me that they won't even look at you if you've taken if more than twice. DO NOT take the LSAT more than 2 times, IT WILL hurt you.

I don't know about that one. I know someone who took it twice (with the second score being lower even) who is attending HLS in September.

Even if HLS penalizes, other schools don't, and if you don't have a HLS worthy LSAT there is no penality.

Credited.

Is that person seriously suggesting that taking the LSAT three times will hurt you because several schools average. If there is one certainty in life, it's that the vast majority of law schools only care about USNWR. I mean are schools lying when they say that they only care about the highest score?

It is better to have a 167, 168 and 169 than to just have 167 and 168.

[JWicker10]

Credited.

Is that person seriously suggesting that taking the LSAT three times will hurt you because several schools average. If there is one certainty in life, it's that the vast majority of law schools only care about USNWR. I mean are schools lying when they say that they only care about the highest score?

It is better to have a 167, 168 and 169 than to just have 167 and 168.

There's just absolutely NO WAY that's true. You'd raise your average a half point and your overall only 1 while taking it an entire extra time. Maybe if you're looking at schools outside of tier 1 there is a small amount of accuracy in this comment, but even then I'm skeptical. Moreover, when this thread was started, the user said they were not neccessarily confident that they would do well in 3 weeks, so why not just wait, study more, and put your best foot forward?

All taking the test 3 times says is "I don't show up on gameday and crack under the pressure." Hardly attractive.

Take it once ideally, twice if you must. Avoid taking it 3 times.

[PogueMahone]

Credited.

Is that person seriously suggesting that taking the LSAT three times will hurt you because several schools average. If there is one certainty in life, it's that the vast majority of law schools only care about USNWR. I mean are schools lying when they say that they only care about the highest score?

It is better to have a 167, 168 and 169 than to just have 167 and 168.

There's just absolutely NO WAY that's true. You'd raise your average a half point and your overall only 1 while taking it an entire extra time. Maybe if you're looking at schools outside of tier 1 there is a small amount of accuracy in this comment, but even then I'm skeptical. Moreover, when this thread was started, the user said they were not neccessarily confident that they would do well in 3 weeks, so why not just wait, study more, and put your best foot forward?

All taking the test 3 times says is "I don't show up on gameday and crack under the pressure." Hardly attractive.

Take it once ideally, twice if you must. Avoid taking it 3 times.

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/GAIAtheCHEERLEADER

according to profile went 166, 166, 172 and was admitted to HLS...

[JasonR]

Credited.

Is that person seriously suggesting that taking the LSAT three times will hurt you because several schools average. If there is one certainty in life, it's that the vast majority of law schools only care about USNWR. I mean are schools lying when they say that they only care about the highest score?

It is better to have a 167, 168 and 169 than to just have 167 and 168.

There's just absolutely NO WAY that's true. You'd raise your average a half point and your overall only 1 while taking it an entire extra time. Maybe if you're looking at schools outside of tier 1 there is a small amount of accuracy in this comment, but even then I'm skeptical. Moreover, when this thread was started, the user said they were not neccessarily confident that they would do well in 3 weeks, so why not just wait, study more, and put your best foot forward?

All taking the test 3 times says is "I don't show up on gameday and crack under the pressure." Hardly attractive.

Take it once ideally, twice if you must. Avoid taking it 3 times.

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/GAIAtheCHEERLEADER

according to profile went 166, 166, 172 and was admitted to HLS...

She's a URM, so she's not the best example, but, to your point, there are plenty of people from this cycle whose stats belie both the claim that 3 LSAT tries is some sort of fatal flaw in a T14 application and the claim that all top schools average (most no longer give a shit, with the change in how multiple LSAT scores are reported).

[BigA]

It is better to have a 167, 168 and 169 than to just have 167 and 168.

There's just absolutely NO WAY that's true. You'd raise your average a half point and your overall only 1 while taking it an entire extra time. Maybe if you're looking at schools outside of tier 1 there is a small amount of accuracy in this comment, but even then I'm skeptical. Moreover, when this thread was started, the user said they were not neccessarily confident that they would do well in 3 weeks, so why not just wait, study more, and put your best foot forward?

All taking the test 3 times says is "I don't show up on gameday and crack under the pressure." Hardly attractive.

Take it once ideally, twice if you must. Avoid taking it 3 times.

I don't see how a 167, 168, 169 would say that one doesn't show up on gameday and cracks under pressure. Perhaps the opposite. I'm really not arguing with you. I'm just trying to figure out what my approach should be. In this thread is it JWicker vs. Everyone + conventional wisdom? I appreciate your point of view.

[BigA]

So is this discussion closed? I think a good question would be: have many people taken the LSAT three times and felt like they didn't get the value out of their highest score? Unfortunately, LSN doesn't include people's other scores

[honestabe84]

Credited.

Is that person seriously suggesting that taking the LSAT three times will hurt you because several schools average. If there is one certainty in life, it's that the vast majority of law schools only care about USNWR. I mean are schools lying when they say that they only care about the highest score?

It is better to have a 167, 168 and 169 than to just have 167 and 168.

There's just absolutely NO WAY that's true. You'd raise your average a half point and your overall only 1 while taking it an entire extra time. Maybe if you're looking at schools outside of tier 1 there is a small amount of accuracy in this comment, but even then I'm skeptical. Moreover, when this thread was started, the user said they were not neccessarily confident that they would do well in 3 weeks, so why not just wait, study more, and put your best foot forward?

All taking the test 3 times says is "I don't show up on gameday and crack under the pressure." Hardly attractive.

Take it once ideally, twice if you must. Avoid taking it 3 times.

You may possibly be right when it come to schools that average (even then I still think the former is better), but when schools specifically say that they exclusively look at the highest score, I think that you should take their word for it.

Also, what exactly are you basing that statement on anyway? Just because Harvard mentioned something to you doesn't mean it is universally true.

[honestabe84]

So is this discussion closed? I think a good question would be: have many people taken the LSAT three times and felt like they didn't get the value out of their highest score? Unfortunately, LSN doesn't include people's other scores

I'll go ahead and start a poll.

[JWicker10]

Even if you think I'm wrong about 3 times looking bad, not putting your best foot forward and taking it an extra time WILL absolutely hurt you at schools that average or say that they look at all your scores as a whole. So, by taking it an extra time when you are not ready you are at a bare minimum hurting yourself at those schools as well as limiting yourself overall, when instead you could very easily wait until October and take it with your best foot forward.

[honestabe84]

Even if you think I'm wrong about 3 times looking bad, not putting your best foot forward and taking it an extra time WILL absolutely hurt you at schools that average or say that they look at all your scores as a whole. So, by taking it an extra time when you are not ready you are at a bare minimum hurting yourself at those schools as well as limiting yourself overall, when instead you could very easily wait until October and take it with your best foot forward.

What are you talking about? When did I ever say that I wasn't ready for June?

Also, even at schools that average, a person with 160, 162, and 164, is a better applicant than someone with just a 160 and a 162. Reason being, the former obviously has a higher average.

[JWicker10]

FSUgirl (original poster) is frantically trying to rush through herr studying in hopes to raise her score 10 points in 3 weeks. Instead, she could wait, do the requisite amount of studying, and put her best foot forward.

Scoring a 160 and 170 is better than scoring a 160, 159 and 170.

Think about it.

[dt22]

FSUgirl (original poster) is frantically trying to rush through herr studying in hopes to raise her score 10 points in 3 weeks. Instead, she could wait, do the requisite amount of studying, and put her best foot forward.

Scoring a 160 and 170 is better than scoring a 160, 159 and 170.

Think about it.

this.

[asoularisen]

First time I pt'd I made a 160, but admittedly I didn't take that pt seriously enough...

Second time, I made a 171 (with a total fluke in logic games)... From there I made 3 167s, and within 2 weeks (which was when my exam was) I was pt'ing at 174-176... I felt good enough about the real LSAT to have hope for a 175 on it, so yes, big gains in the high numbers CAN be made in a few weeks, but probably most significantly and quickly they are made in logic games... If other sections are your issue, I can't say.

[jbill]

Yes.

I wrote my first diagnostic (161) three weeks ago and managed to score a 180 just three days before the LSAT.

Nevertheless, I found the test fairly difficult and I am unsure of where my score will fall into that range.