June '10 Test Takers -- How Much Did "Luck" Play a Hand? Forum

[MagnumLifeStyle]

I'm sure many of you guys are familiar with the important role that luck plays in our lives, and many highly successful people point out at one time or another how "lucky" they were.

For those of you who took the test a few days ago, how much did luck (good or bad) play a hand in your performance?

Did you have a bad proctor? Nice, long table with comfortable chairs or the worst imaginable surroundings?

I'm just fascinated by the role of "luck" in our lives, and would really like to know how "lucky" or "unlucky" you guys were on this recent test.

thanks!

[FuManChusco]

I got lucky with my testing site in general. Good room, table, chair, proctor, etc. Pwning that test was all skill though. No luck involved.

[bk1]

Having taken the LSAT twice I have had it fine both times.

I don't know the percentage of people who actually have bad LSAT experiences (I would guess it is not many).

[cinefile 17]

I can't complain at all about the test center experience. I definitely lucked out on that. I do think that the test order/experimental section I got was definitely unlucky for me. For me, having the Reading Comp section last is the reason my score will be low 170s (hopefully) instead of high 170s. I have no one to blame but myself. RC is my toughest sections and by the time the fifth section came around I was completely drained (the test day took almost 7 hours so it was at least 6PM by then). I wasn't nervous at all, it was my loss of energy by the time the evening rolled around that got me. I under estimated how draining the test would be. After all, I was used to studying the LSAT for 7+ hours at the time. If I retake in October, I'll drink half a 5hr energy during the break.

Overall I think luck plays a part (test center experience, what experimental section you get and the order you get them in, etc.) But, I think in the end it comes down to whether or not we have prepared mentally to tackle the test to the best of our ability under the worst of conditions/luck.

[Tautology]

Unnecessary quotation marks make me cry.

[jdstl]

I feel like the luck factor is huge in the LSAT if you haven't prepared a lot (for instance, you might get 4 LG's that you just happen to see the key inferences and blow through, or you may get stumped). But if you're well prepared, particularly with lots of PT's, I think the luck factor is minimized. You've simply seen it all so many times before that any other factors become, on the balance, peripheral.

That said, I count myself lucky to have stumbled upon this site months before ever taking the LSAT. If hadn't poked around on here, I would have had no idea how seriously people prepare for the LSAT, probably would have picked up the Princeton Review book a couple weeks before the test and scored in the low 160's.

[cinefile 17]

I think for 99.85% of test takers luck is a serious factor (especially once you get up past 170+). However the top .15% of the best LSAT takers are so well prepared that they make their own luck (I am not one of these). That's how people like Robin Singh are able to score 180s many times straight under many different testing conditions/situations.

[theavrock]

Luck is just the by product of preparing yourself for success. If you are prepared it will go smoothly. If you didn't you had bad luck.

Obviously not a hard and fast rule, but I like it.

[quishiclocus]

I don't know how anybody can really say how their performance was until we get scores. The fact that you feel freaked out or really good about it doesn't mean anything at all.

[cinefile 17]

I don't know how anybody can really say how their performance was until we get scores. The fact that you feel freaked out or really good about it doesn't mean anything at all.

Yes and no. If you've taken enough PT you can usually estimate how well you have done (I usually guessed my PT scores pretty accurately before I actually looked at the answers). This also depends somewhat on where you are scoring b.c it's easier to tell the difference between -1 and -11 then -15 and -25. However, I do think the waiting period probably makes people slightly over pessimistic and of course, there are always things that could make your score lower that you wouldn't think of (bubbling mistakes).

[CryingMonkey]

I think for 99.85% of test takers luck is a serious factor (especially once you get up past 170+). However the top .15% of the best LSAT takers are so well prepared that they make their own luck (I am not one of these). That's how people like Robin Singh are able to score 180s many times straight under many different testing conditions/situations.

Actually, looking at someone like Robin Singh, you can see how much luck plays a factor for EVERYONE. If luck wasn't a factor for top scorers, there'd be an unbroken string of 180s. But even the best prepared person and most intelligent person can have one or two questions that for whatever reason just don't sit right - or they could break a pencil and run out of time, for that matter. I think skill can get you to a certain point - say, the 178-180 range - but the questions you get and your testing conditions (as well as the curve) affect your score. As an example, someone who missed 3 on the Dec 09 LSAT got a 180, while someone who missed 3 on the Sep 09 got a 178. That's luck.

[CMDantes]

We'll see the answer to this on June 28th.

[doppelganger]

Unnecessary quotation marks make me cry.

You mean "it" "makes" you "cry?"

[Kohinoor]

Having taken the LSAT twice I have had it fine both times.

I don't know the percentage of people who actually have bad LSAT experiences (I would guess it is not many).

Kid next to me kept talking to me. Stressed me the fuck out because I was sure we would both get kicked out.

[mst]

I think the effect of luck varies from person to person. In my case, my best days come when I have a logic game my mind can wrap its mind around, and then there's days where I'm REALLY interested in what the RC has to say. I'm not saying luck has a HUGE impact on my score, but on the off chance I got one of those few games that my mind just could not process, I would have felt pretty unlucky. Point of the story is, if it can be avoided by practicing and learning and preparing, luck is not a factor. But for me, who got passages my mind was able to process in a timely manner more so than usual, and didn't get LG's that I had never seen before or would be able to comprehend, I feel lucky. Not that I will feel happy come 2 weeks, but I certainly could have done worse...

[CMDantes]

Having taken the LSAT twice I have had it fine both times.

I don't know the percentage of people who actually have bad LSAT experiences (I would guess it is not many).

Kid next to me kept talking to me. Stressed me the fuck out because I was sure we would both get kicked out.

lol I would have told him to shut his face, politeness be damned.

[Knock]

I think for 99.85% of test takers luck is a serious factor (especially once you get up past 170+). However the top .15% of the best LSAT takers are so well prepared that they make their own luck (I am not one of these). That's how people like Robin Singh are able to score 180s many times straight under many different testing conditions/situations.

Yeah for sure, I tried to get to this point. I'm sure luck played a factor in my testing, but definitely my extensive prepping greatly reduced the amount of luck required for me to get the score I wanted.

Luck is just the by product of preparing yourself for success. If you are prepared it will go smoothly. If you didn't you had bad luck.

Obviously not a hard and fast rule, but I like it.

Completely agree. You got to make your own luck.

[WestOfTheRest]

I think for 99.85% of test takers luck is a serious factor (especially once you get up past 170+). However the top .15% of the best LSAT takers are so well prepared that they make their own luck (I am not one of these). That's how people like Robin Singh are able to score 180s many times straight under many different testing conditions/situations.

Actually, looking at someone like Robin Singh, you can see how much luck plays a factor for EVERYONE. If luck wasn't a factor for top scorers, there'd be an unbroken string of 180s. But even the best prepared person and most intelligent person can have one or two questions that for whatever reason just don't sit right - or they could break a pencil and run out of time, for that matter. I think skill can get you to a certain point - say, the 178-180 range - but the questions you get and your testing conditions (as well as the curve) affect your score. As an example, someone who missed 3 on the Dec 09 LSAT got a 180, while someone who missed 3 on the Sep 09 got a 178. That's luck.

My friend had an interview with Singh, and Singh told him that every single test he took he came out of feeling like he did shitty. Luck plays a major part of it for everyone. Even the most skilled test takers can make bubbling errors, miss one key word in a question, or screw something up minor. This test has so many little intricacies that no one can expect perfection our of it.

[bk1]

Kid next to me kept talking to me. Stressed me the fuck out because I was sure we would both get kicked out.

Oh I'm sure it exists and does mess with people, but I would think the majority of test takers are "safe." Sadly this does not help the few that do get screwed. Though I could be wrong about the frequency.

[1991]

1. I was very lucky proctor/testing room-wise. I got a big nice wide desk to myself, I got to pick the best-lighted one, and I was able to pull my legs up and sit entirely on the chair ("Indian style" or "Criss-Cross Applesauce" as we call it in kindergarten) like I normally did when I took practice exams.

2. I was lucky that I had run out of time on an RC section couple days prior. For the longest time RC was my strongest point, yet I started faltering recently as I began taking later PT's, which freaked me out but prepared me for the real thing. I expected to run out of time, so when I did, I was less freaked out.

3. I was lucky that I got to at least look at all the questions before bubbling in an answer.

4. I was lucky that the third section turned out to be (highly likely) experimental, because I had to go to the bathroom then.

5. I was also lucky in that the first section was fairly easy. I know it was so for most/all people, but I guess this more goes for everyone who too the June test. How you feel about the first section can push up or down your confidence level.

[Ragged]

Luck is going to determin my score.

[dubsky]

http://www.testmasters.net/lsat/whyWeAr ... ction.aspx

even the best of the best managed to score a comparatively dismal 174 and 173 twice since his second 180. That represents 2/15 or 13.3% !
This was in response to the poster who said that the people who score 178-180 "make their luck". It may be so to some extent, but it is certainly not always so !

[nillumin]

Having taken the LSAT twice I have had it fine both times.

I don't know the percentage of people who actually have bad LSAT experiences (I would guess it is not many).

Kid next to me kept talking to me. Stressed me the fuck out because I was sure we would both get kicked out.

lol

[3|ink]

Luck kicked my ass.

[jajacobs]

herniated a disc in my lower back 2 days before the test. guess that would be considered bad luck. strapped on a disposable heating pad and went to work. we'll see how smart that was in a couple weeks....
but you gotta love fate for throwing those curve balls in there and keeping things interesting......