Top Law Schools

What does everyone think is a reasonable amount to improve on your real LSAT from your diagnostic? i.e. if I got a 155 on my diag what should I shoot for on my actual test?

I have no idea what the average or common consensus is, but I think "diagnostics" are a terrible idea, & are actually a misnomer.
Read the Powerscore bibles for games & reasoning, take un-timed tests and slowly work up your speed while answering every question. Eventually make the transition to a timed test. Count your second timed test as a "diagnostic". I don't see the utility in rushing into a number before it's even vaguely representative of where you stand.

You still have dozens of practice tests left to improve your timing & weak points.

Edit: a mod might consider moving this to LSAT prep?

wrong thread

glcoupe wrote:What does everyone think is a reasonable amount to improve on your real LSAT from your diagnostic? i.e. if I got a 155 on my diag what should I shoot for on my actual test?

180.

There's no real sense in setting a target number on a test that doesn't penalize wrong answers. Just keep at it — there's a lot of time to go.

SullaFelix wrote:There's no real sense in setting a target number on a test that doesn't penalize wrong answers.

...unless you get more than two-ish answers wrong...

Patriot1208 wrote:wrong thread

--ImageRemoved--


lol

Sell Manilla wrote:

SullaFelix wrote:There's no real sense in setting a target number on a test that doesn't penalize wrong answers.

...unless you get more than two-ish answers wrong...

Some standardized tests — for example, the SATs, which I'm sure most of us took — penalize you for a wrong answer by docking you -.25 points. The LSAT, however, doesn't differentiate between a wrong answer and a skipped question. I think it was pretty clear that's what I was referring to.

@bleu: I love you now

@Sulla: normally I would nitpick here, but I just finished half a glass of wine & am about to go have dinner, so let's just say I love you too.