Top Law Schools

164
170
164
164
176
167
166
166
166
165
172

I've taken these 11 tests over the past 20 days and these have been my scores..... I'm starting to freak out. All these tests have been identically controlled w/ a lsat proctor dvd.

What do I need to do to consistently score high?

ca1aa8b8 wrote:--ImageRemoved--

I've taken these 11 tests over the past 20 days and these have been my scores..... I'm starting to freak out. All these tests have been identically controlled w/ a lsat proctor dvd.

What do I need to do to consistently score high?

"These"????????????

mlbennani wrote:"These"????????????

Sorry, I had a link to a graph but it stopped working....I'll just type in the scores.

lsat proctor dvd- they have these


anyways it looks like progress to me.
why dont you take 3 days off to relax a little and go over lr bible again and dissect one of the harder test you took, then jump back into it

what is wrong with me?!?!??!?!?!??!?!??!?

Well, Karl, you kill people and eat their hands. That's, uh -- that's two things.

Depends on whether the 172 was your first practice test or your last.

Maybe this is the answer to your question:

ca1aa8b8 wrote:I'm starting to freak out.

Is it possible your anxiety is holding you back?

What is wrong with you? Your excessive use of punctuation, for a start. We could also discuss how you keep scoring similarly to the devil's number (166!). But I'd just say that maybe your anxiety is affecting your scores, and also that every score up there is pretty damn respectable and just stay cool and keep working, analyze your mistakes and try to figure out what's causing the variance in scores. For example, do you score 170+ on PT's that have only grouping games? And so on and so forth.

Yeh see if LG is the section with the most variation.

If not, then I would work on consistency since you have obviously shown potential for 170+.

Is there a specific area that sometimes falls through for you and drags your score down? (I'd venture a guess, games?) If so, stop PTing for sometime and target that area only.

Ragged wrote:Is there a specific area that sometimes falls through for you and drags your score down? (I'd venture a guess, games?) If so, stop PTing for sometime and target that area only.

172 is most recent.

Mostly....I'll either miss-time a RC section, or drop the ball on a LG section, or both...

ca1aa8b8 wrote:

Ragged wrote:Is there a specific area that sometimes falls through for you and drags your score down? (I'd venture a guess, games?) If so, stop PTing for sometime and target that area only.

172 is most recent.

Mostly....I'll either miss-time a RC section, or drop the ball on a LG section, or both...

Miss-time? Do you mean mistime, in which case you would mean you didn't time it correctly, or do you mean you had time management issues?

I know what you mean about dropping the ball on an LG section. Usually there's one game that sinks me - if it's last, no problem, but if it's 1st/2nd/3rd I end up crunched for time on another game, usually miss one on the weird game, then miss 2-3 more on the other games due to time crunchers and stupidity. I'm going to start drilling all the games I've already done, and once I do future PTs, I'll add those games to the drilling pile. If you've already worked the LGB and it makes sense to you, I think drilling is the best way to figure that out.

My PT numbers looked very similar and most of the time the disparity was the result of a bad RC or LR section. Good news. I ended up with a 166... bad news? Ended up with a 166.

If you want to do better than the range you're already in, then you're going to have to obtain a greater understanding of the material. Repetition alone won't take you to the next level, I don't think.

What to do depends on which sections are giving you the most trouble.

ca1aa8b8 wrote:164
170
164
164
176
167
166
166
166
165
172

I've taken these 11 tests over the past 20 days and these have been my scores..... I'm starting to freak out. All these tests have been identically controlled w/ a lsat proctor dvd.

What do I need to do to consistently score high?

This feels like one of those 'solve the paradox' questions.

Which of the following, if true, would contribute most to an explanation of the stipulated facts?

A.) You're the son of Satan, and he compels you to score 166.
B.) You're not eating wheaties every morning.
C.) Burnout is quite pronounced after taking 11 tests in 20 days, averaging just over 1 test every 2 days.
D.) You're watching 'Jersey Shore', and it's rotting your brain.
E.) Aflac!

This is a normal distribution. I can't figure out what the complaint is. Have you even scored outside of the standard deviation? You just have slight improvement, but some variability: again, this is absolutely to be expected.

ca1aa8b8 wrote:

Ragged wrote:Is there a specific area that sometimes falls through for you and drags your score down? (I'd venture a guess, games?) If so, stop PTing for sometime and target that area only.

172 is most recent.

Mostly....I'll either miss-time a RC section, or drop the ball on a LG section, or both...

Its the same for me man, and I guess for most other people. I don't know of any other remedy than to do all the LG sections you can and then go over them the second time. That's, by the way, something I'm going to do in preparation for October.

As far as I know RC is the hardest section to improve on. But I would employ the same stratagy. If I were you, I would spend a week or so of just LG and then a week or so of just RC and then put it all together by PTing all the way to the actual test.

sumus romani wrote:This is a normal distribution. I can't figure out what the complaint is. Have you even scored outside of the standard deviation? You just have slight improvement, but some variability: again, this is absolutely to be expected.

You nailed it.

If he took the test 100 times and plot all the scores all that he is going to see is a normal distribution of scores with a midpoint near 166... frankly all he can really do is stop working on trying to improve drastically and accept that the only improvement likely will be to shift slightly past the midpoint 166... that isn't going to happen from suddenly getting smarter it will only happen from being more comfortable with the test and thus being more likely to be on the right side of the midpoint... no magic about it or the fact that that is really all you get from any of those test prep services... they don't make anyone smart just get them more familiar with the process and increase the chances of landing on the right side of the person's normal distribution curve.

I don't know what's possibly wrong with you but your scores seem fine. Seems like you are in the 165-168 range with some outliers. I think one issue might be doing 11 tests in 20 days. Take some time to thoroughly review tests (that means even questions you got right!) It helped me move up when I felt like I was plateauing. Also figure out what your issue is -- is it timing? Is it certain types of LR? Getting tripped up on games? Fatigue? Or certain types of RC passages like science or legal concept ones?

Pip wrote:

sumus romani wrote:This is a normal distribution. I can't figure out what the complaint is. Have you even scored outside of the standard deviation? You just have slight improvement, but some variability: again, this is absolutely to be expected.

You nailed it.

... frankly all he can really do is stop working on trying to improve drastically and accept that the only improvement likely will be to shift slightly past the midpoint 166... that isn't going to happen from suddenly getting smarter it will only happen from being more comfortable with the test and thus being more likely to be on the right side of the midpoint... no magic about it or the fact that that is really all you get from any of those test prep services... they don't make anyone smart just get them more familiar with the process and increase the chances of landing on the right side of the person's normal distribution curve.

I agree that he is making slight progress, and it is unrealistic to expect sudden leaps. However, I completely disagree that "the only progress he can make is slightly beyond the midpoint of 166". That is utter nonsense. Many, many people have been in ruts in the mid 60s or 50s, and have achieved scores in the 170s through extensive practice. Of course test prep and practice does not "make you smarter", but it does make you more familiar with the test to the point where you can raise your score beyond just a few points.

I was stuck in the mid 150s for a long time. If you saw the distribution of the first 12 tests I took, you would probably say that I would not be able to score consistently in the low 170s. Well, I have improved through practice and I do score consistently in the low 170s.

I am not saying that people don't have an upper limit on their ability to perform on the LSAT. Everyone does. Some people can never score in the 170s. Some people can never score in the 150s. Everyone's goal on the LSAT should be to hit their upper limit on test day. However, you can't necessarily determine what someone's upper limit is merely by looking at the score distribution of their first dozen tests. And you certainly should not tell someone that they can only realistically improve a few points beyond the midpoint of their first dozen scores. We do not know whether that is true or not, and the OP's goal should be to score as high as possible. We can't arbitrarily put a cap on someone's potential by looking at those numbers.

To the OP, keep at it man. You will get there if you are disciplined, and don't look at your mistakes as signs of personal inadequacy--mistakes should be opportunities to learn.

nStiver wrote:

Pip wrote:

sumus romani wrote:This is a normal distribution. I can't figure out what the complaint is. Have you even scored outside of the standard deviation? You just have slight improvement, but some variability: again, this is absolutely to be expected.

You nailed it.

... frankly all he can really do is stop working on trying to improve drastically and accept that the only improvement likely will be to shift slightly past the midpoint 166... that isn't going to happen from suddenly getting smarter it will only happen from being more comfortable with the test and thus being more likely to be on the right side of the midpoint... no magic about it or the fact that that is really all you get from any of those test prep services... they don't make anyone smart just get them more familiar with the process and increase the chances of landing on the right side of the person's normal distribution curve.

I agree that he is making slight progress, and it is unrealistic to expect sudden leaps. However, I completely disagree that "the only progress he can make is slightly beyond the midpoint of 166". That is utter nonsense. Many, many people have been in ruts in the mid 60s or 50s, and have achieved scores in the 170s through extensive practice. Of course test prep and practice does not "make you smarter", but it does make you more familiar with the test to the point where you can raise your score beyond just a few points.

I was stuck in the mid 150s for a long time. If you saw the distribution of the first 12 tests I took, you would probably say that I would not be able to score consistently in the low 170s. Well, I have improved through practice and I do score consistently in the low 170s.

I am not saying that people don't have an upper limit on their ability to perform on the LSAT. Everyone does. Some people can never score in the 170s. Some people can never score in the 150s. Everyone's goal on the LSAT should be to hit their upper limit on test day. However, you can't necessarily determine what someone's upper limit is merely by looking at the score distribution of their first dozen tests. And you certainly should not tell someone that they can only realistically improve a few points beyond the midpoint of their first dozen scores. We do not know whether that is true or not, and the OP's goal should be to score as high as possible. We can't arbitrarily put a cap on someone's potential by looking at those numbers.

To the OP, keep at it man. You will get there if you are disciplined, and don't look at your mistakes as signs of personal inadequacy--mistakes should be opportunities to learn.

Looking back at the original scores again.... I see that he was originally a 164 midpoint and it has now shifted up 2 points to a midpoint of 166... If you had an experience where you went from 150s to 170s then I suspect you had some problems with parts of the test the first time and only later learned that you were doing something wrong.

A score in 150s could easily be someone just doesn't understand how to solve a particular problem... but when you are in the mid 160s you are not likely to be making dumb mistakes as much as you are just showing where you are.

My opinion is the OP is kicking a dead horse if he keeps on. The only way to go further now is to learn to relax, anyone who has taken that many practice tests is clearly over stressed about the test. Maybe just go read The Inner Game of Tennis and learn from it how to perform to your highest potential.

Pip wrote:

nStiver wrote:

Pip wrote:

sumus romani wrote:This is a normal distribution. I can't figure out what the complaint is. Have you even scored outside of the standard deviation? You just have slight improvement, but some variability: again, this is absolutely to be expected.

You nailed it.

... frankly all he can really do is stop working on trying to improve drastically and accept that the only improvement likely will be to shift slightly past the midpoint 166... that isn't going to happen from suddenly getting smarter it will only happen from being more comfortable with the test and thus being more likely to be on the right side of the midpoint... no magic about it or the fact that that is really all you get from any of those test prep services... they don't make anyone smart just get them more familiar with the process and increase the chances of landing on the right side of the person's normal distribution curve.

I agree that he is making slight progress, and it is unrealistic to expect sudden leaps. However, I completely disagree that "the only progress he can make is slightly beyond the midpoint of 166". That is utter nonsense. Many, many people have been in ruts in the mid 60s or 50s, and have achieved scores in the 170s through extensive practice. Of course test prep and practice does not "make you smarter", but it does make you more familiar with the test to the point where you can raise your score beyond just a few points.

I was stuck in the mid 150s for a long time. If you saw the distribution of the first 12 tests I took, you would probably say that I would not be able to score consistently in the low 170s. Well, I have improved through practice and I do score consistently in the low 170s.

I am not saying that people don't have an upper limit on their ability to perform on the LSAT. Everyone does. Some people can never score in the 170s. Some people can never score in the 150s. Everyone's goal on the LSAT should be to hit their upper limit on test day. However, you can't necessarily determine what someone's upper limit is merely by looking at the score distribution of their first dozen tests. And you certainly should not tell someone that they can only realistically improve a few points beyond the midpoint of their first dozen scores. We do not know whether that is true or not, and the OP's goal should be to score as high as possible. We can't arbitrarily put a cap on someone's potential by looking at those numbers.

To the OP, keep at it man. You will get there if you are disciplined, and don't look at your mistakes as signs of personal inadequacy--mistakes should be opportunities to learn.

Looking back at the original scores again.... I see that he was originally a 164 midpoint and it has now shifted up 2 points to a midpoint of 166... If you had an experience where you went from 150s to 170s then I suspect you had some problems with parts of the test the first time and only later learned that you were doing something wrong.

A score in 150s could easily be someone just doesn't understand how to solve a particular problem... but when you are in the mid 160s you are not likely to be making dumb mistakes as much as you are just showing where you are.

My opinion is the OP is kicking a dead horse if he keeps on. The only way to go further now is to learn to relax, anyone who has taken that many practice tests is clearly over stressed about the test. Maybe just go read The Inner Game of Tennis and learn from it how to perform to your highest potential.

I don't agree with the notion that if you are in the 160s you are not likely to be making dumb mistakes. If you're in the 160s, esp. the mid 160s, you have a pretty firm grasp of LSAT logic and you are most likely making careless mistakes that are keeping from the 170 holy grail. Misreading, moving too quickly, zoning out, etc. are all a possibility for anyone on the LSAT. That being said, I wholeheartedly agree that the only way for OP to go further now is to learn to relax. Keeping cool in stressful situations is always a positive.

Pip wrote:

nStiver wrote:

Pip wrote:

sumus romani wrote:This is a normal distribution. I can't figure out what the complaint is. Have you even scored outside of the standard deviation? You just have slight improvement, but some variability: again, this is absolutely to be expected.

You nailed it.

... frankly all he can really do is stop working on trying to improve drastically and accept that the only improvement likely will be to shift slightly past the midpoint 166... that isn't going to happen from suddenly getting smarter it will only happen from being more comfortable with the test and thus being more likely to be on the right side of the midpoint... no magic about it or the fact that that is really all you get from any of those test prep services... they don't make anyone smart just get them more familiar with the process and increase the chances of landing on the right side of the person's normal distribution curve.

I agree that he is making slight progress, and it is unrealistic to expect sudden leaps. However, I completely disagree that "the only progress he can make is slightly beyond the midpoint of 166". That is utter nonsense. Many, many people have been in ruts in the mid 60s or 50s, and have achieved scores in the 170s through extensive practice. Of course test prep and practice does not "make you smarter", but it does make you more familiar with the test to the point where you can raise your score beyond just a few points.

I was stuck in the mid 150s for a long time. If you saw the distribution of the first 12 tests I took, you would probably say that I would not be able to score consistently in the low 170s. Well, I have improved through practice and I do score consistently in the low 170s.

I am not saying that people don't have an upper limit on their ability to perform on the LSAT. Everyone does. Some people can never score in the 170s. Some people can never score in the 150s. Everyone's goal on the LSAT should be to hit their upper limit on test day. However, you can't necessarily determine what someone's upper limit is merely by looking at the score distribution of their first dozen tests. And you certainly should not tell someone that they can only realistically improve a few points beyond the midpoint of their first dozen scores. We do not know whether that is true or not, and the OP's goal should be to score as high as possible. We can't arbitrarily put a cap on someone's potential by looking at those numbers.

To the OP, keep at it man. You will get there if you are disciplined, and don't look at your mistakes as signs of personal inadequacy--mistakes should be opportunities to learn.

Looking back at the original scores again.... I see that he was originally a 164 midpoint and it has now shifted up 2 points to a midpoint of 166... If you had an experience where you went from 150s to 170s then I suspect you had some problems with parts of the test the first time and only later learned that you were doing something wrong.

A score in 150s could easily be someone just doesn't understand how to solve a particular problem... but when you are in the mid 160s you are not likely to be making dumb mistakes as much as you are just showing where you are.

My opinion is the OP is kicking a dead horse if he keeps on. The only way to go further now is to learn to relax, anyone who has taken that many practice tests is clearly over stressed about the test. Maybe just go read The Inner Game of Tennis and learn from it how to perform to your highest potential.

I still think he should keep doing PTs. I didn't see my improvement after doing a massive quantity of problems, and really reviewing them. I am with you 100% that the OP should relax, but for me lots of PTs and reviewed problems were key to my success.

Concentration is key on the LSAT, which brings me to my next question: Pip, are you a tennis player? I am, and I read the Inner Game a few months ago. It is practically the secret to life if you can put that guys ideas and perspective into practice. Funny, when I read the Inner Game I was thinking about applying it to the LSAT too lol.

nStiver wrote: Concentration is key on the LSAT, which brings me to my next question: Pip, are you a tennis player? I am, and I read the Inner Game a few months ago. It is practically the secret to life if you can put that guys ideas and perspective into practice. Funny, when I read the Inner Game I was thinking about applying it to the LSAT too lol.

I've played tennis some but I read the book because I was a music major and my trumpet teacher gave me a copy. The book really does apply to just about anything you can imagine, especially things where over thinking can be a problem.

I didn't read this whole thread but I just wanted to tell OP these scores/deviation are definitely not unusual.

EDIT: Also, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po4QWvz5 ... re=related