Top Law Schools

Many would argue that the difference has a lot to do with luck. But after taking my fair share of pt's, I would disagree. Consistently getting 174-176 and 178-180 is HUGE! Sure it might be the difference of only a few questions, but I feel like there's a definite line of separation here, just like there is, I feel, a separation between 166-168 and 170-172. I know that the lower scores have a wider range for missed questions, however, I reckon that higher scores are a testament to an altogether different indicator of skill. That is, while the lower scores measure conceptional understanding of the test itself, the higher scores measure consistency, attention to detail, speed, and stamina. They're like two different animals altogether!

Am I the only one who feels this way?

... and also, if this is in fact true, wouldn't it mean that there's actually a qualitative difference between individuals that represent these two categories?

pwrbkg4 wrote:Many would argue that the difference has a lot to do with luck. But after taking my fair share of pt's, I would disagree. Consistently getting 174-176 and 178-180 is HUGE! Sure it might be the difference of only a few questions, but I feel like there's a definite line of separation here, just like there is, I feel, a separation between 166-168 and 170-172. I know that the lower scores have a wider range for missed questions, however, I reckon that higher scores are a testament to an altogether different indicator of skill. That is, while the lower scores measure conceptional understanding of the test itself, the higher scores measure consistency, attention to detail, speed, and stamina. They're like two different animals altogether!

Am I the only one who feels this way?

... and also, if this is in fact true, wouldn't it mean that there's actually a qualitative difference between individuals that represent these two categories?

Take the real test then come back and talk to us.

Also, I don't get your poll. Are you asking if there is a difference between 175 and 180? Thank you captain obvious.

pwrbkg4 wrote:Many would argue that the difference has a lot to do with luck. But after taking my fair share of pt's, I would disagree. Consistently getting 174-176 and 178-180 is HUGE! Sure it might be the difference of only a few questions, but I feel like there's a definite line of separation here, just like there is, I feel, a separation between 166-168 and 170-172. I know that the lower scores have a wider range for missed questions, however, I reckon that higher scores are a testament to an altogether different indicator of skill. That is, while the lower scores measure conceptional understanding of the test itself, the higher scores measure consistency, attention to detail, speed, and stamina. They're like two different animals altogether!

Am I the only one who feels this way?

... and also, if this is in fact true, wouldn't it mean that there's actually a qualitative difference between individuals that represent these two categories?

1. What knockglock said.
2. When it comes to predictive ability for LS exams, a 175 is at absolutely zero disadvantage next to a 178 or even a 180.

Yeah, kinda. Though at the very top of the score range, a bad day, poor testing conditions, or any number of other random variables could mean the difference of several points. And while your PTs could very well be indicative of your intellectual qualities (and I would agree that a high 170's tester is far different than a mid-170's tester), it's the real test that matters.

..

Knockglock wrote:

pwrbkg4 wrote:Many would argue that the difference has a lot to do with luck. But after taking my fair share of pt's, I would disagree. Consistently getting 174-176 and 178-180 is HUGE! Sure it might be the difference of only a few questions, but I feel like there's a definite line of separation here, just like there is, I feel, a separation between 166-168 and 170-172. I know that the lower scores have a wider range for missed questions, however, I reckon that higher scores are a testament to an altogether different indicator of skill. That is, while the lower scores measure conceptional understanding of the test itself, the higher scores measure consistency, attention to detail, speed, and stamina. They're like two different animals altogether!

Am I the only one who feels this way?

... and also, if this is in fact true, wouldn't it mean that there's actually a qualitative difference between individuals that represent these two categories?

Take the real test then come back and talk to us.

Also, I don't get your poll. Are you asking if there is a difference between 175 and 180? Thank you captain obvious.

The poll refers to the claim that there is a difference in the ability of the test taker to consistently get 175ish and 180ish outside of luck. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

I think the key word here is 'consistent' and I was referring to pt's. I know only the real test matters, but pt's still indicate to some extent how well you will do on the actual test. And yes, I've taken the real test.

pwrbkg4 wrote:

Knockglock wrote:

pwrbkg4 wrote:Many would argue that the difference has a lot to do with luck. But after taking my fair share of pt's, I would disagree. Consistently getting 174-176 and 178-180 is HUGE! Sure it might be the difference of only a few questions, but I feel like there's a definite line of separation here, just like there is, I feel, a separation between 166-168 and 170-172. I know that the lower scores have a wider range for missed questions, however, I reckon that higher scores are a testament to an altogether different indicator of skill. That is, while the lower scores measure conceptional understanding of the test itself, the higher scores measure consistency, attention to detail, speed, and stamina. They're like two different animals altogether!

Am I the only one who feels this way?

... and also, if this is in fact true, wouldn't it mean that there's actually a qualitative difference between individuals that represent these two categories?

Take the real test then come back and talk to us.

Also, I don't get your poll. Are you asking if there is a difference between 175 and 180? Thank you captain obvious.

The poll refers to the claim that there is a difference in the ability of the test taker to consistently get 175ish and 180ish outside of luck. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

I think the key word here is 'consistent' and I was referring to pt's. I know only the real test matters, but pt's still indicate to some extent how well you will do on the actual test. And yes, I've taken the real test.

ITT: OP brags about his PT scores.

..

You misunderstand what people are saying.

On test day, people say that getting a 175 versus a 180 is often a matter of luck due to it often being small things that contribute to the difference rather than anything large.

However, people aren't saying that getting an AVERAGE of 175 is similar to getting an AVERAGE of 180 over the course of 10+ PT's, those are obviously very different.

TLDR: Get off your high horse and stop being an idiot.

bk187 wrote:You misunderstand what people are saying.

On test day, people say that getting a 175 versus a 180 is often a matter of luck due to it often being small things that contribute to the difference rather than anything large.

However, people aren't saying that getting an AVERAGE of 175 is similar to getting an AVERAGE of 180 over the course of 10+ PT's, those are obviously very different.

TLDR: Get off your high horse and stop being an idiot.

This, especially the condensed version.

I think the better you are, the less luck has to do with it. For example, there are a lot of people who PT at 170-180. If you get lucky/unlucky in that range, that's 5 points either way. On the other hand, some people PT at like 176-180. Once you get to that point, luck has less to do with it. I imagine there are a few people who find the test very easy and pull 180s almost every time. For them, luck is meaningless.

Also, once you get above 175, mental discipline has more of an effect than talent on your score.

Knockglock wrote:

pwrbkg4 wrote:

Knockglock wrote:

pwrbkg4 wrote:Many would argue that the difference has a lot to do with luck. But after taking my fair share of pt's, I would disagree. Consistently getting 174-176 and 178-180 is HUGE! Sure it might be the difference of only a few questions, but I feel like there's a definite line of separation here, just like there is, I feel, a separation between 166-168 and 170-172. I know that the lower scores have a wider range for missed questions, however, I reckon that higher scores are a testament to an altogether different indicator of skill. That is, while the lower scores measure conceptional understanding of the test itself, the higher scores measure consistency, attention to detail, speed, and stamina. They're like two different animals altogether!

Am I the only one who feels this way?

... and also, if this is in fact true, wouldn't it mean that there's actually a qualitative difference between individuals that represent these two categories?

Take the real test then come back and talk to us.

Also, I don't get your poll. Are you asking if there is a difference between 175 and 180? Thank you captain obvious.

The poll refers to the claim that there is a difference in the ability of the test taker to consistently get 175ish and 180ish outside of luck. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

I think the key word here is 'consistent' and I was referring to pt's. I know only the real test matters, but pt's still indicate to some extent how well you will do on the actual test. And yes, I've taken the real test.

ITT: OP brags about his PT scores.

Yeah it's only practice, but what can I say? It still feels good. In some weird pathetic way, it kind of motivates me actually

..

d34dluk3 wrote:Also, once you get above 175, mental discipline has more of as significant an effect than as talent on your score.

This was true for me. "Don't think about it that way, JohnnyTrojan08: you know you have difficulty picking out assumption distractors!"

The discipline/mood/performance between my first and second real LSATs were qualitatively and thus quantitatively different.

And within the two ranges we are talking about, which is why I even chimed in.