Retaking a 169 in October Forum

[nycdreamer89]

Hi guys. Planning on retaking a 169 from last September. The 169 was in my PT range, but it was on the low end of it, and I don't think I reviewed my wrong answered as adequately as I could have first time around. I just started studying for the retake (probably not my wisest decision, but didn't decide to apply this cycle until a week ago). Do you have any suggestions on how to spend this last month wisely in terms of studying? Today I spent about 5 hours drilling games, and doing LR and RC sections. I work full time, but is it unrealistic to maintain this pace for a few weeks, and then the last 2.5 weeks, focus completely on practice tests? I don't want to burn out, but I also want to utilize all the material (It's been about a year, so its not like I remember most of it) so that I'm as prepared as I can be to score a 173 or 174+ on the 9th. Any help is greatly appreciated.

[Knock]

Hi guys. Planning on retaking a 169 from last September. The 169 was in my PT range, but it was on the low end of it, and I don't think I reviewed my wrong answered as adequately as I could have first time around. I just started studying for the retake (probably not my wisest decision, but didn't decide to apply this cycle until a week ago). Do you have any suggestions on how to spend this last month wisely in terms of studying? Today I spent about 5 hours drilling games, and doing LR and RC sections. I work full time, but is it unrealistic to maintain this pace for a few weeks, and then the last 2.5 weeks, focus completely on practice tests? I don't want to burn out, but I also want to utilize all the material (It's been about a year, so its not like I remember most of it) so that I'm as prepared as I can be to score a 173 or 174+ on the 9th. Any help is greatly appreciated.

Depends why you think you scored on the low end of your PT range. I did as well, and I think it was because of 2 things, burnout and test day adrenaline and nerves. I'm adressing #1 by having a much more relaxed study schedule, since I feel like I already have a good grasp of the concepts. As far as #2, I haven't really come up with a solution to that, but one of my TLS friends knows a lot about the subject and is going to pump me full of confidence the few days before the test. We will see how that works out

As far as specifics, i'm taking PT's 43-60, but i'm going to use 4 of those as experimentals, so it's something like 13/14 5 section PT's, with at least one day off in between to digest and let my brain rest.

[nycdreamer89]

Hmm, well, I don't think it was burnout, I felt pretty good and rested going into the test. The first section was RC, which is usually my best section, but my nerves got the best of me, which is where I lost some of the points that I was counting on. I guess I'll just have to play it by ear, and really drill and make sure I have a solid understanding of the ones I miss. For test day nerves...hmm...lol, dunno what to do about that. Thanks

[Jeffort]

Hi guys. Planning on retaking a 169 from last September. The 169 was in my PT range, but it was on the low end of it, and I don't think I reviewed my wrong answered as adequately as I could have first time around. I just started studying for the retake (probably not my wisest decision, but didn't decide to apply this cycle until a week ago). Do you have any suggestions on how to spend this last month wisely in terms of studying? Today I spent about 5 hours drilling games, and doing LR and RC sections. I work full time, but is it unrealistic to maintain this pace for a few weeks, and then the last 2.5 weeks, focus completely on practice tests? I don't want to burn out, but I also want to utilize all the material (It's been about a year, so its not like I remember most of it) so that I'm as prepared as I can be to score a 173 or 174+ on the 9th. Any help is greatly appreciated.

Sounds like a formula to get another reported score that will tarnish your 169 in your score report that LS's get.

How long and how much did you prep and practice leading up to getting in your range and scoring 169? I bet it was far more than ~4 weeks.

You are working full time and just now contemplating revving/warming back up to the LSAT and practice tests a year after you last immersed yourself in it...

Why would you want to rush into the October test unprepared/not at your prime with a 169 already in the bag?

If you are looking to bolster your admission chances with a few more LSAT points and not planning to apply for EA/ED you can certainly try and add a cherry to the top of your application with a higher than 169 score from the December test if you can pull it off.

It wouldn't look good to have a 169 from last year and then a lower score from this year on your report when your applications are reviewed.

169 is solid, especially if only took it once and that is your score. Don't ruin that!

[CanadianWolf]

It would help to know how you prepared for your first LSAT. Did you take a prep course ? Use the PowerScore Bibles or another study aid ?
P.S. I agree with the above posts. Why rush into another LSAT without thorough preparation ?

[Aias]

I retook a 169. It was also in the low rage of my pts. I ended up canceling and it probably hurt my chance of getting off several wl. A 169 is a solid score and with a good gpa can get you into a t14. Got me several t14s, 60k @vandy, 15k @ucla and 72k @usc.
good luck...

[2ofspades]

Sounds like a formula to get another reported score that will tarnish your 169 in your score report that LS's get.

I thought this too. Two things to keep in mind: it's quite common for you to perform slightly below your PTs on test day, which I point out since you say that, even though your score was low for you, it fell within your normal range. On the other hand, most - but not all - retesters receive a *slight* increase in score. But if you are practicing hastily now, I agree with the others that your strategy might be dangerous.

Might it be a better idea to submit apps now so you get an applying-early boost, and then retest in February if you don't have an offer you like?

[nycdreamer89]

The first time I took the test, I self-studied by using the Powerscore bibles and practice tests, basically following PithyPike's guide. However, I didn't do a lot of reviewing. I'd really like to stay in the NYC area, so my top choice is Columbia, followed by NYU. I don't think my score as it is now is going to get me into either, even with ED. My GPA is a 3.83 from a flagship public, and I'd also prefer not to take another year off, which is the reasoning behind taking the test in September as opposed to February. I definitely see your points...but I'm basically just trying to study in the most efficient way with the time I have left. Poor planning on my part though for sure.

[Patriot1208]

The first time I took the test, I self-studied by using the Powerscore bibles and practice tests, basically following PithyPike's guide. However, I didn't do a lot of reviewing. I'd really like to stay in the NYC area, so my top choice is Columbia, followed by NYU. I don't think my score as it is now is going to get me into either, even with ED. My GPA is a 3.83 from a flagship public, and I'd also prefer not to take another year off, which is the reasoning behind taking the test in September as opposed to February. I definitely see your points...but I'm basically just trying to study in the most efficient way with the time I have left. Poor planning on my part though for sure.

If you would be happy at Cornell (because of NYC) I actually don't think you have much to lose because you'll get into Cornell even if your score drops a couple points.

[2ofspades]

The first time I took the test, I self-studied by using the Powerscore bibles and practice tests, basically following PithyPike's guide. However, I didn't do a lot of reviewing. I'd really like to stay in the NYC area, so my top choice is Columbia, followed by NYU. I don't think my score as it is now is going to get me into either, even with ED. My GPA is a 3.83 from a flagship public, and I'd also prefer not to take another year off, which is the reasoning behind taking the test in September as opposed to February. I definitely see your points...but I'm basically just trying to study in the most efficient way with the time I have left. Poor planning on my part though for sure.

I would keep in mind that both Columbia and NYU will average your scores. Last year a 3.83 /171 would have been competitive at NYU, but you would need to do well enough to offset your original score. Since you think you were testing within your normal range, you cannot bank on a big jump - especially since you had already read the bibles before your first test and since you don't have time to be much better prepared by October. I would keep practicing, but if you aren't consistently getting that 173+ that you want by the deadline for canceling your registration, I wouldn't retest in October.

Of course, a 169 / 3.83 will likely do you well at Michigan, Duke, and Cornell. All three have traditionally placed well in NY, though I can't speak to their placement this year.

[Jeffort]

The first time I took the test, I self-studied by using the Powerscore bibles and practice tests, basically following PithyPike's guide. However, I didn't do a lot of reviewing. I'd really like to stay in the NYC area, so my top choice is Columbia, followed by NYU. I don't think my score as it is now is going to get me into either, even with ED. My GPA is a 3.83 from a flagship public, and I'd also prefer not to take another year off, which is the reasoning behind taking the test in September as opposed to February. I definitely see your points...but I'm basically just trying to study in the most efficient way with the time I have left. Poor planning on my part though for sure.

I would keep in mind that both Columbia and NYU will average your scores. Last year a 3.83 /171 would have been competitive at NYU, but you would need to do well enough to offset your original score. Since you think you were testing within your normal range, you cannot bank on a big jump - especially since you had already read the bibles before your first test and since you don't have time to be much better prepared by October. I would keep practicing, but if you aren't consistently getting that 173+ that you want by the deadline for canceling your registration, I wouldn't retest in October.

Of course, a 169 / 3.83 will likely do you well at Michigan, Duke, and Cornell. All three have traditionally placed well in NY, though I can't speak to their placement this year.

With the top choices being Columbia and NYU, which both average multiple LSAT scores, combined with just starting prepping again now, I think the answer is obvious: DO NOT TAKE THE OCTOBER test!

RE: heading forward to see how you are scoring up to the registration cancellation deadline or test date change deadline, that only gives ~a week and a half from now. Today is the deadline for regular registration. The late registration deadline (that requires paying an extra $68) is the 17th, registration cancellation deadline is also the 17th, and the test date change deadline is the 19th. The test date change fee is $68, same amount as late registration.

Therefore, if you are dead-set determined to see if you can pull it together for the October test and want to let your practice test scores over the next 10 days make the decision, since it is unlikely that you will be consistently scoring where you need to for Columbia and NYU for it to make a positive difference due to score averaging (If you want them to evaluate you as a 172 you need to score 175), don't register and pay the LSAC fee's today.

Instead, practice your arse off and see if you can consistently score 175+ in the next ten days leading up until the late registration deadline. If you do and really feel capable of hitting 175+ in October, then register and pay the late reg fee. If not (which is the likely scenario given the circumstances), then you saved yourself $204, didn't risk 'Fing up your score report, and can decide how to proceed at that point.

Make sure you are clear about how well you have to perform for a re-take to be worthwhile to improve your chances at your top choices. With a 169 you have to score 175+ top be evaluated as a 172+. Going from 169 to 175 is pretty frigging hard and requires close to a perfect performance. With the current score conversion charts you can only miss a few questions to score 175+

If you really want to re-take and boost your score, wait until December so you don't shoot yourself in the foot and muddy up your score report. Remember, that averaging thing works both directions, if you score below 169 on a re-take, then Columbia and NYU are going to look at you as sub 169, whereas as things stand now you are a 169.

[Patriot1208]

They averaging is a bit overblown. Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that while these schools will take into account multiple scores, they definitely do not do strict averaging which can be seen by multiple people scoring mid sixties and then mid seventies and getting in when their lsat average would be around 169 to 170.

[Jeffort]

They averaging is a bit overblown. Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that while these schools will take into account multiple scores, they definitely do not do strict averaging which can be seen by multiple people scoring mid sixties and then mid seventies and getting in when their lsat average would be around 169 to 170.

Yeah, you are probably right about that given that the schools are USNWR ranking whores and know they only have to report the highest LSAT score of admitted students for ranking purposes.

However, T14 schools have no shortage of qualified applicants to choose from and typically receive many more applications from people with qualifying basic numbers than they can admit that they have to pick from. Any little blemish like a more recent lower score can work against you when they have other equally qualified applicants that don't have such a ding/blemish in their application materials.

Competition for available LS seats at top tier schools is extremely fierce these days due to dramatic increases in applicant and application volume.

--ImageRemoved--

A record high # of people took the LSAT during the 2009-2010 LSAC defined testing year: 171,514 but the # of available LS seats has not increased much, so the schools can be even more selective.
http://www.lsac.org/LSACResources/Data/ ... stered.asp