Top Law Schools

While I know, in all likelihood, that I don't "deserve" more than a 167 or so on the LSAT - I am starting to feel like I could have gotten a 179, lol.

I mean, who knows? I know the odds of it are minuscule, but to quote the lovable African-American boy from Angels in the Outfield "Hey, it could happen!"

Right? Who's to say one of us didn't luck out like crazy and get like 90% of our guesses right? With such a big community, I am sure there is going to be someone who gets 7-10 points higher than they - rightfully - should have.

It's a cool thought at least

Ya at first I thought that I didn't hit 170, but the more I look back on it, I really could have gotten anything. Who knows.

I'm not, I expect to be within a point or two of my median PT score.

I think I got a 169. Because on PT's whenever I did well but messed up a section that's what my score ended up as. I'm confident that I did real well on both LR's and RC, but messed up a game; thus the 169.

FWIW when I took in June I thought I bombed so hard I figured I'd be lucky to get a 160, but wound up with a 165.

I will have no surprise between a 165 and a 175. This seems slightly irrational.

Come join the Waiting Thread. I think we have passed irrationality a few times, but we usually swing right back. ish.

I have gone to plotting my likely scores in a bell curve (Mean 174 Std Dev 2) soooo that puts me at a 2.5% chance of scoring above 178? It could happen!

I know I got a 180. I just know.......don't ask me why cuz I just do.

Anything less than a 180 will be a complete, utter, epic failure for me, a typical TLS guy.

I won't be surprised by anything from 164 to 175.

In PTs, I was terrible at predicting my scores after finishing a test. My only helpful metric for guessing a score is whether or not I finished LG, which I did manage to do on 10/9. But aside from that, no clue whatsoever.

So I'm telling myself very firmly that I got a 165 and I should be happy with that, and trying not to hope for anything better.

I have felt like I've been 176+ constantly since the test.
Potentially irrational.

Anything between 169 and 180 would not surprise me though.

rinkrat19 wrote:I won't be surprised by anything from 164 to 175.

In PTs, I was terrible at predicting my scores after finishing a test. My only helpful metric for guessing a score is whether or not I finished LG, which I did manage to do on 10/9. But aside from that, no clue whatsoever.

So I'm telling myself very firmly that I got a 165 and I should be happy with that, and trying not to hope for anything better.

Me too! (about everything) I felt solid about LG but the rest is kind of a crapshoot. Anything thing from 160-170 could've happened for me I think. Frick.

I go through moods throughout the day. At one point I think I bombed it, and all of a sudden I think I got a 175+. It's an emotional roller coaster.

Lol, great responses!

Yeah, you just never know. I'm thinking between a 165-167 and I will just feel pretty normal about it - not strongly either way. I think a 168 to 170 will put a smile on my face and a 160 to 164 will make me take a shame shower 171 to about 175 and I'll drop to my knees and start speaking tongues, while anything under a 160 will infuriate me to no end and terrify me for December. Anything over a 175 and my hair may turn white.

This waiting process has not been nearly as bad as I thought it'd be, but it is quite interesting just not knowing. While I want to believe some of my LG guesses might have been right, I have the mental image of several answers in a row of the same letter and then several of another letter - I just can't see that working out.

I think my illness, that day, really hurt me...

But hey, "It could happen!"

I felt 100% on LR, but if my practice tests are any indication I likely made some bad mistakes. RC was educated guesses on the last passage, expecting a bad RC grade.

Anywhere from 162-172 wouldn't surprise me

I am all over the place on this test. I actually worked out the likelihood of a low end, medium, and high end possible scores. According to my calculations, 163/164 is low end, 166 is medium, and 168 to 169 is high end. Anything above that and I am going to go absolutely nuts. I guessed on 7 questions (one whole passage) on RC and I felt like I bombed that section. Last time I did a PT and guessed on most of a passage and felt that I bombed it, I wound up with a -6 on that passage. I would definitely take that on this test. I guessed C on all 7 questions of the art passage and I am hoping that there were at least 3 C's so at max, I missed -4 on that passage. I believe I did well on LR and probably missed -5 at max in both LR's and -2 if I did awesome. The LG, I think I got -5 at max and -3 if things went my way. So basically, at the worst, I will get -10 combined for LR and LG and then RC will either make or break my test. Please baby Jesus, anything above a 165 and I will love you.

I wrote myself off as -6 on the LG because I bombed the last game and -4 on the other 3 sections leaving the test. After confirming I bombed the game and that I may have been wrong on 2 of the LR (which I counted on before) I now have a feeling that I'm -13 or -14 even though I counted all the ones I now think I got wrong before and I know that the rule I mistook was not needed for all the questions. That's kind of irrational.

Then I think maybe I alone of all of TLS was right and then think that I didn't forget the rule that before I was sure I forgot and up my guess to -3 on the whole test. Thats kind of irrational, especially that I'd remember something weeks later that I had forgot only a few hours after.

But what is most irrational is that I care so much and have gotten myself so worked up about it when I know that what I answered is what I answered and there is nothing I can do to alter my score now.

kwais wrote:I will have no surprise between a 165 and a 175. This seems slightly irrational.

I felt and said the same thing after Dec. '09. Results? 170, right in the middle ha ha ha

I thought this thread was going to be more like "I don't kill ants anymore to make sure my karma is okay" and "every time I see a number in the 160's it makes me itchy/I've started referring to the 160's as the devilish decade."

Instead it's just people not sure what their score is. Sad.

eit wrote:I thought this thread was going to be more like "I don't kill ants anymore to make sure my karma is okay" and "every time I see a number in the 160's it makes me itchy/I've started referring to the 160's as the devilish decade."

Instead it's just people not sure what their score is. Sad.

not me bby, I'm sure I got a 180, absolutely positive since I'm a TLS overachiever.

cornell wrote:

eit wrote:I thought this thread was going to be more like "I don't kill ants anymore to make sure my karma is okay" and "every time I see a number in the 160's it makes me itchy/I've started referring to the 160's as the devilish decade."

Instead it's just people not sure what their score is. Sad.

not me bby, I'm sure I got a 180, absolutely positive since I'm a TLS overachiever.

Ah, but have you killed an ant lately??? That's the real way to predict these things...

eit wrote:I thought this thread was going to be more like "I don't kill ants anymore to make sure my karma is okay" and "every time I see a number in the 160's it makes me itchy/I've started referring to the 160's as the devilish decade."

Instead it's just people not sure what their score is. Sad.

I think that my karma is actually improved by killing all of the ants I possibly can. They really are horrible creatures that serve no discernable purpose so far as I can tell.

I saw a tiny spider in my room the other day, freaked out and went all-out with the Raid. I then immediately regretted doing so and stared at the spider hoping that it was alive. It wasn't. 150 for me now, I guess.

catsparka wrote:I saw a tiny spider in my room the other day, freaked out and went all-out with the Raid. I then immediately regretted doing so and stared at the spider hoping that it was alive. It wasn't. 150 for me now, I guess.

You did the right thing. Spiders are the worst.

eit wrote:

cornell wrote:

eit wrote:I thought this thread was going to be more like "I don't kill ants anymore to make sure my karma is okay" and "every time I see a number in the 160's it makes me itchy/I've started referring to the 160's as the devilish decade."

Instead it's just people not sure what their score is. Sad.

not me bby, I'm sure I got a 180, absolutely positive since I'm a TLS overachiever.

Ah, but have you killed an ant lately??? That's the real way to predict these things...

I didn't slaughter any ant, does that mean I'm on track to a 181 now? (bonus point for not nailing the ants)

Shooter wrote:

eit wrote:I thought this thread was going to be more like "I don't kill ants anymore to make sure my karma is okay" and "every time I see a number in the 160's it makes me itchy/I've started referring to the 160's as the devilish decade."

Instead it's just people not sure what their score is. Sad.

I think that my karma is actually improved by killing all of the ants I possibly can. They really are horrible creatures that serve no discernable purpose so far as I can tell.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/108419

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/483080

http://www.fluther.com/8191/what-purpose-do-ants-serve/

Jump back. If this were a video game, your little Karmic level would be pretty depleted from all those USEFUL INDUSTRIOUS GOD FEARING ANTS you slaughtered mercilessly while waiting for your LSAT.

(And yes, while not about the October LSAT, I think my response qualifies as an irrational thought lol.)

PS. Spiders are one of the five principal exceptions to Gamp's Law of ElementalTransfiguration Karma.

PS Again. NO, you do not gain points for NOT slaughtering things, you bloodthirsty human.