Top Law Schools

I've been studying for 4 months. Cannot consistently get past the 166 mark. Been stuck at it for 2 months. Usually -3 to -4 in LR and anywhere from -4 to -8 in RC. -0 in LG consistently.

Hit 171 on preptest 47 with absolutely no idea how.

Is it fair to just say at some point it's going to come down to luck? I've acknowledged I'm an extremely slow reader and at a disadvantage because of it....but zero improvement in 2 months is insane. 3 weeks to December 11 and I'm just kind of throwing my hands in the air.

PT 47 is easier than most. When you do enough practice tests you are going to have outlier scores. In terms of luck, there is a little bit of luck involved, for example if you're really good at certain types of logic games and those show up on the test. Or getting RC passages where you already have a familiarity with the topic. Other than that, no there is no "luck" on the LSAT.

If pt47 is easier, why is the curve still -9? I mean I know a -9 indicates easier, but its only indicating 1-2 points easier than most and I jumped 6?

I've thrown law school out of my mind for good, I just want to kill this Fing test and I'm getting nowhere fast. Is that crazy, that I probably won't go to law school but still want to destroy its entrance exam? Damn this thing for ruining my last 4 months.

Don't be so overdramatic, you're scoring 166 which is pretty good, I took PT 47 a couple months ago and I scored more than a few points higher than my average, some tests are just easier than others even with a harsher curve. Just take that test and let it add to your confidence.

166 wastes my 3.92 I'll take a 169 though and attempt to ED to Chicago with my WE. I just need someone to hold me!!!!

What's your weakness? LR LG or RC?

LG -0 to -1 consistent
LR -3 to -4 each section
RC -4 is my lowest recorded, up to -9.

so RC. Been reading nonstop for the last month to improve it. I seem to do an exam under timed pressure, grade it, get pissed off, go back through the RC section, read the first question I missed, and ask "what the hell was I thinking with this answer? It's clearly X answer"

gambelda wrote:I've been studying for 4 months. Cannot consistently get past the 166 mark. Been stuck at it for 2 months. Usually -3 to -4 in LR and anywhere from -4 to -8 in RC. -0 in LG consistently.

Hit 171 on preptest 47 with absolutely no idea how.

Is it fair to just say at some point it's going to come down to luck? I've acknowledged I'm an extremely slow reader and at a disadvantage because of it....but zero improvement in 2 months is insane. 3 weeks to December 11 and I'm just kind of throwing my hands in the air.

IMHO it can play a large role. Case in point, I have a 169 and my retake goal has been a 170+. I've been scoring around 171-2 on most practice tests. However, when I get a test that contains an unfamiliar topic or a logic game, my score almost invariably takes a dive to the 160's.

Happened to me all the time, either you're reading to fast or not catching the flaws that lead you to eliminate wrong AC's. The best advice I can give you is often on the challenging RC Q's, the right answer will not look like the right answer. That's why it's important to eliminate wrong AC's rather than look for the correct answer.

"what the hell was I thinking with this answer? It's clearly X answer"

I have this same problem, lol.

I do think there is some luck when it comes to the LSAT. My scores range so much. Since the Oct LSAT, I've scored anywhere between 167-176 with an average of 172 on PTs. I could get 'lucky' and score 176 in December. I hope.

This is why I hate TLS sometimes. Dude, quit crying about your 166, it's a good score.

kkklick wrote:either you're reading to fast or not catching the flaws that lead you to eliminate wrong AC's.

This. I've noticed the problems where I have no idea, when I review the test later, I see that it apears I just threw my hands up in the air and didn't cross any off, simply realized it would take too much time to figure out because I'm a slow reader and already used a bunch of time and that the AC I picked merely "seemed like the best option"

maxm2764 wrote:This is why I hate TLS sometimes. Dude, quit crying about your 166, it's a good score.

Eh. Not really. OP has a great GPA. With a 173+ on the LSAT he could end up getting a lot of money to T14 schools.

Nonok wrote:Eh. Not really. OP has a great GPA. With a 173+ on the LSAT he could end up getting a lot of money to T14 schools.

Yeah, and with a 180 he could get a lot of money too. I wasn't saying that his score can't be better. I was just sick of listening to OP complain about a score approaching the 90th percentile.

I know what you mean, I also can't get past a certain score.. but I don't think it's anything to do with luck. I noticed several times that even though I usually score -0 to -2 on LG, if I do better than usual on the other sections, I end up getting -6 on LG (or whatever the difference) to 'make up' for doing better on the other sections.. and end up with the same score as usual. It's the LSAC version of whack-a-mole.

Nonok wrote:

maxm2764 wrote:This is why I hate TLS sometimes. Dude, quit crying about your 166, it's a good score.

Eh. Not really. OP has a great GPA. With a 173+ on the LSAT he could end up getting a lot of money to T14 schools.

/agree. Anything below a 170 seems to generally waste GPA's in the 3.9 - 4.0 range. breaking 170 allows for a much greater chance at $ and acceptances - especially as a non-URM.

Maxm, if you want to complain about people with scores - go look at the "what are my chances" thread. Some guy just posted 3.9 GPA/177 what are my chances at HYS? Feel free to bash the crap out of him like I have already done.

gambelda wrote:Maxm, if you want to complain about people with scores - go look at the "what are my chances" thread. Some guy just posted 3.9 GPA/177 what are my chances at HYS? Feel free to bash the crap out of him like I have already done.

On my way over there now.

There is some luck involved. That's why they have LSAT bounds.

CurlyKat wrote:I know what you mean, I also can't get past a certain score.. but I don't think it's anything to do with luck. I noticed several times that even though I usually score -0 to -2 on LG, if I do better than usual on the other sections, I end up getting -6 on LG (or whatever the difference) to 'make up' for doing better on the other sections.. and end up with the same score as usual. It's the LSAC version of whack-a-mole.

ahahaha YES! I know this feeling exactly! It's happened to me 2-3 times. Though I usually bomb out on a LR section after seeing that I did amazingly well for me on the other 3

gambelda wrote:This. I've noticed the problems where I have no idea, when I review the test later, I see that it apears I just threw my hands up in the air and didn't cross any off, simply realized it would take too much time to figure out because I'm a slow reader and already used a bunch of time and that the AC I picked merely "seemed like the best option"

The good news is that as soon as you realize that you're doing this, you can force yourself to stop. Take that extra 10-20 seconds to nail the question, and then move on. If this means that you don't get to a question or two, well, -1 or -2 is better than -4 or so. And you can always try to push yourself to go a little faster on easier questions to make up that time anyway (not a lot faster, just a little faster).

LSAC says that your score will waver up and down a few points based on random chance. If you score a 166 on one test, there's a pretty good chance that you'll score anywhere from a 163 to a 169 on the next several tests that you take depending largely on luck. Since a 163 is pretty different from a 169, luck does factor into it. However, this doesn't mean that it's all luck. You're still score mid-160's, not 132 or 145 or something. It's just a matter of where in the mid/high-160's you land.

You can also think of this as an attitude/motivation bonus. If you go into one particular test feeling really good and energized, there's a decent chance you'll get a random 1-2 point bump. So it's not just the fates being against you or something; even the non-skill factors are something you can control, at least to some extent.

...

I've been reading the economist and foreign policy magazine pretty regularly now and using the economist online articles as well. But you're right - the problem is I actually ENJOY these articles. However, some are boring and thus, very helpful since reading most of the LSAT material is equivalent to stirring concrete with your eyelashes.

In fact, I had to set down foreign policy magazine when I realized I was enjoying it to much. The article was about the socio-political landscape in the event of a world-changing zombie apocalypse. Eventually 2 authors quabbled over using nuclear warheads would save the United States or destroy us. I agreed with the latter writer who concluded that the zombies who were not decimated by the nuclear fallout would not die from radiation since they were already dead and simply creat a doubly dangerous zombie for the U.S. to worry about - the radioactive brain eating zombie.

of course luck plays a part in LSAT. Some people will say "Oh no, no luck at all!!" but you cant tell me that the LUCK of the draw on what questions/orders/types of games/types of RC passages doesnt play a factor in some person missing a few here and there...

Reading the Economist is good but it's only going to get you so far. Best advice I ever got was constantly refer back to the passage. All the answers are there you just gotta find them. Also, realizing that there's six types of questions (main idea, description, writing technique, inference, application, tone) having a solid grasp of the question types helped me sift through the passage for the information that is probably going to come up in a question, just like LR you can sometimes tell what the question is going to be before looking at it.

And yes luck definitely can make it much easier to get a high score but the goal of prepping is to get to the point where you can get a high score even if you're unlucky. I'm assuming that the December test is going to be nothing but dense science passages, snakes and lizards, and dioxin questions, that way if you get lucky the test will be a breeze and if you don't you'll still dominate.

pt47 is easy?!

i got 160 on pt47 the day after i got 172 on pt46.

ok, i must have had a burnout