Top Law Schools

Since nobody has posted one yet I figured I would, at least before everyone in the next few days starts doubting themselves more and more, we can compile predictions for our December scores.

I predict 170! Counting on a 14 curve to make up for a likely 5 or more missed games section.

edit: and here it is, yeah baby!

--ImageRemoved--

Are we making a blood pact again? Because that was kind of fun. (no actual blood involved except for my tears upon receiving my score)

Realistically, I probably got the same thing I got in October: 167. If Im super lucky and there is a monster curve, I MAY have gotten my 170, in which case I will fall to the ground of a heart attack.

Prediction (guessed my RC right last time)

RC -3
LR -3
LG -8
LR -4


-18 for what I hope to be a 167

akili wrote:Are we making a blood pact again? Because that was kind of fun. (no actual blood involved except for my tears upon receiving my score)

A lot of the blood pact people got the same score as last time me included, except for john lennon who disappeared.

kkklick wrote:

akili wrote:Are we making a blood pact again? Because that was kind of fun. (no actual blood involved except for my tears upon receiving my score)

A lot of the blood pact people got the same score as last time me included, except for john lennon who disappeared.

Maybe it's bad luck then. I got the same score too.

I'm guessing a 160-164 but wishing for a 165+. If not for the stupid games, I would be confident of a 170+.

I wrote the June LSAT and got a 166. I was PT at 163-170. I died on RC (-6) and LG (-6) and realised it during the test, but I thought I could do better, especially on LG.
I signed up for a retest in Oct and then life got a bit busy so I transferred to Dec. My PT scores were higher (170-176), but I'd seen most of the material (at least the LG) before so it was hard to determine how I was actually doing. The only fresh one (October) came in at 170 (my target score).

The test felt better this time, but I have convinced myself I missed an important rule in LG Conferences so that could easily scupper me.

So I'm going with a prediction of 168 and I'll still hope for that 170.

edit: And a 171 it was!

i feel at least a few raw pts better on this one from the 161. so I will say 164 or 165

I feel like at worst I did 170 and with a friendly curve and favorable guessing on RC, I could go as high as 180. Realistically though I'm thinking:

LG: -0/-1
RC: -2/-5
LR combined: -2/-5

Best case and hopefully: -4, 177-180 depending on curve
Worse case: -11: 170-172 depending on curve

I would be happy enough to not bother retaking with anything at or above 173.

Oh and of course the possibility exists that I messed something up horribly and will open it up to somewhere in the 160's at which point disappointment will set in.


This was a retake for me btw from 168 in October.

I got a 158 in June, so anything 164+ would be gravy for me. Based on a -14 curve, I'm guessing:

LR: -4
RC: -6
LR: -3
LG: -7

-20 altogether for a 165.

bump

2014 wrote:I feel like at worst I did 170 and with a friendly curve and favorable guessing on RC, I could go as high as 180. Realistically though I'm thinking:

LG: -0/-1
RC: -2/-5
LR combined: -2/-5

Best case and hopefully: -4, 177-180 depending on curve
Worse case: -11: 170-172 depending on curve

I would be happy enough to not bother retaking with anything at or above 173.

Oh and of course the possibility exists that I messed something up horribly and will open it up to somewhere in the 160's at which point disappointment will set in.


This was a retake for me btw from 168 in October.

170 at worst, nice! What do you think made the difference for you (Oct test vs this one)? Did you study more, manage time better, etc.?

LR: -1 to -3
RC: -4 to -6
LG: -2 to -4

Think I have a good shot at the 170.

Sandro777 wrote:Prediction (guessed my RC right last time)

RC -3
LR -3
LG -8
LR -4


-18 for what I hope to be a 167

For me:

RC -2
LR -4
LG -8

I am REALLY hoping for a -14 curve.

stargazin wrote:

2014 wrote:I feel like at worst I did 170 and with a friendly curve and favorable guessing on RC, I could go as high as 180. Realistically though I'm thinking:

LG: -0/-1
RC: -2/-5
LR combined: -2/-5

Best case and hopefully: -4, 177-180 depending on curve
Worse case: -11: 170-172 depending on curve

I would be happy enough to not bother retaking with anything at or above 173.

Oh and of course the possibility exists that I messed something up horribly and will open it up to somewhere in the 160's at which point disappointment will set in.


This was a retake for me btw from 168 in October.

170 at worst, nice! What do you think made the difference for you (Oct test vs this one)? Did you study more, manage time better, etc.?

I took an online class which kept me accountable to doing section work. Before I went through the bibles, but did so in a half assed way, and I only did practice tests. The class I took let you make quizzes for yourself where it would randomly compile 4 games from real PTs and make games sections up for you and I did at least 15 of those which I think is one of the main reasons I was able to finish LG.

Also for whatever reason, something just clicked after October, maybe it was just less pressure knowing I had been through it before and that I was okay applying next year if I needed to. The first PT I took after October though was 175, which would have been one of my highest before October where I averaged 171-172.

RC -4
LR -4
LR -2
LG -6 -10 -23

127-164

LR1: -10
RC: -4
LR2: -3
LG: -5

161

bartleby wrote:LR1: -10
RC: -4
LR2: -3
LG: -5

161

You bombed LR 1 that bad? Are you sure?

LR1: -0/-1
RC: -0/-3
LR2: -0/-2
LG: -0/-1

I really hope I'm not being delusional.

My prediction:

LR: -3
RC: -3
LG: -5
LR: -4

With a -13 curve, that would give me a 168. In reality, all I have a real good feeling for is that I landed somewhere in my usual spread (164-170).

kingofspain wrote:LR1: -0/-1
RC: -0/-3
LR2: -0/-2
LG: -0/-1

I really hope I'm not being delusional.

Well if you've never scored 175+ on PT's, the left column is definately delusional. This wasn't one of those LSAT's where you can expect a jump in score from PT's to the real thing.

kkklick wrote:

bartleby wrote:LR1: -10
RC: -4
LR2: -3
LG: -5

161

You bombed LR 1 that bad? Are you sure?

I'm sure. I'm generally pretty accurate on my predictions. It was my first section. I got held up on a few of the early ones and narrowed it down to two and thought I'd have time to go back to it...

Then they called 5 mins and I basically blind guessed on between 4-6 Q's and the few that I narrowed it down to two...I forgot which two letters I narrowed it down to and basically blind guessed on them also. It was brutal.

Was hoping it was experimental. Wasn't.

LR1: -4
RC: -6
LR2: -4
LG: -6

Predicting a decent curve for a 165

Was testing anywhere from 165-170, but obviously that LG section was terrible, and I'm a bit pessimistic after testing way below average in october.

Also, part of a "blood pact" needs to be accurate reporting of WHEN people get their test scores, so the internet doesn't start flipping out again about a false 3:00 (central) score release date on a certain day...

kkklick wrote:

kingofspain wrote:LR1: -0/-1
RC: -0/-3
LR2: -0/-2
LG: -0/-1

I really hope I'm not being delusional.

Well if you've never scored 175+ on PT's, the left column is definately delusional. This wasn't one of those LSAT's where you can expect a jump in score from PT's to the real thing.

I think my average in the couple of weeks before the test was 176/177ish. I was retaking a 170 in October after a LG fail, so there's always a chance I'll have a similarly bombed section.

Also, I don't expect at all to get -0's in every section, but for any given section I think it's within the realm of possibility. And of course I'm jinxing myself like whoa just saying this, but, ya know, we all need an outlet.