Page 1 of 1
165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:48 pm
by saintpaulJ
It can happen. Five weeks apart. January 8th was the Minnesota retake date. Then Feb 12th.
Practice tests were 167-178 so needless to say the 165 was a huge letdown.
So glad I took it again.
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:50 pm
by Jack Smirks
saintpaulJ wrote:It can happen. Five weeks apart. January 8th was the Minnesota retake date. Then Feb 12th.
Practice tests were 167-178 so needless to say the 165 was a huge letdown.
So glad I took it again.
Screen caps or you're lying.
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:17 pm
by saintpaulJ
naterj wrote:saintpaulJ wrote:It can happen. Five weeks apart. January 8th was the Minnesota retake date. Then Feb 12th.
Practice tests were 167-178 so needless to say the 165 was a huge letdown.
So glad I took it again.
Screen caps or you're lying.
How does that work for ya?
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:22 pm
by minnesotasam
That's.. weird
--ImageRemoved--
Congrats to us?
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:22 pm
by jtemp320
Congrats and I never thought you were lying I was 167->174 and know others who are 164->177
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:27 pm
by saintpaulJ
Nice job guys!
Yep. Congrats to us.
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:28 pm
by minnesotasam
saintpaulJ wrote:Nice job guys!
Yep. Congrats to us.
Kinda weird that we both jumped a bunch at the same site taking the same administrations. I showed up ready to go in December, how about you?
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:32 pm
by saintpaulJ
minnesotasam wrote:saintpaulJ wrote:Nice job guys!
Yep. Congrats to us.
Kinda weird that we both jumped a bunch at the same site taking the same administrations. I showed up ready to go in December, how about you?
Yep, me too. I only live 2 miles from WM, so the drive in the blizzard wasn't too bad. I felt great and really prepared. In January I turned up a nervous wreck.
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:35 pm
by minnesotasam
saintpaulJ wrote:Yep, me too. I only live 2 miles from WM, so the drive in the blizzard wasn't too bad. I felt great and really prepared. In January I turned up a nervous wreck.
Yeah I grew up, uh, two miles from WM (maybe a little less?) in Mac-Groveland. Small world I guess.
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:40 pm
by saintpaulJ
minnesotasam wrote:saintpaulJ wrote:Yep, me too. I only live 2 miles from WM, so the drive in the blizzard wasn't too bad. I felt great and really prepared. In January I turned up a nervous wreck.
Yeah I grew up, uh, two miles from WM (maybe a little less?) in Mac-Groveland. Small world I guess.
Yep, that's where I live now.
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:42 pm
by nematoad
saintpaulJ wrote:naterj wrote:saintpaulJ wrote:It can happen. Five weeks apart. January 8th was the Minnesota retake date. Then Feb 12th.
Practice tests were 167-178 so needless to say the 165 was a huge letdown.
So glad I took it again.
Screen caps or you're lying.
How does that work for ya?
BOOM!
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:21 pm
by rebexness
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:13 pm
by suspicious android
Wait, why don't the score e-mail dates match up?
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:43 pm
by minnbills
What did you guys do differently in your prep the 2nd time around?
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:21 pm
by Nulli Secundus
I see that there are still people that cannot adequately detect sarcasm on the Internet . Proof natural selection is a lie, imo.
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:41 pm
by polevaulter
saintpaulJ wrote:naterj wrote:saintpaulJ wrote:It can happen. Five weeks apart. January 8th was the Minnesota retake date. Then Feb 12th.
Practice tests were 167-178 so needless to say the 165 was a huge letdown.
So glad I took it again.
Screen caps or you're lying.
How does that work for ya?
CONGRATULATIONS
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:41 pm
by polevaulter
minnesotasam wrote:That's.. weird
--ImageRemoved--
Congrats to us?
CONGRATS to you as well
What kind of prep did you do to do this well? My diag was a 165. Thanks.
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:27 pm
by mac35352
Great Job!
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:13 pm
by Firework11
nematoad wrote:saintpaulJ wrote:naterj wrote:saintpaulJ wrote:It can happen. Five weeks apart. January 8th was the Minnesota retake date. Then Feb 12th.
Practice tests were 167-178 so needless to say the 165 was a huge letdown.
So glad I took it again.
Screen caps or you're lying.
How does that work for ya?
Congrats! Job well DONE
BOOM!
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:15 pm
by jim-green
Your experience is very inspiring. Did you reuse a lot of PTs?
I am kinda in the same boat with a 165 on Feb 2011 LSAT and was PTing at average 168. Wondering about retake.
I did all 62 PTs, so anything I use again for June 2011 will be a reuse. Worried if reusing PTs will hurt me, since I may go into the June 2011 test thinking it'll be easier than it will actually be.
Did you reuse PTs to re-study?
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:04 pm
by aquyenl
i'm wondering the same thing as jim-green. what did you do the second time around for studying? how did you improve that much in just a few weeks? what was your studying routine like?
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:42 pm
by HarlandBassett
minnesotasam wrote:That's.. weird
--ImageRemoved--
Congrats to us?
impressive
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:50 pm
by rotaxkarter
jim-green wrote:Your experience is very inspiring. Did you reuse a lot of PTs?
I am kinda in the same boat with a 165 on Feb 2011 LSAT and was PTing at average 168. Wondering about retake.
I did all 62 PTs, so anything I use again for June 2011 will be a reuse. Worried if reusing PTs will hurt me, since I may go into the June 2011 test thinking it'll be easier than it will actually be.
Did you reuse PTs to re-study?
I reused PTs during my studies, it did not hurt me at all. It helps solidify the easier Qs and ensures you've corrected your mistakes on the harder ones. When I started recycling PTs(The latest 15 or so), I started with the ones I did earliest and worked from there.
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:23 pm
by minnesotasam
Its all about adapting to your weaknesses. The first thing is to figure out why you're testing lower than you want to.. Is it an issue of timing, endurance, a specific section (RC vs LG vs LR), test-day mentality, confidence? All of these things can factor in when we're talking about very thin margins. In my case I knew walking out that I didn't do as well as I was capable of because I was catching an international flight later that day, I hadn't specifically perfected my reading comprehension timing, and I didn't prepare myself nutritionally for the entirety of the test (and crashed a bit on the last section).
When it came to re-preparing for the Feb administration (which I had about 3 weeks to do since we, saintpaulj and myself, were snowed out of the Dec administration and took it in January) I slowed down the PT-binges and instead focused on single, timed sections in my weakest areas. Then I veeeery slowly and methodically went back over each one. Talking through the reasons that certain answers are wrong is easily as crucial as figuring out why certain ones are right (in my case, probably moreso) and I bet that a lot of people here don't take the time to figure that out. When you do so you develop a sense for what to look for in an incorrect answer and you're a lot less likely to get hung up on a tough LR or RC question.
Lastly, for me, it was completely sacrilegious to leave any question unanswered. Having that mental timer that tells you to move on, put down your gut instinct, star it for later if you have the time, and continue with the test unaffected is crucial to scoring well. Not every answer is going to pop out at you right away (even if a lot do); you have to know how to handle that when it occurs.
Re: 165 - - - -> 176
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:08 pm
by aquyenl
it seems like most of your fine tuning was on the RC and LR parts of the test. what did you do to ace the LG part?