Those who studied for 5+ months Forum

[Easy-E]

I was curious how people who studied for a longer time (5 months and upwards) did on the LSAT? What kind of improvement did you make from your first PT to the test date? Did you retake at all? And also, what problems did you encounter with a comparatively longer study schedule? What books did you use? Any information would be nice.

[buckilaw]

I improved from a 140 something on my first PT to consistently scoring 169-172 on my later PTs. If you don't pace yourself you could run out of tests, create a schedule and copy all of your logic games 3 times. I used all the power score bibles and a large number of PTs, starting with the oldest and working my way towards the newer ones.

[Stonewall]

7 months - +19 points off cold diagnostic (took kaplan course as well, definitely thought it was worth it)

[Easy-E]

I improved from a 140 something on my first PT to consistently scoring 169-172 on my later PTs. If you don't pace yourself you could run out of tests, create a schedule and copy all of your logic games 3 times. I used all the power score bibles and a large number of PTs, starting with the oldest and working my way towards the newer ones.

Wow impressive improvement! I'm following the lsatblog's 5 month study plan, which basically entails what you're talking about. Plus I'm including the oldest "Actual Official" book for timed sections. FIrst PT was 155, shooting for 173+

[boozehound]

Wow impressive improvement! I'm following the lsatblog's 5 month study plan, which basically entails what you're talking about. Plus I'm including the oldest "Actual Official" book for timed sections. FIrst PT was 155, shooting for 173+

My first PT was 155, I was shooting for 172+ and ended up with 167. No retake. I spent 6 months studying and did 44 practice tests under timed conditions. I was averaging 170 for my last 10 tests but ended up with 167. The good thing is I should fit well in a class of 167s but would probably be over my head competing with a class of 170+s. I'm smart, but I'm not quick and smart. BTW, don't believe any score you get on the very old PTs (around 1992), I scored a 180 on one of those and 179 on a two others.

[buckilaw]

It's doable. GL.

[Easy-E]

Wow impressive improvement! I'm following the lsatblog's 5 month study plan, which basically entails what you're talking about. Plus I'm including the oldest "Actual Official" book for timed sections. FIrst PT was 155, shooting for 173+

My first PT was 155, I was shooting for 172+ and ended up with 167. No retake. I spent 6 months studying and did 44 practice tests under timed conditions. I was averaging 170 for my last 10 tests but ended up with 167. The good thing is I should fit well in a class of 167s but would probably be over my head competing with a class of 170+s. I'm smart, but I'm not quick and smart. BTW, don't believe any score you get on the very old PTs (around 1992), I scored a 180 on one of those and 179 on a two others.

If you don't mind me asking, why no retake?

It's doable. GL.

I certainly hope so. Thank you!

[boozehound]

If you don't mind me asking, why no retake?

Two reasons: 1) I could do worse; and 2) I accept myself the way I am.

167 is a fair measure of my skill at the LSAT. After 44 PTs, I can honestly say that only luck allows me to score at the high end of my range of 163-172.

[Easy-E]

If you don't mind me asking, why no retake?

Two reasons: 1) I could do worse; and 2) I accept myself the way I am.

167 is a fair measure of my skill at the LSAT. After 44 PTs, I can honestly say that only luck allows me to score at the high end of my range of 163-172.

Fair enough. Nice 'tar btw!

[Sandro]

studied with varying intensity from july 09 - dec 10. My diagnostic was probably id say below 150 very easily. 157-164-167 on the real things.

I'd say what I found was that periods of relatively hard studying should be buffered by periods of super light study. I found that after not touching anything for a month I would pick up a LR section and go -2. Study a set amount, give yourself breaks to let it absorb and settle into your brain, and then add some more.

It is not mentioned enough - you WILL burn out if you study for long periods with no real breaks. And im talking a week+ break, not a day off inbetween PTs.

[mac35352]

studied with varying intensity from july 09 - dec 10. My diagnostic was probably id say below 150 very easily. 157-164-167 on the real things.

I'd say what I found was that periods of relatively hard studying should be buffered by periods of super light study. I found that after not touching anything for a month I would pick up a LR section and go -2. Study a set amount, give yourself breaks to let it absorb and settle into your brain, and then add some more.

It is not mentioned enough - you WILL burn out if you study for long periods with no real breaks. And im talking a week+ break, not a day off inbetween PTs.

+1, I gave the test a weeks rest and I came back refreshed. I can't afford to do it for a month but burn out is a real possibility that should be avoided.

[Easy-E]

studied with varying intensity from july 09 - dec 10. My diagnostic was probably id say below 150 very easily. 157-164-167 on the real things.

I'd say what I found was that periods of relatively hard studying should be buffered by periods of super light study. I found that after not touching anything for a month I would pick up a LR section and go -2. Study a set amount, give yourself breaks to let it absorb and settle into your brain, and then add some more.

It is not mentioned enough - you WILL burn out if you study for long periods with no real breaks. And im talking a week+ break, not a day off inbetween PTs.

I've actually been reading this on a few different threads recently, and it seems the consensus is that whether or not you think you can handle studying non-stop, breaks like this are beneficial. I'm doing Steve Schwartz's 6 month study plan, but I intentionally started a few weeks early so I can afford my self some extra days off.