How much can I improve given that I have more than a year... Forum

[dkt14]

to study?

I've been studying for the LSAT about a month, and I am missing 4-8 (really depends for some reason) on each sections on the prep exams. Although I have more than a year to study, I was told from a counselor that I would not able to reach a 166 by next year because the LSAT is not learnable through studying but rather gauges one's innate ability to weed out those who are deemed "less intelligent" or "less logical."

The bottom line is, I want to reach about 166 - 167 by next year (October), but am very discouraged by the advice from the counselor. From your experiences, is reaching that score really impossible though I am given enough time?

[northwood]

the lsat is learnable and with time and effort, you can increase your score 5 points or more on practice exams. ON the real deal, your score may be within the lower end of your pt range ( you have to take into account test day nerves, distractions, and other things) but i would say it depends on where you start and how quick and effectively you can grasp the information.

DOnt listen to that person. Dedicate at least 2-3 hours a day 5-6 days a week for 3-4 months to prep, and do 5 section tests with strict timing in not perfectly quiet environments ( or in your home) to get a feeling for how you will do. THen thoroughly review your performance and analyze why you answered the questions the way you did, and how it compares to the credited response. You should see some improvement, but nothing is guarenteed.

[buckilaw]

I went from scoring below the 50th percentile on my first practice test to scoring in the low 170's on my later tests, in the span of a year. The test is very learnable if you stick to a schedule and make an effort. With a year long time limit, the real limiting factor will be the effort and quality of your prep, not time. Good luck.

[NZA]

Whoever told you that is wrong.

[shoeshine]

Yeah I improved about 13 points from my original diagnostic score.

[Nestico87]

Although I have more than a year to study, I was told from a counselor that I would not able to reach a 166 by next year because the LSAT is not learnable through studying but rather gauges one's innate ability to weed out those who are deemed told me "less intelligent" or "less logical."

I am shocked how horrible this advice is. You can score whatever you want to on the LSAT if you are willing to put in the time, effort, and money to buy real LSAT practice tests and prep books like the Power Score Bibles. The LSAT does NOT "gauge one's innate ability." Essentially, the LSAT only tests one thing: How good you are at taking the LSAT. The LSAT can be mastered through practice. In my opinion, with how much time you have left and with where you are testing right now, it would be a shame for you to settle for a 167.

[Bildungsroman]

No one can give you a real answer to your own situation, because there are definitely people dumb enough to not break 160 with the best tutors and prep materials they could work through over ten years of solid practice. Plenty of people make the jump though, so you're fighting a battle that is not universally futile. It may be personally futile, but only one way to find out. Good luck!

[defrutamadre]

I agree with all of the above. Don't listen to your counselor, she obviously knows nothing about the LSAT. It is VERY learnable and you can definitely achieve the score you want. Like northwood said, you just have to be diligent and realize that it will take time and effort to get there. Good luck!

[Kurst]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3#p3938803

[SanDiegoJake]

Add another vote to the "your counselor has given you astonishingly bad advice" side. I'd argue the exact opposite - that the LSAT is the most learnable of all the standardized tests, considering that you're not tested on any outside knowledge.

It's ludicrous to take the position that studying for a test is futile.

[senorhosh]

Whoever told you that is wrong.

this is right.

[cmckid]

Tell your admissions councilor to suck it? That's a big piece of bull he/she is spewing. Go take an intro logic course in the philosophy department, and your score should improve by 5 points minimum.

Logic is learnable. Learning it for use in everyday life can take a while, and some people will always be better at it (IQ duh). BUt it sounds like you've have almost no formal training in logic and you're already scoring around a 160. But if you're scoring a 160 without ever trying to learn formal logic then you can get in the high 160s. Just make sure that while you're taking the logic class you also read a couple books on informal logic and then start applying it.

One of my majors in undergrad was psych and there's a nifty term called the "zone of proximal development"- genetics counts for 70% of IQ, 20% is environment, 10% is health and random factors (like how you feel on the day of the test, for one). THe LSAT is the same way. Most of your score is dependent on IQ, but training and practice can create a noticeable increase too.

[gggrra]

Tell your admissions councilor to suck it? That's a big piece of bull he/she is spewing. Go take an intro logic course in the philosophy department, and your score should improve by 5 points minimum.

Logic is learnable. Learning it for use in everyday life can take a while, and some people will always be better at it (IQ duh). BUt it sounds like you've have almost no formal training in logic and you're already scoring around a 160. But if you're scoring a 160 without ever trying to learn formal logic then you can get in the high 160s. Just make sure that while you're taking the logic class you also read a couple books on informal logic and then start applying it.

One of my majors in undergrad was psych and there's a nifty term called the "zone of proximal development"- genetics counts for 70% of IQ, 20% is environment, 10% is health and random factors (like how you feel on the day of the test, for one). THe LSAT is the same way. Most of your score is dependent on IQ, buttraining and practice can create a noticeable increase too.

OP, get some LSAT prep books (Powerscore/Manhattan etc.) and go through them. And drill through (and review) real practice tests... hard.

[KevinP]

How much can I improve given that I have more than a year...

Over 9000.

to study?

I've been studying for the LSAT about a month, and I am missing 4-8 (really depends for some reason) on each sections on the prep exams. Although I have more than a year to study, I was told from a counselor that I would not able to reach a 166 by next year because the LSAT is not learnable through studying but rather gauges one's innate ability to weed out those who are deemed "less intelligent" or "less logical."

The bottom line is, I want to reach about 166 - 167 by next year (October), but am very discouraged by the advice from the counselor. From your experiences, is reaching that score really impossible though I am given enough time?

In all seriousness, your counselor is wrong. The LSAT is in fact learnable and you should be able to reach 166 - 167 by next year if you put in the required effort and study using the correct methods.

[EarlCat]

I was told from a counselor that I would not able to reach a 166 by next year because the LSAT is not learnable through studying but rather gauges one's innate ability to weed out those who are deemed "less intelligent" or "less logical."

Tell your counselor's boss that your counselor doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground and should be fired. (Forward both of them a link to this thread.) There are people on this board who have made their living for years helping people do what this ignorant fool says is impossible.

[TheKingintheNorth]

Yeah pretty much anyone can do -0 on Logic Games given enough practice. Reading comp is a bit harder to learn, but it's only 25% of the test. LR can go either way. It's a new way of thinking for most people, and thus is incredibly teachable, but others (a minority, I guess) simply can't get it.

[TheKingintheNorth]

Also all counselor's are retarded. Why would you take advice on this kind of stuff--grades and career planning--from people who were obviously not very good at it (hence their job)? High school counseling may be different, but no one grows up aspiring to be or inspired by some so-called "pre-professional adviser."

Welcome to TLS.