Top Law Schools

Figured this would be interesting, to see how people did compared to their averages. My mean was about a 174.5, and true to form, I pulled a 174. What about you guys?

Question -- how many PT's did you take that you calculated into your average?

SoPro wrote:Question -- how many PT's did you take that you calculated into your average?

I took my last 12, once I got to the point that they were more or less my chief method of studying, and not as an occasional means of understanding what I needed to work on hardest.

How many did you take in total (estimate is cool bruh)?

SoPro wrote:How many did you take in total (estimate is cool bruh).

Probably 20, or so? They've all blended together.

...

tng11 wrote:Last 10 PT range: 168-180 (5 180s, 3 179s, 1 177 and a single 168). Overall average since I prepared for the test, maybe 176. Took all 62 PTs plus the 3 Superprep ones.

Real thing: 175

Boss. No idea how long it took you to take all 62, but did you do any prep prior (for example, PS Bibles) or were the PT's themselves your prep?

...

PT average was 175.4. Actual score (June '11) was 174. I could easily have got a 175/6, but I made a stupid mistake.

I find the large number of -4+s puzzling. Perhaps some of those people cracked under the pressure, but I suspect a lot of people aren't PTing under real conditions. It's easy to give yourself a little extra time when using a watch, and perhaps also to make yourself more comfortable than you would be at the LSAT. I suspect there are all sorts of ways of not being entirely honest with yourself. I did my PTs on a tiny little desk, on a small, hard chair, using an LSAT simulation DVD, because I knew I would be in those conditions for the real test.

Average of 174 over about ten PTs. Highest PT was 177, somehow managed 178 on the real thing.

Aside:

tng11 wrote:I also read Scientific American/New Yorker/The Economist front page to back page frequently to build RC skills.

If you don't mind, how often did you do this? Intense reading like you did is an element of my prep plan, but I'm not sure how much time I should be sinking into it.

AntipodeanPhil wrote: I find the large number of -4+s puzzling. Perhaps some of those people cracked under the pressure, but I suspect a lot of people aren't PTing under real conditions. It's easy to give yourself a little extra time when using a watch, and perhaps also to make yourself more comfortable than you would be at the LSAT. I suspect there are all sorts of ways of not being entirely honest with yourself. I did my PTs on a tiny little desk, on a small, hard chair, using an LSAT simulation DVD, because I knew I would be in those conditions for the real test.

Absolutely this. I think people tend to score well below their PT average because they don't spend enough time thinking about the mental aspects of actually taking the test. It's a damn pressure cooker, and you can't get all incontinent when you're faced with such a situation. It sounds douchey, but people need to learn how they work under pressure and prepare accordingly.

Not only did I score eleven points below my PT average, I also scored five points lower than my lowest PT.

Needless to say, I am stoked.

Ginj wrote:Not only did I score eleven points below my PT average, I also scored five points lower than my lowest PT.

Needless to say, I am stoked.

You. PM.

Yes'm.

-3 unfortunately. Still in the 170s but with my 3.25 I'm going to retake to stand a better shot at the t14.

Mean of 174, mode 172, range 171-178, scored a 170.

I always had extra time on PTs, but I was really close on game day.

I screwed up LG. Still haven't looked at to see what I did. Normally 0 on that section, but went -4. That made all the difference.

i had an average right around 173, and pulled out a 174 on the real thing. i also absolutely agree with the idea that you have to make the practice conditions as close to the real thing as possible. for the at least the last 10 or so i forced myself to get comfortable using my watch, no breaks however short between sections etc and i was very comfortable once it came down to taking the real thing

I was averaging a 175 over 12 PTs. Lowest was 167, highest was 180. Most were clustered around 177.

I ended up with a 169 on the June 11 test. I think the combination of a tight curve, and a lot of uncharacteristic mistakes on RC (I missed 7 and I almost never missed more than 2 on my practices) was the difference.

Still, I think June 11 was a really tough test to get a high score on. What other tests are there where missing 5 questions will knock you out of the high 170s?? It was a bit rough, especially considering how hard I found the RC to be. But what can you do?

Ginj wrote:Not only did I score eleven points below my PT average, I also scored five points lower than my lowest PT.

Needless to say, I am stoked.

Same here. Don't usually freak out for tests... But I think mental fatigue/general lazyness/choking on a section I had improved upon but hadn't gotten totally comfortable with/etc. got to me. I had really been hoping to be a little luckier on the test, but my score was not all that surprising. Needless to say I won't be making these mistakes again!

First PT, completely cold, got a 152. Was averaging low 160s going into the test. Got a 151. FML.

Diag was a 140, average of 15 PT's were roughly 158...got a 153.

Debating whether i will retake in october....sooo disheartened right now

The 31% of people having 4 or more points lower on the real deal is mildly terrifying to me.

After taking the october test, I only took two full PTs- went 168 and 172. Got a 168 on the real thing.

Before my first writing I took about 35 PTs and averaged 165, scored a 162 in Oct.

Last batch of PTs (at a desk with a watch, strict time, no breaks except the one after section 3, with an LSAT audio file thing playing scribbling noises and whatever other sounds are likely to be at the test center): 176, 174, 176, 171, 170, 173, 176, 170, 171, 174.

Actual score: 165.

Needless to say, I'm retaking in October. Effed up LG (which is normally my strong section) and missed 7 (four of them on the cars game, three on the balls).

Very discouraged.