Top Law Schools

Hi everyone,

I am considering taking the LSAT on 1st October 2011 for entry into 2012. My Prep books should be arriving in about a week. My question is, do you reckon 5-6 weeks of about 4 hours a day will be enough time to score a 170+ on the LSAT.

Thanks

Depends on how smart you already are. What's your diag?

Mjn731 wrote:Hi everyone,

I am considering taking the LSAT on 1st October 2011 for entry into 2012. My Prep books should be arriving in about a week. My question is, do you reckon 5-6 weeks of about 4 hours a day will be enough time to score a 170+ on the LSAT.

Thanks

There's a difference between going 164->170 and 144->170. Take a diagnostic, and that'll give you a better idea of how much time you'll need.

Diagnostic makes a huge difference. Some people start at 165 and just need to page through some material to get 170+. Others (like me) start at 149, take a class, then self study twice as long as it's normally recommended just to get to 170. I think it's safe to say it varies greatly...but I also don't think I studied too well when I took the class. 3-4 months seems to be a middle of the row guess a lot of people throw out though.

also depends on the diagnostic score breakdown (how many wrong in LG, etc)

I oversaw an LSAT prep course and ran statistical data on them. I found that students that hit 170, usually did so within about 3 weeks, at 3 hours a day 3 times a week. The rest of them never got there, after a full semester of in class work, and I'm sure a substantial amount of outside work. The conclusion I sort of drew from it is this, if you work hard enough you can get your score up to 160, but unless you are smart enough, you'll never get a 170.

Moral of the story, if you can't do it in 4-6 weeks, it isn't going to happen.

Cupidity wrote:I oversaw an LSAT prep course and ran statistical data on them. I found that students that hit 170, usually did so within about 3 weeks, at 3 hours a day 3 times a week. The rest of them never got there, after a full semester of in class work, and I'm sure a substantial amount of outside work. The conclusion I sort of drew from it is this, if you work hard enough you can get your score up to 160, but unless you are smart enough, you'll never get a 170.

Moral of the story, if you can't do it in 4-6 weeks, it isn't going to happen.

uhh .. what about tmon's post just two above yours

soj wrote:

Cupidity wrote:I oversaw an LSAT prep course and ran statistical data on them. I found that students that hit 170, usually did so within about 3 weeks, at 3 hours a day 3 times a week. The rest of them never got there, after a full semester of in class work, and I'm sure a substantial amount of outside work. The conclusion I sort of drew from it is this, if you work hard enough you can get your score up to 160, but unless you are smart enough, you'll never get a 170.

Moral of the story, if you can't do it in 4-6 weeks, it isn't going to happen.

uhh .. what about tmon's post just two above yours

...and the many other posts that I've seen in other threads that contradict your stats. Maybe the LSAT course you oversaw wasn't completely representative.

Cupidity wrote:I oversaw an LSAT prep course and ran statistical data on them. I found that students that hit 170, usually did so within about 3 weeks, at 3 hours a day 3 times a week. The rest of them never got there, after a full semester of in class work, and I'm sure a substantial amount of outside work. The conclusion I sort of drew from it is this, if you work hard enough you can get your score up to 160, but unless you are smart enough, you'll never get a 170.

Moral of the story, if you can't do it in 4-6 weeks, it isn't going to happen.

This seems false, or at least misleading to me. If we're talking about whether you CAN get to 170, the discussion doesn't seem very useful because it would be very hard to know whether you can't get to 170 or you're just studying inefficiently and need to keep going. It seems like every time this kind of subject comes up someone pops up and says "I'm an exception to this rule" and while that's not wholly helpful either, I think my experience refutes what you're saying. I started studying in February in the low 160s (with background instruction from over a year ago) and didn't get to 170 when I decided to postpone to October in May. I wouldn't even say I was studying inefficiently either--I was drilling games and LR questions by type and doing full RC sections for a while, and adding in full tests as well to mark my progress. In fact, I didn't get into the 170s until after I did MORE drilling in June and most of July. I'm not saying I'm a typical case here, but to say that people will either be able to get to 170 in 6s weeks or they can't do it seems at best misleading at at worst false to me.

Not trying to make this into a big issue, for the record, I just know that if I'd read what you're saying enough it could've adversely affected my belief that I'd be able to get to 170. And that would be a shame.

I like this thread.

Diagnostic of 155 (-12 LG, -11 RC, -5 LR, -5 LR)
High PT of 166 (-2 LG, -7 RC, -3 LR, -4 LR)

I don't have a recent average of 5 PT's, but I would say my ranges on sections are:

LG: -0 to -6
RC: -4 to -8
LR: -2 to -7
LR: -2 to -7

So - 173 if it couldn't go any better, 159 if I tank, and 164 if it's a normal showing.

With the right studying (hours a day in the right way), would you bet on me getting a 170 on one of the October or December dates (if I take them both)?

I think you should go fo it!

Get LG to -0 to -1 ASAP. Identify the Q types you're struggling with in LR and drill them. Consistently drill RC too. Make sure you understand every AC (why the right one's right, why the wrong ones are wrong).

NeedtoStudy wrote:I like this thread.

Diagnostic of 155 (-12 LG, -11 RC, -5 LR, -5 LR)
High PT of 166 (-2 LG, -7 RC, -3 LR, -4 LR)

I don't have a recent average of 5 PT's, but I would say my ranges on sections are:

LG: -0 to -6
RC: -4 to -8
LR: -2 to -7
LR: -2 to -7

So - 173 if it couldn't go any better, 159 if I tank, and 164 if it's a normal showing.

With the right studying (hours a day in the right way), would you bet on me getting a 170 on one of the October or December dates (if I take them both)?

lol we have pretty similar ranges and scores. Even our high score is similar(167)

NeedtoStudy wrote:I like this thread.

Diagnostic of 155 (-12 LG, -11 RC, -5 LR, -5 LR)
High PT of 166 (-2 LG, -7 RC, -3 LR, -4 LR)

I don't have a recent average of 5 PT's, but I would say my ranges on sections are:

LG: -0 to -6
RC: -4 to -8
LR: -2 to -7
LR: -2 to -7

So - 173 if it couldn't go any better, 159 if I tank, and 164 if it's a normal showing.

With the right studying (hours a day in the right way), would you bet on me getting a 170 on one of the October or December dates (if I take them both)?

Yeah, it's certainly possible, but I do think you're a little optimistic on the current state of your scores. If you haven't scored a 172, even if you've got some composites that place you there, I don't think you can even project yourself at that score yet. Regardless, what soj said is the way to go. Drill LR by type, get LG to a consistent 0, and do what you can with RC. RC is the bane of my existence at the moment, so not much help there, but the other two are so fixable through time and effort. I'm not sure whether everyone out there can get a 180, but I'm getting to the point where I really think anyone can get 170+ with the enough and the right kind of practice. Good luck

Take a diagnostic and then go from there. I would say bump the test to 12/3/2011...You have ONLY 7 weeks to prep for 10/1/2011--it's not long enough!

Mjn731 wrote:Hi everyone,

I am considering taking the LSAT on 1st October 2011 for entry into 2012. My Prep books should be arriving in about a week. My question is, do you reckon 5-6 weeks of about 4 hours a day will be enough time to score a 170+ on the LSAT.

Thanks

TrojanHopeful wrote:

soj wrote:

Cupidity wrote:I oversaw an LSAT prep course and ran statistical data on them. I found that students that hit 170, usually did so within about 3 weeks, at 3 hours a day 3 times a week. The rest of them never got there, after a full semester of in class work, and I'm sure a substantial amount of outside work. The conclusion I sort of drew from it is this, if you work hard enough you can get your score up to 160, but unless you are smart enough, you'll never get a 170.

Moral of the story, if you can't do it in 4-6 weeks, it isn't going to happen.

uhh .. what about tmon's post just two above yours

...and the many other posts that I've seen in other threads that contradict your stats. Maybe the LSAT course you oversaw wasn't completely representative.

Flaw in reasoning, indeed.

Mjn731 wrote:Hi everyone,

I am considering taking the LSAT on 1st October 2011 for entry into 2012. My Prep books should be arriving in about a week. My question is, do you reckon 5-6 weeks of about 4 hours a day will be enough time to score a 170+ on the LSAT.

Thanks

My suggestion would be to crack down the moment you get those books - start with a cold diagnostic, and study/practice like your life depends on it (which, in a sense, it does). On August 29th, take a diagnostic and reasonably assess your potential to knock it up to a 170+.

There's good news here: if you can't see yourself perfecting by 10/1, you'll have more than enough time to reach that 170 in December, and you will have already given yourself a great head start.