Top Law Schools

Believe it or not, I just took my first real LSAT exam. I got a 157.

I must mention, however, that I didn't time the test. I plan to take all 70 of the available preptests before the June 2012 LSAT. I'm not going to time roughly half of the tests. The other half, however, will be strictly timed.

This is how I studied for the PSAT/SAT, and I did fine on them. I didn't begin timing at first in order to take some of the pressure off and familiarize myself with the test/question types. Once I got familiar with the PSAT/SAT, I no longer feared it, naturally got faster and was able to finish well within the allotted time. I hope this strategy works with the LSAT.

My goal is to score above 170 on the June 2012 LSAT.

vtoodler wrote:Believe it or not, I just took my first real LSAT test exam. I got a 157.

I must mention, however, that I didn't time the test. I plan to take all 70 of the available preptests before the June 2012 LSAT. I'm not going to time roughly half of the tests. The other half, however, will be strictly timed.

This is how I studied for the SAT/PSAT, and I did fine on them. I didn't begin timing at first in order to take some of the pressure off and familiarize myself with the test/ question types. Once I got familiar with PSAT/SAT, I no longer feared it, naturally got faster and was able to finish well within the alloted time. I hope this strategy works with the LSAT.

My goal is to score above 170 on the June 2012 LSAT.

157 is impressive for a diagnostic, although the fact that it wasn't timed isn't a good indicator where you actually are. I would suggest taking a diagnostic under timed conditions just so you have better accuracy in determining where your at. Don't worry about where you start out, it's where you end up that is important.

Good luck.

vtoodler wrote:Believe it or not, I just took my first real LSAT test exam. I got a 157.

I must mention, however, that I didn't time the test. I plan to take all 70 of the available preptests before the June 2012 LSAT. I'm not going to time roughly half of the tests. The other half, however, will be strictly timed.

This is how I studied for the SAT/PSAT, and I did fine on them. I didn't begin timing at first in order to take some of the pressure off and familiarize myself with the test/ question types. Once I got familiar with PSAT/SAT, I no longer feared it, naturally got faster and was able to finish well within the allotted time. I hope this strategy works with the LSAT.

My goal is to score above 170 on the June 2012 LSAT.

Your first diagnostic really should be timed. That 157 means nothing otherwise.

Take a timed test. THEN start doing untimed prep. Follow pithypike's study schedule, which is stickied in this forum.

hey vtoodler, on the subject of SAT, what'd you get? Would be good to figure out what the correlation is like. I got 710 Verbal/700 Math but I took a class. 163 on my first lsat diagnostic I took yesterday.

This is a terrible study plan.

A. You waste time (real world time) by not taking only timed tests.

B. To familiarize yourself you should take timed tests and then carefully scrutinize every question (right and wrong).

If only I had a nickel for every time I heard, "I did well on the SAT, so I guess that means I'll do just as well on the LSAT."

admisionquestion wrote:This is a terrible study plan.

A. You waste time (real world time) by not taking only timed tests.

B. To familiarize yourself you should take timed tests and then carefully scrutinize every question (right and wrong).

Taking tests untimed can actually be very helpful for working on accuracy. OP might be going a bit overboard though in terms of how many untimed tests he or she is planning on taking since timing is a huge part of the LSAT as well.

I agree with the strategy of taking untimed tests as you first strive to understand the questions, and then switching to timed tests to increase your speed.

Practicing speed does you no good if you're not doing it right in the first place.

Also, I would save the most recent PTs for last.

You'de have $13.85

Redzo wrote:I agree with the strategy of taking untimed tests as you first strive to understand the questions, and then switching to timed tests to increase your speed.

Practicing speed does you no good if you're not doing it right in the first place.

Also, I would save the most recent PTs for last.

Drilling certain question types can be untimed. Doing Sections can be untimed. Pt's are TO BE STRICTLY TIMED FOR FUCKING NOOBS. its not a fucking practice test if your fucking cheating and not following the simple rule of 35mins per section. So annoying to hear NOOBS<167 do pts and diagnostics untimed then brag about the score or report the score.
Follow Pike's guide that is stickied.

can't say the 157 is actually a first time cold diag...considering it wasn't time. a Huge part of the LSAT is the time pressure after all

Was there a question in there or did you just want to announce it to TLS what you planned?

It's an incredibly inefficient study plan and similar to what others have said, you have not taken a diagnostic. I think most people who are college graduates, if they had all day, they could get north of 160 on the LSAT. All you accomplished by taking that first test was to waste a preptest from which you could have extracted some value.

Not to stack the complaints too high...but I just want to throw out a word of warning.

Imagining you did actually take a diagnostic.

My diagnostic score was 159. I ended up with a 170. I believe that I studied hard. Looking back I regret not studying harder. Anyone beginning their studies with a score near 160 SHOULD NOT settle for a 170. Pretest until your consistently hitting 174.

173 is a ticket to a very competitive application (given the right gpa) at every school. A 170 will leave you wishing you had fought for a 173.

Just some off hand advice.

Really surprised that I keep hearing you can make mid 170s if you put in the effort (given 160ish on diag). I always thought those scores were in the stratosphere.

inthebeginning wrote:Really surprised that I keep hearing you can make mid 170s if you put in the effort (given 160ish on diag). I always thought those scores were in the stratosphere.

Well, it's one of those things that you can't really disprove, right? All success stories become anecdotal support of working hard and achieving the stratosphere scores; all failures can be attributed by the observer to not working hard enough. Very few people max out their potential on anything because of diminishing returns just not being worth the extra effort. Most people (on tls, at least) believe the lsat has very learnable question types and a 160 on a diagnostic implies a certain level of potential that with training you can reasonably get to the point where not many questions slip by you. I'm probably inclined to agree. For me, it probably wasn't worth the extra couple hundred hours to get from high 160's to mid 170's since my opportunities would be pretty similar so I was more than willing to stop short of an elite score.

inthebeginning wrote:Really surprised that I keep hearing you can make mid 170s if you put in the effort (given 160ish on diag). I always thought those scores were in the stratosphere.

But you really weren't near 160 on a diag. Seriously, take it timed and then see what you get. Also why did you say "believe it or not" about getting a 157 untimed on a practice test.

bernaldiaz wrote:

inthebeginning wrote:Really surprised that I keep hearing you can make mid 170s if you put in the effort (given 160ish on diag). I always thought those scores were in the stratosphere.

But you really weren't near 160 on a diag. Seriously, take it timed and then see what you get. Also why did you say "believe it or not" about getting a 157 untimed on a practice test.

inthebeginning is not OP

lol at everyone hating on taking an untimed diagnostic. There's no reason to freak yourself out with a strict time limit when you're first looking at the LSAT. Take it slow, go through the sections to see what they're like, and work from there. My diagnostic was untimed and it worked as a perfectly fine starting place for me.

admisionquestion wrote:Not to stack the complaints too high...but I just want to throw out a word of warning.

Imagining you did actually take a diagnostic.

My diagnostic score was 159. I ended up with a 170. I believe that I studied hard. Looking back I regret not studying harder. Anyone beginning their studies with a score near 160 SHOULD NOT settle for a 170. Pretest until your consistently hitting 174.

173 is a ticket to a very competitive application (given the right gpa) at every school. A 170 will leave you wishing you had fought for a 173.

Just some off hand advice.

TITCR my diag was a 159 as well, towards the end I was PrepTesting at 170-172 and on the real test I got a 164. I hear this happened to a lot of people on the October test. Not sure what it was about that specific test. I still had an awesome cycle but that doesn't mean that others will have the same results. I also have a really good GPA that makes me a reverse splitter and have gotten some reverse splitter love.

Dany wrote:lol at everyone hating on taking an untimed diagnostic. There's no reason to freak yourself out with a strict time limit when you're first looking at the LSAT. Take it slow, go through the sections to see what they're like, and work from there. My diagnostic was untimed and it worked as a perfectly fine starting place for me.

Nobody is hating on taking untimed tests. It's a legit strategy to work on mastery (though, I think focusing on question types instead of full tests is smarter and more efficient). People are hating on taking untimed diagnostics because untimed tests do not give nearly as accurate of a reading as a timed test would. I always viewed a diagnostic test as a starting point and taking an untimed diagnostic is hardly a starting point. If you disagree, you likely subscribe to a different definition and purpose of a diagnostic test... which is fine, I guess, but I suspect you the value in a diagnostic test as I outlined above?

TommyK wrote:Nobody is hating on taking untimed tests.

I know, because that's not what I said.

vtoodler wrote:Believe it or not, I just took my first real LSAT test exam. I got a 157.

I must mention, however, that I didn't time the test. I plan to take all 70 of the available preptests before the June 2012 LSAT. I'm not going to time roughly half of the tests. The other half, however, will be strictly timed.

This is how I studied for the SAT/PSAT, and I did fine on them. I didn't begin timing at first in order to take some of the pressure off and familiarize myself with the test/ question types. Once I got familiar with PSAT/SAT, I no longer feared it, naturally got faster and was able to finish well within the allotted time. I hope this strategy works with the LSAT.

My goal is to score above 170 on the June 2012 LSAT.

--ImageRemoved--

Dany wrote:

TommyK wrote:Nobody is hating on taking untimed tests.

I know, because that's not what I said.

Yeah, I know that's not what you said. I was just trying to explicitly contrast the two to support the above argument that a timed test provides much more of a diagnostic value than an untimed test. I didn't mean for it to sound like I was trying to re-frame your comment. I'd love to hear why you think an untimed test is sufficient for diagnostic purposes. I hope that's not misrepresenting your argument.

Because it's a diagnostic? I think it's useful for seeing what an actual LSAT is like, reading through the questions, picking out what will and won't be difficult for you to study, etc. There's no sense in cutting yourself off halfway through a section and feeling like a failure the first time. First comes accuracy, then speed, and I don't think that the timed element of the exam is of the utmost importance when you're first starting out. So saying an untimed diagnostic "means nothing" is just silly. Maybe timed works better for some people, but an untimed diagnostic was useful to me.