Page 1 of 2
No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:24 pm
by DoctorLaw
And my DEC Lsat is a 140, I guess Law school isn't for everyone. Thank you BTF for helping me increase my score on the Pts rather the real lsat
Neither the SAT was a indicator of how I would do in undergrad and neither do I believe lsat can determine how well i will do in law school.
Goodbye and all cooley jokes are welcomed
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:38 pm
by wtrc
I'm so sorry to hear that!
Did you misbubble? I've heard of scores going down by like 10 points because of stress/anxiety, but not 25. Did you find the test harder than PT's, or walk out confident that you did well?
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:42 pm
by BullShitWithBravado
I know that a lot of schools don't average LSAT scores, so if you retake and do well you may still have a realistic shot.
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:00 pm
by DoctorLaw
I walked out of the test with confidence because I found LG really easy and the RC aswell. I didn't misbubble. The PTs seemed harder than the actual LSAT. After reading reactions of people about how LG was easy compared to the one in october. I felt more confident. Again, read btf'ers recieving scores they didnt expect and all the excitment they were in. I thought maybe I also got my target score. But sadly not.
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:04 pm
by boblawlob
Go back and study your ass off for a Oct retake. You can do it, especially if you were consistently PTing in the 160s with no outliers.
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:06 pm
by delusional
DoctorLaw wrote:And my DEC Lsat is a 140, I guess Law school isn't for everyone. Thank you BTF for helping me increase my score on the Pts rather the real lsat
Neither the SAT was a indicator of how I would do in undergrad and neither do I believe lsat can determine how well i will do in law school.
Goodbye and all cooley jokes are welcomed
There's no magical secret in the LSAT. If you were legit PTing at 160+, then it follows that your actual test was an anomaly, not an indication of some "true LSAT" potential. Go through it with a fine tooth comb, and see if there's some "larger" failure that led to the drop. Then get back to practice and take it again.
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:10 pm
by Spartan_Alum_12
Was it your first real LSAT? If so, dust it off and try again. I also bombed my first real one and had a decent improvement on my second real one less than two months later. No need to be ashamed, funny things happen on test day.
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:11 pm
by DoctorLaw
delusional wrote:DoctorLaw wrote:And my DEC Lsat is a 140, I guess Law school isn't for everyone. Thank you BTF for helping me increase my score on the Pts rather the real lsat
Neither the SAT was a indicator of how I would do in undergrad and neither do I believe lsat can determine how well i will do in law school.
Goodbye and all cooley jokes are welcomed
There's no magical secret in the LSAT. If you were legit PTing at 160+, then it follows that your actual test was an anomaly, not an indication of some "true LSAT" potential. Go through it with a fine tooth comb, and see if there's some "larger" failure that led to the drop. Then get back to practice and take it again.
You can be right since yesturday I have been already fighting a bad flu and looking at the score made me hate my life even more. I will retake my dec test again and see what went wrong and compare scores.
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:15 pm
by DoctorLaw
Spartan_Alum_12 wrote:Was it your first real LSAT? If so, dust it off and try again. I also bombed my first real one and had a decent improvement on my second real one less than two months later. No need to be ashamed, funny things happen on test day.
It was my second one, my first one i took after 4 months of prep with testmasters I really went in to get the 151 and thought it was a decent score. This is way before i was posting on here.
I waited one whole year to try again and this the end result. Self-studied took 25pts mostly recent ones for 6 months. Now I am skeptic to sign up for another one. But with a poli sci degree i dont seem to figure what I can really do with my life in this economy.
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:36 pm
by Cerebro
DoctorLaw wrote:Spartan_Alum_12 wrote:Was it your first real LSAT? If so, dust it off and try again. I also bombed my first real one and had a decent improvement on my second real one less than two months later. No need to be ashamed, funny things happen on test day.
It was my second one, my first one i took after 4 months of prep with testmasters I really went in to get the 151 and thought it was a decent score. This is way before i was posting on here.
I waited one whole year to try again and this the end result. Self-studied took 25pts mostly recent ones for 6 months. Now I am skeptic to sign up for another one. But with a poli sci degree i dont seem to figure what I can really do with my life in this economy.
Do you mean to say that you scored 151 on the first attempt and 140 on your second?
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:43 pm
by DoctorLaw
Cerebro wrote:DoctorLaw wrote:Spartan_Alum_12 wrote:Was it your first real LSAT? If so, dust it off and try again. I also bombed my first real one and had a decent improvement on my second real one less than two months later. No need to be ashamed, funny things happen on test day.
It was my second one, my first one i took after 4 months of prep with testmasters I really went in to get the 151 and thought it was a decent score. This is way before i was posting on here.
I waited one whole year to try again and this the end result. Self-studied took 25pts mostly recent ones for 6 months. Now I am skeptic to sign up for another one. But with a poli sci degree i dont seem to figure what I can really do with my life in this economy.
Do you mean to say that you scored 151 on the first attempt and 140 on your second?
Actually i scored 135
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:55 pm
by Cerebro
DoctorLaw wrote:Cerebro wrote:DoctorLaw wrote:Spartan_Alum_12 wrote:Was it your first real LSAT? If so, dust it off and try again. I also bombed my first real one and had a decent improvement on my second real one less than two months later. No need to be ashamed, funny things happen on test day.
It was my second one, my first one i took after 4 months of prep with testmasters I really went in to get the 151 and thought it was a decent score. This is way before i was posting on here.
I waited one whole year to try again and this the end result. Self-studied took 25pts mostly recent ones for 6 months. Now I am skeptic to sign up for another one. But with a poli sci degree i dont seem to figure what I can really do with my life in this economy.
Do you mean to say that you scored 151 on the first attempt and 140 on your second?
Actually i scored 135
At least you're moving in the right direction. Since you mentioned you felt pretty confident about your performance on the test, you may want to consider really going through each question to understand why you selected the answer choices that you did, in addition to why they are correct or incorrect. Looking back at your posts, it looks like your first test was taken in October 2010. If you decide to retake, I think you should try to retake in June 2013 if possible (rather than waiting another 2 years to do it). If you wait too long, you'll probably have to start over, but if you are able to push through your emotions now and focus for June, you may be able to leverage the work you've already put into this thing while it's still fresh in your mind. Definitely if you were PT'ing at 160-165, you have some potential to score well on the real thing, and it would be foolish to give up at this point, IMO. Best of luck to you.
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:00 pm
by objection_your_honor
Try to think of what is causing you to score in the 160s consistently and then in the 130s on test day. Are you simulating test day conditions exactly? Are you being absolutely honest with the timer? Are you using a bubble sheet? Is that the first time you've been up and thinking hard at 8am all year?
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:13 pm
by BullShitWithBravado
Wormfather wrote:objection_your_honor wrote:Try to think of what is causing you to score in the 160s consistently and then in the 130s on test day. Are you simulating test day conditions exactly? Are you being absolutely honest with the timer? Are you using a bubble sheet? Is that the first time you've been up and thinking hard at 8am all year?
So many people make that mistake. Every PT I took, I did between 730am and 1230pm, if the brain isnt used functioning at 8am, its not gonna do it.
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:31 pm
by 09042014
LOL what an idiot.
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 4:24 pm
by DoctorLaw
Wormfather wrote:objection_your_honor wrote:Try to think of what is causing you to score in the 160s consistently and then in the 130s on test day. Are you simulating test day conditions exactly? Are you being absolutely honest with the timer? Are you using a bubble sheet? Is that the first time you've been up and thinking hard at 8am all year?
So many people make that mistake. Every PT I took, I did between 730am and 1230pm, if the brain isnt used functioning at 8am, its not gonna do it.
None of my pts were at 8am they were scattered throughout the day considering the fact i am working aswell. My work schedule is a PM shift (12-8)
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:37 pm
by CyanIdes Of March
I don't think it's necessary to PT early every time you do it. Certainly get a few in before test time but if you can't, you can't. I probably did 2 even semi-early and I did alright. What I did do was make sure my sleep schedule was fixed by test day by getting to bed earlier and a healthy dose of sleeping pills a week and a half out. That way, even though I hadn't been taking the PTs very early, my mind was about in the same state.
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:45 pm
by cinephile
Maybe you were burnt out? I've found that with exams if I take too many in a row. Did you take time off studying before the LSAT? When I taught for Princeton Review, we recomended a full week off before the exam.
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:51 pm
by BullShitWithBravado
Have you tried Kaplan? You'll be guaranteed to get your money back if you score lower on the LSAT than your PTs (at least this was true when I took the course). The program actually offers a really useful online tool that pinpoints exactly what types of problems you struggle with the most so you can focus on those problems without wasting tons of times practicing problems you have down cold. I'm a terrible test taker, but the program worked really well for me.
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:52 pm
by dingbat
While the phrase gets thrown a lot on this board, this is the most applicable time to say RETAKE
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 6:14 pm
by Psib337
Take the test again. In October I was PTing in the low 160s and wound up with a 152. I felt good about the test (except for zones) and was shocked to get a 152. Go over your answers again. When I looked over mine I realized I had picked answers that made no sense, obviously I thought they made sense to me at the time. If you're scoring in the 160s on your PTs you can do it on the test. Manhattan helped me a lot with one simple suggestion, eliminate the wrong answers instead of looking for the right one. Just take a few days off and then try again. I got a 163 in December, right in the middle of my PT range and pretty much what I was expecting. Just try a different method and if you can think of anything that you would have done differently in you're studying then do it.
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 6:16 pm
by dowu
Desert Fox wrote:LOL what an idiot.
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 9:55 am
by Zoomie
Desert Fox wrote:LOL what an idiot.
Yes this was productive.
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 3:47 pm
by 09042014
Zoomie wrote:Desert Fox wrote:LOL what an idiot.
Yes this was productive.
Did you think it was meant to be?
Re: No flame: i was pt around 160-165
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 3:50 pm
by 09042014
Wormfather wrote:Zoomie wrote:Desert Fox wrote:LOL what an idiot.
Yes this was productive.
Anyone over 5000 posts gets to walk around TLS and say whatever they want. The rest of us get to over/annoyingly/inappropriately use gifs.
Its nature.
I got to 5K posts by trolling on topic forums.