Top Law Schools

Long time member. First time poster. Ask away.

Was your first score an underperformance?

In what time frame? Explanation for the improvement? What contributed the most to the improvement?

I had taken Kaplan classes. I did the best I could do at that time.

Vaulter wrote:I had taken Kaplan classes. I did the best I could do at that time.

I'm a former Kaplan class taker who is thinking about retaking. Scored 164 and I want a 170+. How big of a factor was switching test prep companies/methods in your improvement?

Bobnoxious wrote:In what time frame? Explanation for the improvement? What contributed the most to the improvement?

Time frame: I took the first one in 2003. I actually took one in between the two in February 2009 and got a 155. The last one I took was December 2010.

Explanation for the improvement: Pithypike's guide

What contributed the most to the improvement: doing 10 logic games almost everyday for 4 months

superpippo wrote:

Vaulter wrote:I had taken Kaplan classes. I did the best I could do at that time.

I'm a former Kaplan class taker who is thinking about retaking. Scored 164 and I want a 170+. How big of a factor was switching test prep companies/methods in your improvement?

I think it's whatever you identify best with.

Why is your tar 180 if you only got 167?

It's just for the idea of getting a 180.

Vaulter wrote:Long time member. First time poster. Ask away.

here is my question. Why does your avatar say 180 when you got a 167?
EDIT: oh lol someone already asked that

Why did you make a taking questions thread? Is 167 supposed to be impressive?

armedwithamind wrote:Why did you make a taking questions thread? Is 167 supposed to be impressive?

I think from a 151, it's impressive. I know people that scored in that range and never even got above a 160. Keep in mind that his/her 151 is on an actual exam, not one taken at Kaplan and whatnot. Of course, its impressiveness depends on how much OP actually studied prior to his/her 151 or not (Just because you take a class, doesn't mean you've prepped). Having taken two LSATs, I know there are people out there that take the exam completely cold and talk about hoping to get into Chapman.

.

Vaulter wrote:It's just for the idea of getting a 180.

I liked the idea of it more than I actually like it.

Although by TLS's outrageous and mostly unrealistic standards (only 3% of test-takers can reach the top-3%, right?!) a 167 may not be considered to be "impressive", it is an impressive score on its face. Only a very elite class of test-takers ever gets past 165. Look up the stats and translate them to real numbers. By almost any standard, 90th percentile or better on anything should be impressive.

The 16-POINT JUMP OP made is downright scary, because it makes clear that it is possible to jump from 160 to 176 by using the pithypike method. Think about that for a minute...let it marinate. How many T2 law students might have gotten into Harvard if they had spent more time and effort practicing the test. Don't knock OP's hustle.

Maybe OP simply never innately possessed the reading speed or hand-eye coordination - which both matter when taking standardized tests - to get above 170. People obscure the fact that, beyond testing reasoning abilities, the LSAT is a speed-reading exam that only tests some of the skills necessary for law school success. It also tests, to a very small degree, one's vision (mostly out of our control), ability to control one's central nervous system, and one's hand-eye coordination.

Based on innate, deeply established factors OP may have "maxed out". That's a clear victory, because most test-takers don't teach their optimum score.

Factors like sleep depravation, physical stamina, etc. all factor into scores. To manage so many factors on test day and come out with a win like that is damn impressive, IMO.

PDaddy wrote:The 16-POINT JUMP OP made is downright scary, because it makes clear that it is possible to jump from 160 to 176 by using the pithypike method.

Hmm, while I don't doubt the conclusion, and while your statement is extremely weak ("it is possible"), there seem to be some implications that I don't quite agree with.

Mainly that a 16-point jump from any X to any X+16 is equal. I don't think that's the case. Going from a 140 to a 156 is much easier than a 164 to 180, for example. In the middle of the "curve", it's closer, but once you get to the extremes, it starts to break down.

ITT some special snowflake brags about getting a 167.

armedwithamind wrote:ITT some special snowflake brags about getting a 167.

I didn't read any bragging.

armedwithamind wrote:ITT some special snowflake brags about getting a 167.

Don't hate on dude if he's trying to help give other posters hope/advice, bro.



If he doesn't, hate away.

gaud wrote:

armedwithamind wrote:ITT some special snowflake brags about getting a 167.

Don't hate on dude if he's trying to help give other posters hope/advice, bro.



If he doesn't, hate away.

the whole idea of this thread GRINDS MY GEARS

That's fair lol

armed, you scared off OP, now there can be no lulz.

deputydog wrote:armed, you scared off OP, now there can be no lulz.

sorry brother

spam

Vaulter wrote:Also, if you think you need help with Logic Games, I offer one on one tutoring/coaching over phone/skype exclusively for the logic games section. For more info:

That website is golden.

If it is in fact real then problem with OP trying to make a buck, but TLS probably isn't the best place for a 167'er that went -4 on LG to advertise tutoring services. It's easy to find people who did lots better charging significantly less.

After looking over the website more this seems to pretty obviously be a troll.