Unexpectedly PTing 178+, How to Change Study Plan? Forum

[duallys21]

I quit my shitjob two weeks ago to study for Oct. LSAT. I had a comprehensive LSAT study plan all set up. My GPA isn't great but I want to go to some great schools so I am hoping for a great score. I took seven practice tests before and right after I quit (early ones from 10-20) and was scoring 169-173 range. Most of the questions I was missing were from the Analytical Reasoning sections and so I took last week off from taking tests and drilled the LGs from PTs 19-39 using Steve Schwartz's type categories and then reviewing with the 7sage and other videos. After this week of drilling I scored 179, 180, and 178 on my last three tests. I am running at about -.75 on Logical and -.5 on Reading average per section overall on all ten tests I have taken. I was running -6 to -10 before drilling LGs but didn't miss any LG questions on the last three tests after drilling.

This is NOT a brag, I am genuinely looking for advice from high scorers. Where do I go from here? I was not expecting to be PTing at my goal only ten tests in and with two full months to go. I feel like I should throw my plan out the window, but what should I be focusing on? Should I drill the Cambridge Difficult LR packets and then take PTs in loud Cafes to minimize test-day dropoff? Take 6 section PTs or remove the 15 minute break or something else? Is there anything else I should be worried about?

Thanks in advance

[thewaves]

I'd add in noise and endurance. Try doing two tests back to back.

Also, the LSAT changes over time. I would try taking a few recent (2009+) tests to see how you do. But save the most recent for right before the actual exam.

[RodneyRuxin]

This is NOT a brag

FTFY

[duallys21]

This is NOT a brag

FTFY

Had to look that up.

"Originally means "fixed that for you." It also works as a double meaning for "fuck this fuck you." It's only used in that derivative in closed circles to confuse those that aren't in "the know" and is usually used in cases when two parties argue over something innately idiotic that has no logical outcome."

[SteelPenguin]

I'd add in noise and endurance. Try doing two tests back to back.

Also, the LSAT changes over time. I would try taking a few recent (2009+) tests to see how you do. But save the most recent for right before the actual exam.

I'm against the idea of saving the most recent tests until RIGHT before the exam. I believe you should be studying the recent tests shortly before the exam, but why use the most recent tests at a time where you will have the least amount of time to learn from them?

[RobertGolddust]

I'm against the idea of saving the most recent tests until RIGHT before the exam. I believe you should be studying the recent tests shortly before the exam, but why use the most recent tests at a time where you will have the least amount of time to learn from them?

Makes sense to me ^

[Kimikho]

I was getting some 177+ on the 19-29 tests. The highest I've gotten was a 174 on the more recent tests. It really sucks, but I would almost ignore any scores you've gotten prior to June 2007 .

[Otunga]

I was getting some 177+ on the 19-29 tests. The highest I've gotten was a 174 on the more recent tests. It really sucks, but I would almost ignore any scores you've gotten prior to June 2007 .

That may have something to do with the generous curves on the ancient tests, no?

[Bratva]

I was getting some 177+ on the 19-29 tests. The highest I've gotten was a 174 on the more recent tests. It really sucks, but I would almost ignore any scores you've gotten prior to June 2007 .

i concur...

[BigZuck]

I was getting some 177+ on the 19-29 tests. The highest I've gotten was a 174 on the more recent tests. It really sucks, but I would almost ignore any scores you've gotten prior to June 2007 .

i concur...

Yeah, I 180ed a couple of those Bs but never broke 170 on the real deal.

I suggest not wasting any more time bragging to E-strangers and just sticking to studying.

[stray]

I was getting some 177+ on the 19-29 tests. The highest I've gotten was a 174 on the more recent tests. It really sucks, but I would almost ignore any scores you've gotten prior to June 2007 .

i concur...

Yeah, I 180ed a couple of those Bs but never broke 170 on the real deal.

I suggest not wasting any more time bragging to E-strangers and just sticking to studying.

Damn, are you guys serious? You got a few 180's in a span of a few test, but then failed to come even close to that later? Shit man, now that is discouraging to read...

[JamMasterJ]

I never found the 6 section PTs helpful but YMMV. I really can't stress enough doing exact-conditioned, 5 section PTs and doing a TON of them. Keep up the drilling too but mostly focus on this. Also, look for personal idiosyncrasies and figure out how to deal with them - for instance, I was getting burnt out on LR, and switched to starting each section at question 11 and going back at the end to do the first 10 (presumably easier) questions. This helped me stay fresh for the hardest questions (15/16-25) while still getting some psuedo-warm-up questions (11-14 or so).
My point is that you very likely have some personal quirk and figuring it out and making the test fit YOU rather than making yourself fit the test is key when you're missing under 10 questions per test. At that level, comfortability starts to become as important as mastery, so that when you get to the real test, you can be ready to roll without succumbing to the stress of the live show.

[chadbrochill]

I'd recommend taking full length tests in less-than-ideal conditions (at loud locations, on little sleep, etc). Focus on your score floor instead of your score ceiling.

If your scoring ability is high you really want to focus on the mental aspects such as preparing for worst-case experimental ordering, recovering from loss of confidence, etc.

[blink]

I never found the 6 section PTs helpful but YMMV. I really can't stress enough doing exact-conditioned, 5 section PTs and doing a TON of them. Keep up the drilling too but mostly focus on this. Also, look for personal idiosyncrasies and figure out how to deal with them - for instance, I was getting burnt out on LR, and switched to starting each section at question 11 and going back at the end to do the first 10 (presumably easier) questions. This helped me stay fresh for the hardest questions (15/16-25) while still getting some psuedo-warm-up questions (11-14 or so).
My point is that you very likely have some personal quirk and figuring it out and making the test fit YOU rather than making yourself fit the test is key when you're missing under 10 questions per test. At that level, comfortability starts to become as important as mastery, so that when you get to the real test, you can be ready to roll without succumbing to the stress of the live show.

well said