175+ people, where were you 6 weeks out? Forum

[notalobbyist]

Were you averaging 175+? Was was your range?

I'm wondering how many points its realistic to squeeze out between now and October. Obviously everyone is different, but any anecdotes would be appreciated.

[steven21]

.

[062914123]

.

[09042014]

I hadn't even taken a single PT yet, or even cracked open the powerscore bibles.

Most people who score this high don't grind away point by point for weeks and weeks and build up. They just naturally do well.

Even though the test can be learned and gamed, it's not designed to be that way.

[ArtistOfManliness]

175

[wtrc]

I hadn't even taken a single PT yet, or even cracked open the powerscore bibles.

Most people who score this high don't grind away point by point for weeks and weeks and build up. They just naturally do well.

Even though the test can be learned and gamed, it's not designed to be that way.

Mind blown

[Pancakes12]

I hadn't even taken a single PT yet, or even cracked open the powerscore bibles.

Most people who score this high don't grind away point by point for weeks and weeks and build up. They just naturally do well.

Even though the test can be learned and gamed, it's not designed to be that way.

I hope your joking.

But to respond to OP, I believe with a lot of focus you can get there. If you have 20+ recent PTs still available, take each one, then review it VERY carefully.

Six weeks before the test, I was probably averaging 168. Four weeks till, I had inched up to low 170s. Within a couple more weeks (when I started to get really consistent with each section) I started hitting as high as 178. Make it a full time job and you can do it.

[09042014]

I hadn't even taken a single PT yet, or even cracked open the powerscore bibles.

Most people who score this high don't grind away point by point for weeks and weeks and build up. They just naturally do well.

Even though the test can be learned and gamed, it's not designed to be that way.

I hope your joking.

But to respond to OP, I believe with a lot of focus you can get there. If you have 20+ recent PTs still available, take each one, then review it VERY carefully.

Six weeks before the test, I was probably averaging 168. Four weeks till, I had inched up to low 170s. Within a couple more weeks (when I started to get really consistent with each section) I started hitting as high as 178. Make it a full time job and you can do it.

No I'm not. The LSAT isn't supposed to be learned. You can use little tricks to backwards engineering the logic you are supposed to be using.

I did about 3 weeks of prep, and after the first I was scoring 173+. The rest was learning not to fall for silly tricks. And a little bit of increase in RC because I was rusty.

[Pancakes12]

I hadn't even taken a single PT yet, or even cracked open the powerscore bibles.

Most people who score this high don't grind away point by point for weeks and weeks and build up. They just naturally do well.

Even though the test can be learned and gamed, it's not designed to be that way.

I hope your joking.

But to respond to OP, I believe with a lot of focus you can get there. If you have 20+ recent PTs still available, take each one, then review it VERY carefully.

Six weeks before the test, I was probably averaging 168. Four weeks till, I had inched up to low 170s. Within a couple more weeks (when I started to get really consistent with each section) I started hitting as high as 178. Make it a full time job and you can do it.

No I'm not. The LSAT isn't supposed to be learned. You can use little tricks to backwards engineering the logic you are supposed to be using.

I did about 3 weeks of prep, and after the first I was scoring 173+. The rest was learning not to fall for silly tricks. And a little bit of increase in RC because I was rusty.

"The LSAT isn't supposed to be learned." Ok? This has nothing to do with if it can be learned. Everyone is different. I started off at 165 and inched up very slowly to my 176. I wouldn't have been able to do that using your study plan. Neither would many other people. But many people could if they commit to learn; whether or not it's supposed to be learned is irrelevant.

[09042014]

I hope your joking.

But to respond to OP, I believe with a lot of focus you can get there. If you have 20+ recent PTs still available, take each one, then review it VERY carefully.

Six weeks before the test, I was probably averaging 168. Four weeks till, I had inched up to low 170s. Within a couple more weeks (when I started to get really consistent with each section) I started hitting as high as 178. Make it a full time job and you can do it.

No I'm not. The LSAT isn't supposed to be learned. You can use little tricks to backwards engineering the logic you are supposed to be using.

I did about 3 weeks of prep, and after the first I was scoring 173+. The rest was learning not to fall for silly tricks. And a little bit of increase in RC because I was rusty.

"The LSAT isn't supposed to be learned." Ok? This has nothing to do with if it can be learned. Everyone is different. I started off at 165 and inched up very slowly to my 176. I wouldn't have been able to do that using your study plan. Neither would many other people. But many people could if they commit to learn; whether or not it's supposed to be learned is irrelevant.

I didn't claim everyone could do it my way. But most people getting 176's aren't spending months inching their way up.

The test is somewhat learnable, but it's not intended to be.

[mindarmed]

I hadn't even taken a single PT yet, or even cracked open the powerscore bibles.

Most people who score this high don't grind away point by point for weeks and weeks and build up. They just naturally do well.

Even though the test can be learned and gamed, it's not designed to be that way.

qf dat stem dominance

[oxie]

My studying was pretty lackadaisical 6 weeks out, but I looked through my books and it seems like my early scored tests (not taken in one sitting, can't remember how strict I was on timing) were 173-175. I only buckled down for serious studying 2-3 weeks before the test. Once I figured out what sort of mistakes I was prone to making, I started scoring 177 or above pretty consistently. I did get one 173 the weekend before the test, but that was actually somewhat helpful in highlighting what types of questions I was prone to sloppiness on.

I think there's certainly some truth to what Desert Fox is saying (that the logic of the LSAT comes more naturally to certain people). But I also think 6 weeks is a pretty decent amount of time to identify and work on your weak spots if you're within striking distance of the score you want. Good luck!

[albusdumbledore]

I hope your joking.

But to respond to OP, I believe with a lot of focus you can get there. If you have 20+ recent PTs still available, take each one, then review it VERY carefully.

Six weeks before the test, I was probably averaging 168. Four weeks till, I had inched up to low 170s. Within a couple more weeks (when I started to get really consistent with each section) I started hitting as high as 178. Make it a full time job and you can do it.

No I'm not. The LSAT isn't supposed to be learned. You can use little tricks to backwards engineering the logic you are supposed to be using.

I did about 3 weeks of prep, and after the first I was scoring 173+. The rest was learning not to fall for silly tricks. And a little bit of increase in RC because I was rusty.

"The LSAT isn't supposed to be learned." Ok? This has nothing to do with if it can be learned. Everyone is different. I started off at 165 and inched up very slowly to my 176. I wouldn't have been able to do that using your study plan. Neither would many other people. But many people could if they commit to learn; whether or not it's supposed to be learned is irrelevant.

I didn't claim everyone could do it my way. But most people getting 176's aren't spending months inching their way up.

The test is somewhat learnable, but it's not intended to be.

Ehh for me studying was about gaining consistency. When I started, I could score that high on about 1 out of every 3 practice tests I took. But by the end it was 3 out of 4 or so.

[Thethoughtcounts176]

I've been pretty erratic when I first started. My last 3 practice tests were 169, 175, and 172 respectively though.

[jk148706]

The LSAT isn't supposed to be learned.

Uuuhhh

[NYstate]

The LSAT isn't supposed to be learned.

Uuuhhh

dF what is wrong with you? It isn't supposed to be learned but it can and should be learned. Who cares about a boomer system that hurts students from doing their best. Studying hard for the LSAT can pay huge real dollar dividends.

Don't discourage people from learning every possible nuance of the exam.

[09042014]

The LSAT isn't supposed to be learned.

Uuuhhh

It's not supposed to be learned. It's a skills and aptitude test.

@NYSTATE

Not discouraging people from gunning it, since there are obvious benefits.

[vuthy]

It's not supposed to be learned. It's a skills and aptitude test.

You don't learn skills?

[jk148706]

The LSAT isn't supposed to be learned.

Uuuhhh

It's not supposed to be learned. It's a skills and aptitude test.

@NYSTATE

Not discouraging people from gunning it, since there are obvious benefits.

What does "it's not supposed to be learned" even mean?

Who made that decision? What criteria did they use to make that decision? Where is the evidence to support your claim? Why can't skills and aptitude tests be learned?

In short... WUUUUUTTT??

[jk148706]

It's not supposed to be learned. It's a skills and aptitude test.

You don't learn skills?

[09042014]

It's not supposed to be learned. It's a skills and aptitude test.

You don't learn skills?

You learn stupid skills like how to DOMINATE double grouping games or whatever the fuck they are called. But you really aren't increasing your analytical reasoning by memorizing all the game types and practicing strategies.

Though I did probably learn to read better doing RC practice.

[09042014]

It's not supposed to be learned. It's a skills and aptitude test.

@NYSTATE

Not discouraging people from gunning it, since there are obvious benefits.

What does "it's not supposed to be learned" even mean?

Who made that decision? What criteria did they use to make that decision? Where is the evidence to support your claim? Why can't skills and aptitude tests be learned?

In short... WUUUUUTTT??

[/quote]

Not being learnable is the point of standardized skills and aptitude tests.

I'm not sure why this is shocking to you LSAT nerds.

[Daily_Double]

.

[09042014]

It's not supposed to be learned. It's a skills and aptitude test.

You don't learn skills?

You learn stupid skills like how to DOMINATE double grouping games or whatever the fuck they are called. But you really aren't increasing your analytical reasoning by memorizing all the game types and practicing strategies.

Though I did probably learn to read better doing RC practice.

It's posts like this that remind me not to visit this site again. This topic has been taken outside the scope of the original question. To the original poster, good luck with your test, and if you want my view on the stress of test say, check out my guide. If you have any more questions, feel free to PM me.

Good riddance to bad rubbish, nobody cares what you think.

[jk148706]

It's not supposed to be learned. It's a skills and aptitude test.

@NYSTATE

Not discouraging people from gunning it, since there are obvious benefits.

What does "it's not supposed to be learned" even mean?

Who made that decision? What criteria did they use to make that decision? Where is the evidence to support your claim? Why can't skills and aptitude tests be learned?

In short... WUUUUUTTT??

Not being learnable is the point of standardized skills and aptitude tests.

I'm not sure why this is shocking to you LSAT nerds.[/quote]

Can you define "learnable". Because if going from a sub160 diag to 170+ does not count as "learnable," there is no point in continuing the discussion.