Top Law Schools

Hey guys,

I just took my diagnostic and got a 150. Is there any possibility I could get to a 172+? I am taking the Manhattan LSAT course beginning tonight. Beginning in January, I will start taking classes again(I have been on co-op for the past three semesters). My plan is to take the Manhattan course, definitely self-study with their books as they come with the class, and I now have access to at least 25 PrepTests. Once I being classes I intend to improve mostly through self-study and PTing at least once a week. Thoughts?

yes. I had a 147 diagnostic. My last PT before the October '13 exam was 172. You have plenty of time. Space it out, hit it hard and don't burn yourself out.

Echoing the above, you have plenty of time to get to 172+, don't fret over your diagnostic.

.

tofuspeedstar wrote:yes. I had a 147 diagnostic. My last PT before the October '13 exam was 172. You have plenty of time. Space it out, hit it hard and don't burn yourself out.

How long did you study?

VMeyer4 wrote:Hey guys,

I just took my diagnostic and got a 150. Is there any possibility I could get to a 172+? Thoughts?

I've had plenty of students jump from ~150 into the 170s. Definitely possible!

Never read too much into a diagnostic score. The 150 tells you exactly what it ought to tell you: that you haven't studied yet. You shouldn't expect to be scoring at your goal level on day one. Your final score will be a product of the amount and efficiency of the work you do in preparation for test day.
A 172+ LSAT is an impressive accomplishment. It is impressive because not many people actually achieve it. It is an accomplishment because it is (for most of us mere mortals, at least) not a testament to raw natural talent, but to sustained effort over the long term. If you really want it, and you are willing to do the work, you will get there.

Hemenway wrote:

tofuspeedstar wrote:yes. I had a 147 diagnostic. My last PT before the October '13 exam was 172. You have plenty of time. Space it out, hit it hard and don't burn yourself out.

How long did you study?

It took about 8 months of solid studying to get to the 170s. But everyone is different when it comes to speed of picking up material.

To echo those above, yes. My diagnostic was 158 (after having read the SuperPrep book), and my average for the 10 PTs preceding the October LSAT was 178 (awaiting results for the real test, of course).

Straw_Mandible wrote:Never read too much into a diagnostic score. The 150 tells you exactly what it ought to tell you: that you haven't studied yet. You shouldn't expect to be scoring at your goal level on day one.

Your final score will be a product of the amount and efficiency of the work you do in preparation for test day.

A 172+ LSAT is an impressive accomplishment. It is impressive because not many people actually achieve it. It is an accomplishment because it is (for most of us mere mortals, at least) not a testament to raw natural talent, but to sustained effort over the long term. If you really want it, and you are willing to do the work, you will get there.

Given the context of this thread, I think the point behind this post needs more emphasis so people don't get the wrong idea from making the ever soo common flaw of interpreting possible as if it means probable.

While starting at or above 150 bodes well for improvement potential into the top score range being a possibility, it in no way indicates it is likely to occur. It only really shows that you are not starting off with seriously problematic/defective basic reading and reasoning (anti-)skills that are soo bad that you cannot even get many of the really easy to medium difficultly level questions correct, which in total account for almost half the questions per test. You only need to get lucky on a small portion if any of the higher than medium difficulty level questions to get 150+ since there are soo many lower difficulty level questions per section/test compared to the volume of higher level ones that keep most people below 160ish.

Scores significantly below 150 can indicate big weaknesses with many of the really basic low level skills of the LSAT that are the foundations the harder stuff is built on top of that are needed to be able to learn advanced stuff to improve. Significantly below 150 scores (from people that really tried to do well!) are often caused by things such as trouble with simple stuff like basic reading comprehension of college level English text, poor ability to identify conclusions and differentiate them from evidence, poor ability to understand the basic task being asked by various question types, etc.

Scoring 150+ really just shows that you don't totally suck with the really basic low level stuff, and therefore have the potential to learn more and build upon those foundational basic reasoning skills. Whereas it is pretty hard to learn how to perform at the 170s level when you start off having lots of trouble understanding the basics of the foundation such as the difference between say a premise, a sub-conclusion, and a main conclusion even when it's explained to you and illustrated. If you can learn and understand the basics without too much trouble, your potential for improvement is much better than if you really struggle with learning/understanding that stuff.

People that started in the 150s and hit 170s pretty much all worked their arses off to do it. So don't get the impression based on the responses here that it is a regular thing for 150ish starters to achieve 170s scores on test day. There are many many more people that start in the 150s that don't get to the 170s (many not even to the 160s) than there are that do.

While it is possible, it is really hard to do and REQUIRES (notice not sufficient!) lots and lots of serious dedication, effort and tenacity to fight your way up that hill. It is do-able for some only if they work smart and work hard for it, and it doesn't come easy!!! I'm one of many like others here in this thread and on the forum that started in the 150s (151 cold diag 1) and ended up near perfect with a test day 177 so I know that it doesn't come easy but also that if seriously determined it is within reach to many. It's all about the effort and determination to hit maximum potential!

Anyway, not trying to rain on anybodies 'you can do it!' parade, just want to make sure people realize that while going from 150s to 170s does happen, it pretty much only happens to people that go super hard core prepping for the test like it is life and death and want it more than anything else since we didn't start off as LSAT 'naturals' with a bunch of the skills already under our belt when we began.

A 150+ starting score really just means that you don't have major comprehension problems with the main big basic concepts of basic logic and reasoning the LSAT and all the advanced stuff is built upon that are necessary to know in order to be able to understand the more advanced stuff that goes on in the harder questions.

Think of it this way in terms of the sufficient/necessary relationship:

170scorePossible ----> no comprehension issues with basic concepts of critical reading, logic and reasoning

Jeffort wrote:

Straw_Mandible wrote:Never read too much into a diagnostic score. The 150 tells you exactly what it ought to tell you: that you haven't studied yet. You shouldn't expect to be scoring at your goal level on day one. Your final score will be a product of the amount and efficiency of the work you do in preparation for test day.
A 172+ LSAT is an impressive accomplishment. It is impressive because not many people actually achieve it. It is an accomplishment because it is (for most of us mere mortals, at least) not a testament to raw natural talent, but to sustained effort over the long term. If you really want it, and you are willing to do the work, you will get there.

Given the context of this thread, I think the point behind this post needs more emphasis so people don't get the wrong idea from making the ever soo common flaw of interpreting possible as if it means probable.

While starting at or above 150 bodes well for improvement potential into the top score range being a possibility, it in no way indicates it is likely to occur. It only really shows that you are not starting off with seriously problematic/defective basic reading and reasoning (anti-)skills that are soo bad that you cannot even get many of the really easy to medium difficultly level questions correct, which in total account for almost half the questions per test. You only need to get lucky on a small portion if any of the higher than medium difficulty level questions to get 150+ since there are soo many lower difficulty level questions per section/test compared to the volume of higher level ones that keep most people below 160ish.

Scores significantly below 150 generally indicate big weaknesses with many of the really basic low level skills of the LSAT that are the foundations the harder stuff is built on top of. Things such as trouble with simple stuff like basic reading comprehension of college level English text, ability to identify conclusions and differentiate them from evidence, ability to understand the basic task being asked by various question types, etc. Scoring 150+ really just shows that you don't totally suck with the really basic low level stuff, and therefore have the potential to learn more and build upon those foundational basic reasoning skills. Whereas it is pretty hard to learn how to perform at the 170s level when you start off having lots of trouble understanding the basics of the foundation such as the difference between say a premise, a sub-conclusion, and a main conclusion even when it's explained to you and illustrated.

People that started in the 150s and hit 170s pretty much all worked their arses off to do it. So don't get the impression based on the responses here that it is a regular thing for 150ish starters to achieve 170s scores on test day. There are many many more people that start in the 150s that don't get to the 170s (many not even to the 160s) than there are that do.

While it is possible, it is really hard to do and REQUIRES (notice not sufficient!) lots and lots of serious dedication, effort and tenacity to fight your way up that hill. It is do-able for some only if they work smart and work hard for it, and it doesn't come easy!!! I'm one of many like others here in this thread and on the forum that started in the 150s (151 cold diag 1) and ended up near perfect with a test day 177 so I know that it doesn't come easy but also that if seriously determined it is within reach to many. It's all about the effort and determination to hit maximum potential!

Anyway, not trying to rain on anybodies 'you can do it!' parade, just want to make sure people realize that while going from 150s to 170s does happen, it pretty much only happens to people that go super hard core prepping for the test like it is life and death and want it more than anything else since we didn't start off as LSAT 'naturals' with a bunch of the skills already under our belt when we began.

A 150+ starting score really just means that you don't have major comprehension problems with the main big basic concepts of basic logic and reasoning the LSAT and all the advanced stuff is built upon that are necessary to know in order to be able to understand the more advanced stuff that goes on in the harder questions.

Think of it this way in terms of the sufficient/necessary relationship:

170scorePossible ----> no comprehension issues with basic concepts of critical reading, logic and reasoning

+1. I just took a PT (my 10th one) and scored 168, and started out at 147. BUT i've literally put in hours upon hours of work and have sacrificed a lot of things I love to get where I am today, and I anticipate a lot more in the coming 6 to 8 weeks for myself in order to hit my target. So it's definitely do-able to get into the 170s, but as was mentioned, it's not like it gets handed down to you for nothing.

+1 to Jeffort. I should have mentioned, my 158 to 178 jump came after something like 500 hours of studying. Considering that you're also hoping to make a 20-point leap, you may also have to put in something like 500 hours of studying. With 8 months to study, that's about 16 hours/week.

Don't let a 150 diag discourage you in any way. It is my firm belief that a huge portion of the LSAT is "learnable," and "crackable," LG definitely, LR definitely, and even RC can be systematized and "learned" somewhat. As everyone else has said - you just need to commit the hours AND find the best test prep strategy for you by trying and utilizing a variety of sources (LSAT self-study books, maybe some online classes, etc).

It's a long way to the top if you want to rock n' roll.

iamgeorgebush wrote:+1 to Jeffort. I should have mentioned, my 158 to 178 jump came after something like 500 hours of studying. Considering that you're also hoping to make a 20-point leap, you may also have to put in something like 500 hours of studying. With 8 months to study, that's about 16 hours/week.

Yep, students who make a 20+ point jump study for a much longer time than students who make a 10 point jump - not a linear amount, but a multiplicative amount.

bp shinners wrote:

iamgeorgebush wrote:+1 to Jeffort. I should have mentioned, my 158 to 178 jump came after something like 500 hours of studying. Considering that you're also hoping to make a 20-point leap, you may also have to put in something like 500 hours of studying. With 8 months to study, that's about 16 hours/week.

Yep, students who make a 20+ point jump study for a much longer time than students who make a 10 point jump - not a linear amount, but a multiplicative amount.

This was more or less congruent with my experience; it was definitely multiplicative, meaning that there were diminishing returns on study time. I made my first 10 point gain after about a month of studying (probably about 100 hours). The next 4 months/200ish hours led to a ~5 point gain. The last 3 months/250ish hours resulted in a ~4 point gain. Within the very last month, there was no point gain on PTs, although I do believe that last month helped solidify my strategy and give me confidence for the real test.

I do feel that there were "aha" breakthrough moments, though...the curve neither linear nor quite logarithmic; I'd say it was generally logarithmic with occasional bursts of sudden growth followed by relatively stagnant periods.

I started studying August 1st after a diagnostic of around 150. I say around because I took the RC part separately. Anyway, my last PT was a 162 so there is definitely improvement going on. Something worth mentioning that I've encountered is that it's not necessarily the hours you put into it that increase the score, but the amount of efficient hours you put into it. There have been days where what I did in 3 hours could've easily been accomplished in 1-2 hours if I woulda worked more thoroughly.

Also, you need to look into sources of motivation. This is CRUCIAL because there WILL be days where you don't want to do shit. A day off here and there is okay, but if the days start turing into a week or more then you will be fucking yourself. Personally, I think about being at a T6 school with no debt and how that would make all this lsat prep worth it. Bottom line: get a good study plan (there are many on here), stick to it, stay motivated, and don't give up when you have bad days of prep.

iamgeorgebush wrote: I do feel that there were "aha" breakthrough moments, though...the curve neither linear nor quite logarithmic; I'd say it was generally logarithmic with occasional bursts of sudden growth followed by relatively stagnant periods.

LSAT studying is apparently like evolution - punctuated equilibrium!

bp shinners wrote:

iamgeorgebush wrote: I do feel that there were "aha" breakthrough moments, though...the curve neither linear nor quite logarithmic; I'd say it was generally logarithmic with occasional bursts of sudden growth followed by relatively stagnant periods.

LSAT studying is apparently like evolution - punctuated equilibrium!

-0 on RC for shinners.