Timed cold diagonistics as a predictor? Forum

[j775]

As context: I'm an Australian uni student, and I'm not sure whether to actually bother applying or if it'd be a waste of time. I know that my LSAT score will be weighted more heavily than my GPA would be, and if I applied, I'd be aiming for Columbia or NYU basically, so I'd ideally want like 171+ for my final score, especially because I think my GPA would translate to 'Above Average', not 'Superior'.

So, my actual question - I just did the 2007 test as a timed cold diagonistic and got 169, and I know that's at the 25th percentile for Columbia so it's probably not enough. How likely would it be that I'd realistically be able to drag my score up to say, 173? And what would the best way of doing that be if it were possible?

Mostly I just want a gauge of whether it'd be worth my time (and the money) to actually go through with it or not.

(Breakdown of my score: 22/23 for Logic Games, 22/25 for one Logical Reasoning section, 22/25 for the other Logical Reasoning section and 25/27 for Reading Comprehension. Though, I also finished early for both LR and RC and didn't bother double-checking any of my answers - would this make enough of a difference in my final scores had I not gotten impatient haha?)

[A. Nony Mouse]

So, lots of people will tell you this, but a cold timed diagnostic of 169 is incredibly good. The LSAT is extremely learnable and people here regularly have a diagnostic in the 150s and get up into the 170s, so if you study the test, you should do extremely well.

[thevuch]

youre kickin ass bro. just read one of the guides on here and get the drilling packets and all the PTs ever and take the PTs then THOROUGHLY and slowly review why you miss problems, and review ones youre unsure about even if you got them correct. and



diagonistics lolololol

[Mack.Hambleton]

.