Is 3 months of concentrated prep enough for a 170? Forum

[darkjak7]

It seems quite a few people here who started studying recently are aiming for the October test and not the June test. However, I just find that a bit surprising. I've read on TLS and elsewhere that 3 months of intense, disciplined, concentrated, focused prep is around the optimal study time. Moreover, doing so reduces diminishing returns.

I started studying two weeks ago and I enrolled in Blueprint's online course, in addition to purchasing the LSAT Trainer and Manhattan LG and LR for extra practice. I also bought the Cambridge packets for extra drilling. Blueprint's LSAT blog also recommends people not to stretch out LSAT studying for two long, and 3 months seems optimal.

I started studying two weeks ago, and so far, I find BP's online videos to be very intuitive and helpful. I got a 158 on my diagnostic after completing a few online lessons. My plan is to get through the course materials in two months, and then use the last month to take prep tests (and use 7sage's blind review, etc).

Do you think it's manageable to get a 170+ within a three month timeframe, considering that's what the conventional wisdom is? I'm doing some volunteering for around 10 hours a week, but beyond that, i won't be doing anything else. I'll be studying for the LSAT full time.

Also if everything goes wrong, I am willing to retake it in October. However, I just think not taking the June test would be a waste for me.

What do you all think? Is 3 months fine? Or should I forget June and think about October? Thank you very much.

[Winston1984]

Really depends. If you want 170+ you should be prepping at 173+ leading up to the test. Personally it took me much longer, but your diagnostic was significantly better than mine. 158 is pretty strong for a diagnostic. I would just see how you are testing towards the end of May. If you aren't where you need to be just take the October exam.

[Ahem_aroma]

Yep- I went up about eight points in three months while working a full time job. As long as you figure out what works for you and focus on that (for me it was all about constantly taking practice tests and always being timed), it's totally doable. Might not but fun but I ended up with a 170 and it was totally worth it.

[Mack.Hambleton]

just see where you're PTing when the June test rolls around. If you're not where you want then just wait until Oct.

[a.sleepyhead]

just see where you're PTing when the June test rolls around. If you're not where you want then just wait until Oct.

+1

It all depends on how effective the prep has been, and the only way to know that is PTs closer to the actual test date. For what it's worth, though, I know people who pulled 170+ with <3 months prep.

[john1990]

It all depends on your own ability. 3 months is likely enough to peek your score from gaining knowledge on the test, but not everyone has that ability. Reading speed is one example of a limiting factor that prevents people from reaching a 170 and that takes forever to increase.

[yadiermolina]

159 is a strong diagnostic. If you can commit to a few hours a day, I'm confident you can be in the 170s by June. I started at a 159 and got to 170 in about two months (and was PTing at 173-175), though I had few other commitments.

[BanjoCalhoun]

just see where you're PTing when the June test rolls around. If you're not where you want then just wait until Oct.

Agreed with this. I would only caution that as you get closer to your intended test date, you'll want to be working on the most recent tests, yet you don't want to use all these up if you could end up pulling out and opting for October. Those courses probably direct you to use the late 2000's up by the test date so you may want to design your own prep schedule to keep some recent ones in reserve if you become unsure about the June date. Those are the most representative and you don't want to be doing tests from the 90's and/or tests you've already done in the couple weeks before the test.

My personal experience may be a bit similar to your's since I started with a 159 diagnostic in Dec., ultimately PT'd 169-175 (swingy, I know) with self guided study and satisfied my goal in June. Broke 170 within 3 months but it took another month to get comfortably consistent. On the other hand I was balancing prep with an intense semester so you can probably get the requisite hours and PT consistency in 3 months if you're prepping full time.

Long story short your goal is very doable.

[Jeffort]

Yes for some people, no for most people. You have to keep in mind that only ~3% of test takers ever achieve a 170+ score no matter how much prep time they invest.

Rate of improvement and maximum potential score is a very subjective issue with a ton of variables, so it's impossible to make accurate/reliable generalizations or predictions. You just have to dive into prep, study/prep effectively and see how it goes for you as time goes by. If you aren't hitting 170+ scores on PTs in the last few weeks before test day, then postpone and keep prepping for a later administration unless you decide to lower your goal.

Trying to predict improvement timelines and potential score is a fools errand. A plan that was sufficient for one person doesn't mean the same thing will be sufficient for somebody else. Three months prep time is roughly the average amount most people that decide to prep hard actually end up putting in. Some people say three months is enough to hit your true maximum potential score, but since LSAT improvement is super subjective, that general claim only holds true for some people, not all. Basically, YMMV. You just have to give it your all, only time will tell how long it will actually end up taking you to achieve your goal, there is no way to accurately predict it.

All that general stuff aside, your chances of being able to hit 170+ in three months is much better than for most people due to your starting cold diagnostic score, assuming it was a fresh test taken under strict timed test day conditions. However, it is still not a guarantee three months will be enough since getting good enough to consistently score 170+ under test day conditions is really frigging hard no matter what score anybody starts with. 159 is a pretty high cold diagnostic score that bodes very well for potential improvement since it indicates you already have a high level of proficiency with the skills specifically being tested by the LSAT.

You just gotta get into it, give it a shot and see if you are capable of improving that fast. Part of what determines whether it will be enough is the quality and quantity of prep you actually do during the three months. Different people put in different amounts of prep time and use their prep time differently than others, frequently in less effective ways. There are a ton of variables involved so make sure you refine your prep approach as you progress to insure you end up using good prep methods/approaches known to produce solid improvement into 170+ range. LSAT prep is a constant learning process that involves making adjustments as you go based on known weaknesses each step of the way.

-----------------------
TL;DR version:
Maybe yes, maybe no, YMMV, Just be flexible.
If you're not hitting 170+ by two weeks before June test, postpone until September and keep working on whatever weak areas are holding back your score at that point.

[xylocarp]

I know a lot of people (retakers mostly) are taking September instead of June because they have prior commitments during the weeks or months of the test or leading up to it. For several people I've spoken to, it's just personal circumstances rather than a belief that they will be unable to prep enough in three months.

I got a 158 on my diagnostic after completing a few online lessons.

How many lessons/what they were on, and what was your score breakdown? A 158 cold diagnostic can be very different from a 158, say, after some LG prep. Regardless, I definitely agree with everyone else that you should accurately and honestly gauge your abilities leading up to June and make a call from there.

[TLSanders]

Assuming that you are practicing regularly (at least 2-4 days per week on a regular basis), three months is plenty of time to make the score improvement that you're aiming for. And, as it appears you've heard from other sources, stretching that out too long can have a negative impact.

The one thing I would caution you about in the study plan you described is that you've cobbled together materials from a large number of prep sources, which can also muddle things. Each will use slightly different language, approaches, etc. and mixing them or alternating among them can slow you down and decrease clarity.

By the time you get to test day, your approach to each question type should be internalized and automatic, and conflicting language and advice can be counterproductive in that regard.

[mulhollanddrive]

I had a similar diagnostic, target score, and 3-4 months timeframe as the OP for the June 2013 test. This is an ideal amount of study time, but I made one mistake which caused me to postpone to October, which was blindly pushing through PTs in chronological order. I should have been mixing them up or concentrating more on the recent tests - which have a sort of different style and (imo) are getting a bit harder.

I felt that for the newer tests (from around PT 60 on), LR became somewhat harder, RC became straight up harder, and LG became more tedious and time consuming compared to the 40s-50s. I didn't really touch the PTs in the 60s until just a few weeks before the real thing, and they threw me off just enough so that by the time the June date arrived, my scores on the newest PTs dropped to 170 and sometimes even below. Like others have stated, I felt that a PT average of about 173+ was necessary to guarantee a 170+ score on the real thing, and so I withdrew before test day.

All I really needed was an extra few weeks to adjust to the newer tests, but I had to wait allllllll the way until the October 2013 test. I got my 170+ score, but my original 3-4 months should have sufficed. So yeah, make sure to focus on or sufficiently mix in the newest PTs during your studies.

[checkers]

...