Chances on increasing my score to 170 Forum

[Mks910]

So I have just taken my first diagnostic test with zero studying and scored a 154 I am planning on taking a prep course this summer and take the September lsat. My goal is to score a 170 on the test, am it over reaching here? Did anyone see a similar increase in that short of a period of time?

[WaltGrace83]

So I have just taken my first diagnostic test with zero studying and scored a 154 I am planning on taking a prep course this summer and take the September lsat. My goal is to score a 170 on the test, am it over reaching here? Did anyone see a similar increase in that short of a period of time?

It happens. People on TLS go from 15x to 17x all the time. Sometimes even low 150s to high 170s. However, what other people have done has very little relevance to your own situation. My first diagnostic: 147; my second diagnostic: 168. It only took 4 months for that. LR went from -11/-14 to about a -2/-4. LG went from -7 to -0. RC...well.....its a work in progress.

Just study. I know you want the confidence boost so here it is: IF and ONLY IF you truly work hard, a 170+ is very likely.

EDIT: but the key part is hard work. Browse the forums to figure out what that is (Hint: hard work truly sucks but is incredibly gratifying and rewarding).

[dd235]

Like WG said, no one can give you a good answer to this question. It really depends what your skills are and how much time and effort you put into it. There are people who will not be able to score a 170+ no matter how much time they spend, and there are others who can score a 170+ with minimal effort.

Luckily for you, you are in the right place! There are a lot of guides and posts on here that can help you on your journey.

[Pneumonia]

why would you think 154 is a bad first score? it means you did better on your first time then like 55% of people do ON THE REAL TEST, presumably after having practiced at least some (most of them anyway). 154 is a good place to start, you can make 170's without a doubt. It will still require lots and lots of time, but you can do it.

[Mks910]

why would you think 154 is a bad first score? it means you did better on your first time then like 55% of people do ON THE REAL TEST, presumably after having practiced at least some (most of them anyway). 154 is a good place to start, you can make 170's without a doubt. It will still require lots and lots of time, but you can do it.

Thank you, that definitely makes me feel a little better, thinking about how badly I wanted to see at least a score of 160 made me more disappointed than I probably needed to be.

I appreciate everyone's input, I am willing to put in the time and work necessary to get the score I need, since my GPA is 3.34 because of some poor mistakes I made right out of high school (I am currently 31). So to get into the schools that I want to I need to get that 170+ score.

[WaltGrace83]

What was your breakdown by the way (as in, how many wrong did you get on LG/LR/RC?). Having RC as your best section vs. LG as your best section can really say a lot about what kind of QUICK gains you can expect. Getting perfect/near-perfect on LG comes pretty quickly for most people.

[jkhalfa]

You can definitely do it if you study hard enough. 154 isn't a bad starting point; in fact, you might want to skip the class and use the money to buy self-study materials: the powerscore logic games bible, manhattan or powerscore logical reasoning, the lsat trainer, and as many preptests as you can afford. Classes generally just focus on the basics, which if you're disciplined you can teach yourself for hundreds of dollars less.

If you read the guides here from people who scored >175, almost all of them achieved that score with diligent self-study, and many of them started from diagnostic scores not much higher than your own.

[Mks910]

What was your breakdown by the way (as in, how many wrong did you get on LG/LR/RC?). Having RC as your best section vs. LG as your best section can really say a lot about what kind of QUICK gains you can expect. Getting perfect/near-perfect on LG comes pretty quickly for most people.

I only got one wrong in the LG portion, that definitely seemed to be pretty easy for me. The remainder incorrect were split pretty evenly between LR and RC. I don't have the exact breakdown in front of me currently.

[Mks910]

You can definitely do it if you study hard enough. 154 isn't a bad starting point; in fact, you might want to skip the class and use the money to buy self-study materials: the powerscore logic games bible, manhattan or powerscore logical reasoning, the lsat trainer, and as many preptests as you can afford. Classes generally just focus on the basics, which if you're disciplined you can teach yourself for hundreds of dollars less.

If you read the guides here from people who scored >175, almost all of them achieved that score with diligent self-study, and many of them started from diagnostic scores not much higher than your own.

I was thinking that as well, I just thought that the structure of a classroom setting might be helpful but it is a ton of money to put out that may be better spent elsewhere.

I did find some online programs that were about half as much as the in class settings, so that may be an option as well.

[jkhalfa]

I only got one wrong in the LG portion, that definitely seemed to be pretty easy for me.

Unfortunately that's the worst section to be naturally good at, since it's easiest to improve on. However, you may still make rapid gains on LR, especially if you're unfamiliar with that type of question... I think a diagnostic really says more about your background than your potential. For example, I'm a philosophy major, and my diagnostic was the opposite of yours: I only missed half a dozen questions between LR and RC, but then I bombed LG. If you come from a background that's more about math or spatial reasoning, it's expected that you'll be good at LG but initially worse at the language-based sections.

So anyway, a disappointing diagnostic is no reason to despair; it just shows you your initial weaknesses. You may have a bit more work cut out for you than the people who are initially bad at LG and good at the other sections, but your goal is still definitely within reach.

[WaltGrace83]

I took Manhattan's online class. It was GREAT. However, it was not for me. I like to really dig deep into question types and spend lots of time working on them. A week to work on one LR type, one RC type, and one LG type is simply not enough time for me. It takes me about two weeks just to drill and thoroughly review an LR type. HOWEVER, I would still do it again. Why? The benefits are amazing. All the PTs, ability to watch lectures again, access to the forums with unlimited posting privileges, and a generally great group of instructors. I love Manhattan.

[Mks910]

I only got one wrong in the LG portion, that definitely seemed to be pretty easy for me.

Unfortunately that's the worst section to be naturally good at, since it's easiest to improve on. However, you may still make rapid gains on LR, especially if you're unfamiliar with that type of question... I think a diagnostic really says more about your background than your potential. For example, I'm a philosophy major, and my diagnostic was the opposite of yours: I only missed half a dozen questions between LR and RC, but then I bombed LG. If you come from a background that's more about math or spatial reasoning, it's expected that you'll be good at LG but initially worse at the language-based sections.

So anyway, a disappointing diagnostic is no reason to despair; it just shows you your initial weaknesses. You may have a bit more work cut out for you than the people who are initially bad at LG and good at the other sections, but your goal is still definitely within reach.

My UG was actually in Communication (insert comment here about worst UG major chosen ever) so I was expecting the opposite as math is not usually my strong suit, but the LG's aren't really math based it seems. I took the test just to get an idea of where my starting point was and now I know where I need to put my focus into for the next few months.

[Jeffort]

If your 154 was from taking a full PT under fully timed/strict test day conditions without any extra time or little breaks or anything you can't do on test day, it puts you in a good position in terms of potential to reach 170+ with a LOT of hard work/high quality prep work.

Keep in mind that possible/likely potential doesn't in any way mean it's guaranteed if you study hard or that it will come easy. No matter where anybody starts with first cold diag score, it takes a LOT of hard word and serious determination to actually make it to 170+ range.

To get past the common TLS 'you can do it!' hype/optimism, you should read several of the recent threads about what it really takes to actually improve to 170+ level and achieve it for real on test day to more fully understand and appreciate the harsh realities of what is involved in actually getting there. It's important to recognize that improving from 150s starting point to 170+ final score is not common and that most people starting in the 150s don't end up breaking 170 even though there are plenty of real life examples here on TLS of people that have done it. They are the statistical outliers so don't make the mistake of forming the impression that it happens all the time/for a large proportion of people that start with a 150s starting score if they just 'study hard' for a few months. The examples are good proof that it is possible with a lot of serious determination and quality prep, not just a large quantity of prep.

Here are a few good threads to start with that go into more detail about the harsh realities of what is required to have a good chance at improving to 170+ range and take it seriously so that you don't underestimate how much serious dedication and hard work in the face of lots of frustration and slow progress along the way you will experience. It can be a very emotional journey with a lot of frustration, obstacles, discouragement, etc. along the way that cause lots of people to give up too soon, but the people that make it to 170+ scores from much lower starting point all have one thing in common, they want 170+ score bad enough to persevere through lots of bad things and make lots of sacrifices in their personal lives to put in what it takes to make it to hitting 170+ on test day.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=224337

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&start=22
To read that whole thread from the beginning:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=224863

It's a very learneable test, but that doesn't mean the learning and improvement necessary to get 170+ comes easily or quickly. Making big score improvements to the 97-99th% range requires an enormous amount of work and dedication as well as timeline flexibility since it can take many many months to do it for many people. Everyone has a different learning curve, so make sure your goal is a certain score, not meeting a certain timeline when you want to achieve the score. Many of the people on this forum that have achieved 170s scores from starting in 140s or 150s ended up taking anywhere from six months to two years to make the improvement, so be flexible with your timeline if you are 100% determined to hit 170+, it will probably take a much longer period of time and a lot more hard core studying than you are currently expecting/planning on.

Anyway, from my many years teaching and tutoring experiences with thousands of students, I'm a firm believer that most people that can hit 150s range on a virgin run cold diagnostic practice test under strict test day timed conditions has the ability to hit 170 or at least get really close if they are determined enough and willing to put in as much prep time and effort as it takes to get there, even if it takes many months longer than hoped for at the start.

You've already got a good baseline set of strengths with the types of logical thinking the LSAT tests, no reason you shouldn't pull out a high score if you're willing to put in the time and effort! I started with a 151 cold virgin run timed diagnostic and ended with test day 177! but there was a lot of sweat blood and tears and determination to push past obstacles and frustrations along the way! I got there because I wanted it soo badly that I didn't give up when things started getting really hard to make further score range improvements once I got into mid 160s.

[Mks910]

I took Manhattan's online class. It was GREAT. However, it was not for me. I like to really dig deep into question types and spend lots of time working on them. A week to work on one LR type, one RC type, and one LG type is simply not enough time for me. It takes me about two weeks just to drill and thoroughly review an LR type. HOWEVER, I would still do it again. Why? The benefits are amazing. All the PTs, ability to watch lectures again, access to the forums with unlimited posting privileges, and a generally great group of instructors. I love Manhattan.

I will definitely check them out, I work FT as a general manager so although my schedule is flexible, most live classes I am seeing meet most Saturdays which doesn't really work for me so an online option is probably the best for me schedule wise at this point.

[Splitter1415]

You can definitely do it. I scored very bad on my first PT, but I ended up getting a 176 after studying for a while. Good luck!

[AbhiJ]

Jeffort,

You are a LSAT Guru. Period. What I find intriguing is that some recent test takes/LSAT Tutors without a big name brand behind them often offer insights/strategies that are
- much more original than offered by Big Test Prep Firms, which seem to have lost their spark.
- more applicable/easier to understand to test takers. Your 2nd Step to LSAT Mastery: slow motion review is something that all Prep Firms recommend as review. However they seem to describe in a way that is not obvious to test takers: For example review is described as "Try to identify what is going on", and so on. This happens because lot of test prep instructors are naturally good test takers and what appears obvious to them is a puzzle to an average test taker, rendering their advice pretty ineffective.

What I understood from your slow motion review is slow down your thinking process to the point you can identify individual steps in your thinking process and figure where you went wrong ? Then remember to correct that process. If there is something else to it, please feel free to add. BTW, You can write a book on how to prep for LSAT and put it on sale at Amazon, just by compiling all your posts on TLS .