Necessity of Diagnostic Exam Forum

[cbrett]

Hi All,

I am currently an undergrad who is considering self-studying for the LSAT. I apologize in advance if this question has been asked repeatedly, but I was curious about the necessity of taking an initial diagnostic exam. While I am confident in my abilities to perform well on the LSAT, I feel that receiving a low diagnostic score could inhibit me from focusing 100% on studying/prepping thereafter (especially given the fact people say there is only around a 10-12 point bump in the score usually).

Is there anyone out there who did not take a diagnostic exam and still performed well on the LSAT? Are you glad you did not take it?

Thank you in advance!

[PwantsaJD]

Wouldn't say taking a diagnostic (cold) is necessary by any means. But as you study for the LSAT you're going to be taking preptests anyways... I'm sure there's plenty of people who don't take a cold diagnostic but take preptests throughout their LSAT prep. There's also many people who walk into the LSAT on exam day without having studied for it at all, although I suspect most of them don't get great scores.

An initial diagnostic would be a good way to see where you stand relative to the score you want to achieve. It will also allow you to get more familiar with the test and what areas you want to improve on specifically etc. I think most importantly a cold diagnostic simply allows you to see your starting point, which is by no means an indicator of the final score where you'll end up come test day (especially if you're unfamiliar with logic games and the timing). Some people only increase their score 5 points, others are known to have raised their score by 25+ points.

How do you intend to achieve the score you wish without studying for the LSAT anyways unless you're one of those gifted guys who can get a 160+ without studying, point is even if you don't take a cold diagnostic, you'll most likely end up taking a preptest sometime during your LSAT studies, which in essence are also diagnostics.

The only way you wouldn't increase your LSAT score imo is if you either start at off with a diagnostic of like 170+ or if you don't study at all/properly. And if you don't study for the LSAT then how can you be confident of your abilities to perform well on the LSAT? Contrary to what you say, getting a low score should motivate you more to study harder to raise your LSAT rather than "inhibit you from focusing 100%".

[cbrett]

That's a really aggressive post. I already wrote "initial diagnostic exam" (AKA TAKING IT COLD) in the opening comment, so I don't know how that implied I was not going to study for the LSAT at all. I'm not that much of an idiot haha

[PwantsaJD]

That's a really aggressive post. I already wrote "initial diagnostic exam" (AKA TAKING IT COLD) in the opening comment, so I don't know how that implied I was not going to study for the LSAT at all. I'm not that much of an idiot haha

lol sorry was just answering your question? I never suggested anything in what I said about you not studying. The last statement was actually just a common argument structure in the LSAT. If this premise, and that premise, then this conclusion But it wasn't pertaining to you specifically.

Hope I answered your question, and no, initial cold diagnostics are definitely not a necessity, but can be a tool.

Good luck

[ihenry]

Yes, cold diagnostic is pretty helpful in assessing your starting point and giving you an idea of the areas you need to improve on. However, there's probably no need for a strict procedure. If, for example, logic games seem daunting to you, you could also try going through some worked examples prior to taking a full test. That probably won't hurt you either.

[RaceJudicata]

That's a really aggressive post. I already wrote "initial diagnostic exam" (AKA TAKING IT COLD) in the opening comment, so I don't know how that implied I was not going to study for the LSAT at all. I'm not that much of an idiot haha

Not sure what was aggressive about it? In fact, I think s/he summed up the advice this thread will give pretty well. Cold diagnostics are helpful, but you will be taking plenty of full practice tests, which are - in essence - diagnostic tests.

IMO, a cold diagnostic test is extremely helpful. Gives you an idea of where you need to focus your time as well as an idea of how much studying you are going to have to do. A cold 154 tester will prepare differently than a cold 164 tester.

[PrayFor170]

I think it's necessary. At least for me, if my initial diagnostic isn't high I would be prepared to work hard in the following months.

That being said, I don't think you have a correct definition of "low diagnostic score". I think something like 150ish is really a decent score for starters. If you've done some research you'll find there are tons of people on the forum who start from 140ish and 150ish and end up with 175 or something.

[Monkey D Luffy]

you definitely should... it will help out your performance.

[Broncos15]

A cold one is best for your confidence later ( the lower you score the better in a weird way)....I started at a 145 and built myself into the 170's. It's great seeing how your progressed looking back

[newcareernewtown]

.

[Dcc617]

I took a diagnostic exam not for the overall score, but to see my breakdown so I could target my studying. Like, on my first test I scored perfect on RC but absolutely tanked LG. So for the rest of my time studying I devoted much more time towards LG than RC. I wouldn't have necessarily known to do that without a diagnostic.

[lymenheimer]

I first went through an exam (untimed) to get a feel for the material and style of the test. Seemed to be a better use of my time than rushing through the first one with no clue what was going on when I had plans to study anyways.