Top Law Schools

I'm wondering specifically for myself and in general - why do people think test takers score lower on their actual LSATs than on their PTs? Barring anything very out of the ordinary (i.e. proctor screws up timing, someone throws up mid-test, etc.) what would cause this? I understand test anxiety, but I don't get test anxiety really at all. Standardized tests are the type of test I having always done the best on, and my very first PT before ever studying I got a 161. I took a full TM prep course, studied a ton, was PTing consistently in the low 170s, and then got a 167. In my retake studying I've been scoring consistently around a 173 now, (was around a 171 before). I take my tests under strict time conditions, sometimes in quiet places and sometimes in my school library with distractions, and I don't get test anxiety.

I fully believe in the theory that people tend to score lower than their PT average, but I guess I just don't fully understand what causes that because of my specific circumstances. Did I just overthink and screw up that day, even if I don't realize it?

Looking for thoughts just out of curiosity, both specifically for my situation and more generally.

So, if I understand your post correctly, your PT average was 171 before you took your first test, and you scored a 167. You basically scored within the expected range. If your PT average was 171, I'm sure you occasionally scored in the 160s. No exotic explanation is needed.

joeytribbiani wrote: I take my tests under strict time conditions, sometimes in quiet places and sometimes in my school library with distractions, and I don't get test anxiety.

Merely timing and volume do not make for test conditions. The simple act of taking an exam, which you can take limited times, and has the potential for massive impact on your future, will never be the same as taking a practice which has no consequences.

If you want to simulate this perfectly, you'd need to do a great many tests under perfect test conditions (including proctor, photo checks, etc), one of which was selected at random to be your actual 'test'. Without that, you'll always have, and know, the difference between practice and reality.

Nerves. I've never had test anxiety and the first time I took the LSAT I was 99% sure I'd be taking it again at some point (I was a junior in UG) so I went into it not caring at all. Scored 4 points higher than my highest PT, which I took only ~2 weeks prior to the real thing.

I'm taking it again this Saturday and I definitely have butterflies this time. I already took a year off and really really really don't wanna work where I'm working for ANOTHER whole year so I'm committed to applying this cycle. Sure, there's December, but I'm a splitter and I want to apply as early as possible. So this test has HUGE weight for me; if the consequences are big, nerves are gonna be high and that's when people underperform.

All of the above and I'll add: Confirmation Bias.

You are likely to focus on your better practice test scores when coming up with your practice test average and dropping some of the worse scores... results in an inflated average.

Not everyone is born a clutch player, adrenaline is no good news to them.

Voyager wrote:All of the above and I'll add: Confirmation Bias.

You are likely to focus on your better practice test scores when coming up with your practice test average and dropping some of the worse scores... results in an inflated average.

This is certainly true. It's been said that the average of the last 5 practice tests you've taken should be your barometer of success, with a +3 and -3 range of that score. But I don't know how much weight to put into that.

I think nerves is a huge issue for a lot of people, and not everyone expects to be as nervous as they eventually get. For example, I'm actually a pretty calm guy (despite my posting history here lol, which is indicative of my point) and have a history of performing exceptionally well under pressure such as acting in plays or making plays on the athletic field. But two weeks prior to the test I really started freaking out, and the day of I nearly froze. Some people don't feel it till D-Day, others don't feel it till they get to the first section, etc. And some people don't ever get it, but I've met few of those

At the end of the day, it is another practice test. If one has studied enough, there will be nothing unexpected except for maybe the occasional crazy stimulus or a wacky game that they initially they are frightened of but actually do have the tools to answer the question.

How many PTs did you do? How many of them were in the 160s?

joeytribbiani wrote:I'm wondering specifically for myself and in general - why do people think test takers score lower on their actual LSATs than on their PTs? Barring anything very out of the ordinary (i.e. proctor screws up timing, someone throws up mid-test, etc.) what would cause this? I understand test anxiety, but I don't get test anxiety really at all. Standardized tests are the type of test I having always done the best on, and my very first PT before ever studying I got a 161. I took a full TM prep course, studied a ton, was PTing consistently in the low 170s, and then got a 167. In my retake studying I've been scoring consistently around a 173 now, (was around a 171 before). I take my tests under strict time conditions, sometimes in quiet places and sometimes in my school library with distractions, and I don't get test anxiety.

I fully believe in the theory that people tend to score lower than their PT average, but I guess I just don't fully understand what causes that because of my specific circumstances. Did I just overthink and screw up that day, even if I don't realize it?

Looking for thoughts just out of curiosity, both specifically for my situation and more generally.

Nerves are definitely the biggest one. It's especially compounded for people who have invested a lot of time and energy into studying for the test. Though they might be more prepared, the stakes often feel higher. It's impossible to know exactly how you'll feel on test day until you get there. In my case, I knew I'd be nervous - the idea of taking the actual LSAT was at once both this reality that I was preparing for and something that seemed totally surreal. It's easy to overthink your choices because of test day anxiety. I think many students fall into the trap of being too hard on themselves for not being able to answer a question, and resign themselves to the fact that this wasn't their best take even before they've finished the test.

Thanks guys! I wasn't trying to deny the validity of my score, just curious about the phenomenon in general. My first PT was a 161, then a 165, then 169, and then everything from then on was 170-173 (which was about 15 more tests) so I was just curious. I've read the "average +/- 3pts" theory so from that perspective, it makes sense that I scored a 167. Either way, I trust the LSAT to measure pretty accurately so like I said, not denying it's validity, just curious because of how much this test has run my life lol

joeytribbiani wrote:Thanks guys! I wasn't trying to deny the validity of my score, just curious about the phenomenon in general. My first PT was a 161, then a 165, then 169, and then everything from then on was 170-173 (which was about 15 more tests) so I was just curious.

Scoring within such a narrow range over 15 tests is very unusual (and statistically highly improbable). I think it's fair to say that the conventional wisdom doesn't apply to you.

Is anyone gonna mention the effects of the extra experimental section? 8 RC passages can take a lot out of ya

tzzzok wrote:Is anyone gonna mention the effects of the extra experimental section? 8 RC passages can take a lot out of ya

It never ceases to amaze me that people practice without using an experimental.

If you haven't taken a practice LSAT with 5 sections that is timed and with the mandatory break, then you don't have a working score (not you tzzzok, hypothetical you)