Has Anyone Ever Done Better Than They Expected? Forum

[CE2JD]

The vast majority of prospective law students think they are smarter than they really are. This is because our entire worthless generation has been told "you are special, you are brilliant" when in reality most prospective law students, by definition, are just normal people who should NOT expect to be in the top 2%. When you have 20-30% of LSAT takers honestly believing they got scores in the 170s, you have a lot of people setting themselves up for epic failure.
So I'd say, if you think you've had a typical upbringing, take what you honestly think you got on the LSAT and lower it by 3-4 points and that will be the most accurate measure of what your score will be.

Lose the sense of entitlement and come down to reality.

So...."typical upbringing" = low LSAT score?

Come on now...

No. It just USUALLY means a LOWER LSAT score than you thought you got. I've seen this happen several times before on this site. When people get their scores they are almost always LOWER than they expect.

[irie]

I was PT'ing at 170-171, walked out of test day thinking I got a 172-173, and got a 175.

[b.j.]

The vast majority of prospective law students think they are smarter than they really are. This is because our entire worthless generation has been told "you are special, you are brilliant" when in reality most prospective law students, by definition, are just normal people who should NOT expect to be in the top 2%. When you have 20-30% of LSAT takers honestly believing they got scores in the 170s, you have a lot of people setting themselves up for epic failure.
So I'd say, if you think you've had a typical upbringing, take what you honestly think you got on the LSAT and lower it by 3-4 points and that will be the most accurate measure of what your score will be.

Lose the sense of entitlement and come down to reality.

So...."typical upbringing" = low LSAT score?

Come on now...

No. It just USUALLY means a LOWER LSAT score than you thought you got. I've seen this happen several times before on this site. When people get their scores they are almost always LOWER than they expect.

I know this is usually the case. That's why I started a thread to ask about exceptions to the rule.

[GeesesAintTeethes]

I did. I have received admissions offers from law schools because of my performance and plan to attend some of them. I retook in Dec. '09 to raise my score, but I'm not sure it will go up as I somewhat spazzed.

[GeesesAintTeethes]

The vast majority of prospective law students think they are smarter than they really are. This is because our entire worthless generation has been told "you are special, you are brilliant" when in reality most prospective law students, by definition, are just normal people who should NOT expect to be in the top 2%. When you have 20-30% of LSAT takers honestly believing they got scores in the 170s, you have a lot of people setting themselves up for epic failure.
So I'd say, if you think you've had a typical upbringing, take what you honestly think you got on the LSAT and lower it by 3-4 points and that will be the most accurate measure of what your score will be.

Lose the sense of entitlement and come down to reality.

I wonder if growing up in a gang, drug, and crime infested neighborhood is a typical upbringing. I'll take my upbringing into consideration because of your comment. Thanks for the great advice.

[Georgiana]

Highest PT (I only took 4 including the diagnostic) was a 168, my score was a 171.

[GeesesAintTeethes]

Highest PT (I only took 4 including the diagnostic) was a 168, my score was a 171.

You are awesome for your accomplishment! Good work.

[peterswe]

I left the September test thinking I bombed it (like a 150) because I had to pee so bad during the first three sections I thought my bladder was literally going to explode. I slammed a venti coffee from starbucks right before taking the test... and I felt like I really couldn't concentrate on the test since I was concentrating on not peeing myself.

Anyways, I got a 161 on the test, which was better than my PT average. What's strange is that I did the best on those first three sections.

[Georgiana]

Highest PT (I only took 4 including the diagnostic) was a 168, my score was a 171.

You are awesome for your accomplishment! Good work.

haha thanks, in retrospect I should have tried harder and maybe I would be at SLS. But whats done is done and I didn't give up my summer for the LSAT. Worked out ok in the end

[Jumbo]

Highest PT (I only took 4 including the diagnostic) was a 168, my score was a 171.

You are awesome for your accomplishment! Good work.

haha thanks, in retrospect I should have tried harder and maybe I would be at SLS. But whats done is done and I didn't give up my summer for the LSAT. Worked out ok in the end

Haha I only took 6 PTs, and the scores varied widely. Hopefully my real test will turn out as well as yours...

[Drake014]

I can completely understand how people can do worse than they expected to do. It's a very hard test and just the slightest bit of irritation or annoyance from something can throw you off. Besides that, purely in terms of numbers, just a few wrong can shoot you down a few points on the scale. It's unsurprising to see people say that they did worse than they expected.

On the other hand, are there people who have done much better than they expected? I ask because I felt good when I left the test, for whatever reason. Maybe it was because I was just glad it was over, even for a few days, or maybe it was for some other reason. But I just didn't feel that dread that I am sure we all feel when we know we've fucked up. That could easily be misplaced confidence, something I experienced quite a few times during practice tests. But the games, for instance, assuming I didn't make some sort of horrible error in each individual game, we a lot better than I expected.

I hold no delusions about getting a 180 or anything close to it, unless I really lucked out. But I do think it's possible that I did a lot better than I expected, if only because I wasn't testing around a 175 to begin with. It's certainly possible, if not unfortunately likely, that I didn't get the score I needed to get, but I as I've indicated over various threads, I felt good, other people have suggested they got similar bubbling patterns to the ones I got, and I have a habit of finishing higher on some test than I ever score.

I'm just wondering if this is a really stupid way to feel.

I did much better than expected. The secret is not caring enough to have high expectations.

[UTexas]

I damn sure did.

I seriously considered canceling my score, as ridiculous as that may sound. I usually destroy the games, but a combination of nerves and two consecutive nights of terrible sleep got me off to a rocky start on the Dec 2009 test. I wasn't able to complete the fourth LG, and I almost canceled then and there. I was pretty close to a freak-out, but I steadied myself somehow and proceeded to miss one question on the remainder of the test.

But I didn't know that at the time, of course. I thought the test was more difficult than any of the PTs from June 2003 onward, but I wasn't certain whether or not that perception was merely due to my lack of sleep. Poking around this site shortly after the test didn't give me any reassurance, since most people seemed to be saying they believed the test was of average difficulty. I figured I was good for -5 LG and around -5 or -6 total for LR and RC (I felt confident in all of my answers in LR and RC, but I thought fatigue was probably good for some careless mistakes). Since so many people seemed to disagree with my opinion that the test was more difficult than usual, I was thinking that would translate to a score of 169-171.

It's probably obnoxious to show dissatisfaction with that score range, but I studied my freaking ass off for months, and it would have represented a big drop from my PT average. I left the test center hating life and resigned to a June retest. I didn't decide until the next Friday to retain the score, and, had I not been absent from the September test due to a migraine the night before, I probably would have canceled.

Obviously I suck at assessing my own performance. And I was clearly guilty of putting way too much stock into what people on this forum said about the difficulty of the test. When the score report read 178, I thought the LSAC had screwed something up.

[totalidiot]

PT'ed at 170 or so on average, ended up with a 179 by a combination of luck and working well under pressure. The most I ever dreamed of was attending Duke, ended up at YLS. It can and does happen, and it could happen to anyone who is capable of scoring in the 170s. Sooooo much luck is involved.

[acrossthepond]

After reading TLS I assumed I would drop about 5 points from my PTs, I actually scored 1 point better. An excellent surprise! I think knowing it was the real deal AND not having a cat sleeping on my book made the difference.

[rundoxierun]

175 high PT with avg PT around 171 and all PTs 168-175... 177 on actual DEC 09 test

[inmans]

Was hoping for 165... Had a rollercoaster of a ride with my PT average...

Ended up with a 170...

[bblobber]

September 164.... was hoping for a 170-175 in December... ended up with a 177.

[jawsthegreat]

September I was thinking like 165-168 and made a 173.

My PT average was 169 FWIW.

[Ragged]

PT average was about a 168 but with an upward trend, I broke 170 on the last 5 or 6 tests with the highest 173. After the test I felt like I could have gotten anywhere from 162-172. Ended up getting a 170. That's just meh, but still good enough to be looking at some pretty good schools. I usually do better under pressure, but I could never go into a higher gear on the test, maybe because it was so early in the morning. *Sigh*

[ec2xs]

My practice tests ranged from 163-172, so I ended up close to where I belonged (167 in June).

That being said, I genuinely left the test expecting a 165 or lower. I thought I had royally screwed up a logic game, only to find out later that I aced the rest of the section and had only missed two on that particular game.

[b.j.]

I left the September test thinking I bombed it (like a 150) because I had to pee so bad during the first three sections I thought my bladder was literally going to explode. I slammed a venti coffee from starbucks right before taking the test... and I felt like I really couldn't concentrate on the test since I was concentrating on not peeing myself.

Anyways, I got a 161 on the test, which was better than my PT average. What's strange is that I did the best on those first three sections.

I was worried that I would end up doing a lot better on the games, since I though they were pretty easy, and worse on the logical reasoning, for a couple of reasons. The opposite was true. My best section was a logical reasoning section and perhaps the harder of the two logical reasoning sections.