Page 1 of 1

4.07/163 BUT 176-180 on PT's

Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:44 pm
by IndieTea
I took the LSAT three times in the past - scored 159, 163, 160. However, on practice tests I scored 176 or better (well, all practice tests after studying the first round; first round was between 169-174; and my first cold diagnostic score was 159).
I was accepted to UC Hastings (with a 4.07 GPA according to LSAC).
What are my chances of getting into Boalt? If you were me, would you try to transfer after the first year, or retake the LSAT and apply Fall 2012?
This is presuming I have the grades to transfer. I figure that if I don't have the grades - that is, ranking in the top 1-2% of the class - to transfer to Berkeley, I probably shouldn't be going there.
Oh, and I hope pursue IP law and stay in the bay area.
Thanks...

Re: 4.07/163 BUT 176-180 on PT's

Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:47 pm
by buckilaw
You didn't need to make two threads. Answer remains the same, retake.
Figure out why your scores differ so much, if you score 170+ you will likley be able to land a T14 with $.

Re: 4.07/163 BUT 176-180 on PT's

Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:57 pm
by 3ThrowAway99
Lolwut.. were you timing your practices?

Re: 4.07/163 BUT 176-180 on PT's

Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:59 pm
by 09042014
Just transfer to stanford instead.

Re: 4.07/163 BUT 176-180 on PT's

Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:08 pm
by 3ThrowAway99
DF is being sarcastic, but I will also (more explicitly) call flame on this. Just not buying you've hit 180 on a practice but can't get over 163 on real test. It just doesn't compute. That would be beyond a bad test day. Maybe if you took literally all day to work on the test AND peeked at all the ones you weren't sure of on the practices--that could help explain your results.

Re: 4.07/163 BUT 176-180 on PT's

Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:46 am
by IndieTea
Lawquacious wrote:DF is being sarcastic, but I will also (more explicitly) call flame on this. Just not buying you've hit 180 on a practice but can't get over 163 on real test. It just doesn't compute. That would be beyond a bad test day. Maybe if you took literally all day to work on the test AND peeked at all the ones you weren't sure of on the practices--that could help explain your results.
I took the free test offered by Kaplan at the Kaplan center, and I took 4 PT with Testmasters at a test site, so the tests were timed AND I had no access to the answers (they collect your test and answer sheet and you get the score later, just like the real test).
I took additional PTs provided by Testmasters at the SF main library, with a timer that counts seconds (I'd give myself 34 minutes per section). Again, with the Testmasters answers, you could only view the scores/answers after you completed an online answer sheet - so there was literally no way of peeking.
When I restudied myself at home, I went to the library and left the answer at home again.

Re: 4.07/163 BUT 176-180 on PT's

Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:56 am
by IndieTea
buckilaw wrote:You didn't need to make two threads. Answer remains the same, retake.
Figure out why your scores differ so much, if you score 170+ you will likley be able to land a T14 with $.
Sorry...I just wanted as much feedback as possible (and feeling really anxious and stressed out).

Re: 4.07/163 BUT 176-180 on PT's

Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:56 am
by 09042014
IndieTea wrote:
Lawquacious wrote:DF is being sarcastic, but I will also (more explicitly) call flame on this. Just not buying you've hit 180 on a practice but can't get over 163 on real test. It just doesn't compute. That would be beyond a bad test day. Maybe if you took literally all day to work on the test AND peeked at all the ones you weren't sure of on the practices--that could help explain your results.
I took the free test offered by Kaplan at the Kaplan center, and I took 4 PT with Testmasters at a test site, so the tests were timed AND I had no access to the answers (they collect your test and answer sheet and you get the score later, just like the real test).
I took additional PTs provided by Testmasters at the SF main library, with a timer that counts seconds (I'd give myself 34 minutes per section). Again, with the Testmasters answers, you could only view the scores/answers after you completed an online answer sheet - so there was literally no way of peeking.
When I restudied myself at home, I went to the library and left the answer at home again.
So are you a choker or what?

Re: 4.07/163 BUT 176-180 on PT's

Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:05 am
by anewaphorist
Or a swallower?

Re: 4.07/163 BUT 176-180 on PT's

Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:14 am
by IndieTea
Desert Fox wrote:
IndieTea wrote:
Lawquacious wrote:DF is being sarcastic, but I will also (more explicitly) call flame on this. Just not buying you've hit 180 on a practice but can't get over 163 on real test. It just doesn't compute. That would be beyond a bad test day. Maybe if you took literally all day to work on the test AND peeked at all the ones you weren't sure of on the practices--that could help explain your results.
I took the free test offered by Kaplan at the Kaplan center, and I took 4 PT with Testmasters at a test site, so the tests were timed AND I had no access to the answers (they collect your test and answer sheet and you get the score later, just like the real test).
I took additional PTs provided by Testmasters at the SF main library, with a timer that counts seconds (I'd give myself 34 minutes per section). Again, with the Testmasters answers, you could only view the scores/answers after you completed an online answer sheet - so there was literally no way of peeking.
When I restudied myself at home, I went to the library and left the answer at home again.
So are you a choker or what?
The first time I took the test, a proctor literally RIGHT stood behind me the whole time I was taking that section, and that was the section I bombed (RC). Like literally missed over half the questions.
Second - my grandmother was in the hospital and my parents out of the country, so I was dealing with it
BUT the third time, I don't know. Lost confidence? I'm not a very confident person to begin with.