So, how does everyone think they did?

[TJCCARDCO]

Just some advice to above posters...sometimes we are very critical of ourselves when we do not get instant gratifcation in life or in tests. When you have to wait for a score, sometimes you may cancel a great score and I believe that no one should cancel if you went through all the trouble to take the test. most of the schools take the higher scores anyway.

But, do what you will.

I'm hoping for a 165. Tested 166-169 range before the test...but, the LG was always a -1 to -4 for me, so we will see....that damn LG really was BS.

[TJCCARDCO]

Just some advice to above posters...sometimes we are very critical of ourselves when we do not get instant gratifcation in life or in tests. When you have to wait for a score, sometimes you may cancel a great score and I believe that no one should cancel if you went through all the trouble to take the test. most of the schools take the higher scores anyway.

But, do what you will.

I'm hoping for a 165. Tested 166-169 range before the test...but, the LG was always a -1 to -4 for me, so we will see....that damn LG really was BS.

[jdphenom316]

I thought I did pretty well. The only section that I didn't finish was RC. I definitely had an RC experimental as my 3rd section. It was ridiculously thick in my opinion, much harder than any practice RC I did. Then when I saw the next one, it was much easier.

The Games are my best section but I literally finished them within 5 seconds of the end, thankfully! I think I may have gotten 2 wrong. Hoping for 165 +, we will see !

[maize82]

It's interesting that jdphenom136 thought that the experimental section was really hard and the regular RC section was easy. I had the exact opposite problem. When I was going through the 1st RC section (3rd on my test), I knew it had to be the experimental section because it seemed too easy and unfortunately I was right.

I struggled on the games but I'm still hoping for a 165+. The difference between practice test conditions and actual test conditions definitely makes a difference!

[wyatth]

that red stegosaurus needs a shovel up its ass. that game sucked so bad!!

rest was okay. hoping for generous scale! good luck to you all!

[Julie Fern]

I have no idea. Could've bombed; could've 180'd. Probably at least did better than last October. Definitely some difficult subsections and individual questions.

Oh, and don't talk about the actual questions on the test, of course.

uh oh.

[Julie Fern]

september here i come. and @#!* you LSAC.

september test be hardest ever.

[snickersnicker]

Actually, Julie, I think you were right this last time. June was hardest ever.

Well, not really. It's obvious that LSAC is adapting to Powerscore/Testmasters/etc. and making games that don't fit easily into the mold of diagramming and inferences. I feel like the LSAC has gotten a few calls about prehistoric friends and not providing room to diagram when all of its prep materials say to use clear space on the page to work questions out. Aside from that, pretty typical, except that comparative RC passage. I wanted to choke some goddamn authors in the ten minutes I spent on that. Handful of tricky LR questions as well.

[wyatth]

yes that comparison was a hell hole!!
rest of the passages would have been fine if i did them all before the comparison.
LR was okay i though.
3/4 games were fine.
its so hard to predict when you cant know what you missed and you dont know the scale... ugh

hardest 3 weeks are NOW!

[bbqspareribs]

I have a question. I took the LSAT a couple of years ago (June 2007) and got a 142. Knowing I hadn't prepared, I waited and took it for the second time just yesterday and I have a feeling I got a score in the high 140s - low 150s. I, like a number of folks got bit by the dinosaurs and am not feeling great.

Knowing that I'm quite capable of a high-150 or low-160 score (I know I can get a 161-161 when I'm at my peak, but I'm definitely solid now in the high 150s), should I cancel the score and re-take it again in hopes that I'll feel more confident?

Second question. I feel that if law schools don't frown upon two LSAT scores, they definitely do when you have a third. So let me run a possible scenario by you:

June 2007: 142
June 2009: 149
September 2009: 157

Does this look bad? Does it look like I got 'lucky' so to speak?

Or would this look better?

June 2007: 142
June 2009: 149
September 2009: 157
December 2009: 159

Point being: to prove that my third score isn't a fluke by solidifying it with a comparable 4th score.

I know 4 scores sounds crazy. Thoughts?