Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;
Discussion Discussion
Resources Resources
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: How indicative?  (Read 1738 times)

nooyyllib

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
    • View Profile
How indicative?
« on: July 10, 2009, 01:53:46 PM »
Hey all,

My June 09 score was horrible so I started studying for the re-take (Sept 09) since July 1st.  I've gone through all the PT's once (all 58-i think).

I looked through the LRB and made brief notes. Also I decided to re-take all the PTs out there again and try to score above 170+ with all the logical process down for LR.

I took about 8 PTs timed 32 minutes per section with no experimental section and the scores were all higher than my June 09 exam.  The range has been 166-170.  I got 170 twice so far. 

Funny thing is I don't really "remember" the questions from the PTs when I'm taking them.  I go through the logical process for every LR question when I'm taking the PT.  Also same for LG and RC. 

I still got about 50 PTs to go and more incorrect LR questions and logic patterns to memorize and study but I was just wondering - if you did take the LSAT second time and improved - are these scores even slightly representative of what I might score on the Sept 09 exam. 

Or is it too early to tell?

Logged

hopeful1985

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: How indicative?
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2009, 02:10:13 PM »
do you mind saying what you got in June? i think that would really help people determine your realistic chances at hitting 170+ considering the great methods youre going through now.
Logged

nooyyllib

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
    • View Profile
Re: How indicative?
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2009, 02:18:58 PM »
160, i redid the incorrect questions on that test and got them all correct except 1 (not counting RC)
Logged

violaboy

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1126
    • View Profile
Re: How indicative?
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2009, 02:39:49 PM »
Yes, I'd say that they are.  And the second time, you'll probably be more relaxed.
Logged

nooyyllib

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
    • View Profile
Re: How indicative?
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2009, 02:43:14 PM »
Well, today I'm just reviewing the incorrect LRs from this past week and "memorizing" them.  Tomorrow I'm going to take another PT.  Hopefully I'll break 170+.

I'm still scared of the Sept 09 LSAT.
Logged

violaboy

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1126
    • View Profile
Re: How indicative?
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2009, 02:47:18 PM »
Quote from: nooyyllib on July 10, 2009, 02:43:14 PM
Well, today I'm just reviewing the incorrect LRs from this past week and "memorizing" them.  Tomorrow I'm going to take another PT.  Hopefully I'll break 170+.

I'm still scared of the Sept 09 LSAT.

Well, if you're scared, you'll keep on studying! :D
Logged

nooyyllib

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
    • View Profile
Re: How indicative?
« Reply #6 on: July 11, 2009, 10:21:46 AM »
anyone else?
Logged

Matthies

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5988
    • View Profile
    • Tell me where you are going to school and you get a cat!
Re: How indicative?
« Reply #7 on: July 11, 2009, 11:53:40 AM »
Keep studying, and go for the best you can in Sept. But just remeber, you can still be a lawyer with a 160 if you don't do better, so don't over stress yourself thinking the world will end if you don't do better in Sept. You don't need that extra stress/worry.
Logged
*In clinical studies, Matthies was well tolerated, but women who are pregnant, nursing or might become pregnant should not take or handle Matthies due to a rare, but serious side effect called him having to make child support payments.

nooyyllib

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
    • View Profile
Re: How indicative?
« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2009, 05:33:52 PM »
last two PTs have been quite disappointing. PT #9 and 10.

169 on #9
160 (wtf) on #10 - was the RC in this PT particularly hard?
Logged

Matthies

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5988
    • View Profile
    • Tell me where you are going to school and you get a cat!
Re: How indicative?
« Reply #9 on: July 13, 2009, 05:55:23 PM »
Quote from: nooyyllib on July 13, 2009, 05:33:52 PM
last two PTs have been quite disappointing. PT #9 and 10.

169 on #9
160 (wtf) on #10 - was the RC in this PT particularly hard?

Are you going in to these tests worrying about what score you get, I mean are you second guessing yourself during the exam becuase your allways thinking I GOTTA GET THIS RIGHT? That can affect your perfromace. Try as best you can to just leave any thoughts about how you will do once you start. Stress can make you doubt your choices. I know its not that easy, but try to go into the test not thinking about the score you want. Worry about that when you score, NOT WHILE YOUR TAKING THE TEST. Keep going, you have the drive and that more than anything will help you, don't give up.
Logged
*In clinical studies, Matthies was well tolerated, but women who are pregnant, nursing or might become pregnant should not take or handle Matthies due to a rare, but serious side effect called him having to make child support payments.
Pages: [1] 2