so discouraged and need some advice

[bigs5068]

I imagine if you started training intensely you could come nowhere near dunking like Lebron James.

I do think height in basketball is similar to LSAT score in law school. People are born with height and it helps to be tall when playing basketball. It is not everything. There have been plenty of  below average 7'0 guys and plenty of great 6'0 players. However, any basketball player would rather be 7'0 instead of 6'0.

LSAT score is the same thing you are essentially born with the mental abilities to get a certain score. It is for all intensive purposes an IQ test. You can boost it my proper study and the steps you mentioned above. However, again utilizing my rudimentary math skills only 20% of people can be in the top 20% of test takers. If everyone could get a 160 or even the vast majority of people could then it would not a score in the 80th percentile. Most people that take the test study using the exact steps you listed. However, only 20% of people can be in the top 20%.

Yes Harvard is a GREAT school. Lebron James is a great player. I would love to have the athletic talent of Lebron James or the raw intelligence to get a 180 on my LSAT. I would also like to be as good looking as Brad Pitt. As rich as Bill Gates and the list goes on. Not everyone is exceptional in fact the vast majority of people are average at almost everything they do. So to say everyone could get a 163 or 160 on their LSAT shows a lack of reality.

[haus]

To summarize, Harvard =/= Lebron James.  Sports =/= Law.  Height =/= LSAT score.

Well perhaps that should be: 

height and insane leaping ability (with small mix of other skills) =/= LSAT score.

Since I have not been able to dunk on a regulation rim since the '90s, I am glad that it is not an element of the LSAT score....

[EarlCat]

Most people cannot achieve a 163 that is roughly the 80th percentile of LSAT test takers. If my math serves me right it seems only 20% of test takers can achieve a 163 or higher.

What they do is not the same as what they can do.

Not everyone is meant for tier 1. If Lebron James came to me and said yo man why don't you just dunk from the freethrow line when your man stays a few foot off you. My answer would be as I imagine anyone on this site woudl be I cannot dunk from the free throw line Lebron. Although I myself am 6'8 260 pounds ( I think I have a bit more body fat than LJ though . The bottom line is me and about 99% of NBA players simply do not have the athleticism to do it. Likewise when someone says anyone can get a 163 or 170 on the LSAT it is the same as Lebron saying why not dunk from the free throw line. Point being not everyone goes to Harvard law school. The reason Harvard is impressive is because roughly 99% of the population could not attend it. Just like 99% of the population is not a 6'8 260 pound athletic superfreak and Lebron is paid millions for having that skill.

This is a horrible analogy.

[bigs5068]

You can have your opinion it is a free country. I think it is essentially the same thing. Anyone COULD at some point after studying for 10 years maybe pull a 163. However, to study for 10 years would seem a bit ridiculous. I think it makes sense in that I imagine you to both pulled a 163 + on your LSAT. Awesome btw. I am happy for both of you, but just because you are capable of doing something does not mean others can follow. It is a standardized IQ test really and everyone has their limits 160+ is the top 20% of test takers. Using first grade math I think you can see that if only 20% of people are doing something not EVERYONE is capable of doing it.

[Anti09]

LSAT score is the same thing you are essentially born with the mental abilities to get a certain score. It is for all intensive purposes an IQ test.

It is a standardized IQ test really

Ok right here you need to stop and just... stop.  The LSAT is so far removed from an IQ test it's not even funny.  At its core, it's a 4 hour reading comprehension test, and doesn't test anything further than how well you can take the LSAT.  It is necessary to be intelligent to do well on the LSAT, but it is by no means sufficient, and intelligence alone will not get you a great score.  Doing well  favors those who prepare and study hard, and your preparation will make a much bigger difference on your score than your inherent intelligence. 

You also need to stop confusing what people are capable of doing and what they actually do.  Capability implies it is hypothetically possible, not that it is probable or by any means certain.  100% of people have the capability to jump off a bridge, but not many actually do.

[bigs5068]

It is an IQ test in being able to think a certain way. It is studying patterns etc not facts. This in turn makes it more of an IQ test than a run of the mill law school test. It measures your reading comprehension, ability to figure out patterns, and ability to think quickly. I imagine there are a lot of people that simply run out of time because they cannot think fast enough. Just like when you go to law school people run out of time on exams. It often has nothing to do with how much or little they studied it has to do with their ability to think quickly. This is something that can be refined, but some people think more quickly than others. So yes the LSAT is an IQ test that measures someone's ability to think like a lawyer. It does not measure tangible facts, memorization, it determines if you are capable of thinking a certain way and that is an IQ test.

To further demonstrate that is somewhat of an IQ test even if you took 100 people and forced them to do the same exact method of studying. I.E. forced them to take a Kaplan test etc 50% of them would finish in the bottom 50%. Again as surprising as it may be if everyone adopted your method of studying only 20% of people will end up in the top 20%.

On the same not you can write a book called guaranteed way to finish in the top 10% of your class. Everyone could follow that book to the letter and do everything perfectly, but again only 10% of people can finish in the top 10%. A person's raw intelligence or knack for the law will shine through and 10% of the class will finish in the top 10%. 10% will finish in the bottom 10% even if they all study the exact same way.

[Anti09]

It is an IQ test in being able to think a certain way. It is studying patterns etc not facts. This in turn makes it more of an IQ test than a run of the mill law school test. It measures your reading comprehension, ability to figure out patterns, and ability to think quickly. I imagine there are a lot of people that simply run out of time because they cannot think fast enough. Just like when you go to law school people run out of time on exams. It often has nothing to do with how much or little they studied it has to do with their ability to think quickly. This is something that can be refined, but some people think more quickly than others. So yes the LSAT is an IQ test that measures someone's ability to think like a lawyer. It does not measure tangible facts, memorization, it determines if you are capable of thinking a certain way and that is an IQ test.

Let me explain what an IQ test is.  The Intelligence Quotient is a ratio of an individual's mental age compared to their chronological age.  While having a high IQ is likely corellated with high LSAT scores (and vice versa), this does not mean that the LSAT is in any way designed to test one's IQ.  It's just not. 

In theory, the LSAT is designed to test one's potential aptitude in characteristics thought to be important for success in Law.  It's successfulness at measuring this is debatable, but it is unequivocally not designed to measure intelligence, or IQ, as it were.

To further demonstrate that is somewhat of an IQ test even if you took 100 people and forced them to do the same exact method of studying. I.E. forced them to take a Kaplan test etc 50% of them would finish in the bottom 50%. Again as surprising as it may be if everyone adopted your method of studying only 20% of people will end up in the top 20%.

Yes, by definition, 50% of people on any individual test will score in the bottom 50% and 20% will score in the top 20%.  You are however ignoring (or misunderstanding) my point.  I'm not talking about the distribution of any individual test, I'm talking about the performance of one individual.  Barring extenuating circumstances, there is no reason why any reasonably intelligent person should not be able to score in the top 20% with enough practice.  I can speak from experience - I started in the low 150s and improved my score 18 points.

[Framboise]

You are an unshakable bastion of ignorance.

Do you know what an IQ test is?  You can't prep for an IQ test.  If you take one again and again, you really don't move around.  For the LSAT, you can dramatically improve your score if you put in the time and effort.  This assumes that you've experimented with studying methods until you find one that works for you.  A large chunk of those who attain a 165+ were nowhere near that when they first started.

Let's look at a common scenario:  Someone does a dry run or near dry run and scores a 151.  That person studies for 4 months and come test day gets a 166.  If he hadn't studied so much, he probably would have scored around a 148-154, which is nothing to be proud of, especially considering his potential.  While the people who join online forums to discuss the law school process are generally those who take the process seriously and are more likely to study, not everyone takes the process so seriously and many people don't study at all.

Ignoring the other irrelevant "points" you bring up, we come to your example of those taking a Kaplan prep course.  This is a bad example, because most people don't shell out the money for a prep course.  Some find other ways to study, and some don't study at all.  So we're not talking about everyone studying with the same methods.  We're talking about the real world in which many people take the test on a whim or with inadequate prep.  And the idea is that those who study hard and work their way up from a 145 to a 160 will bypass many people with high potential who don't prepare.

Basically anyone who is incapable of receiving a 160 even after putting in the proper time and effort should just not be a lawyer.  And adequate prep means bringing up your speed and endurance, not just your accuracy.

[bigs5068]

It measures a type of thinking. I don't understand how you can rationally think anyone can be in the top 20% when only 20% of people can be in the top 20%. I am not sure if either of you actually attend law school, but it is amazing no matter where you go everyone is convinced they will be in the top 10%. No matter what anyone does only 10% of the people end up there. NO matter how hard you prepare etc. The same is true of the LSAT you obviously can improve and that is studying, but you take a diagnostic test and you can usually rise from there to some level. There are people that pull a 180, but most people are not capable of doing this. This is indicative of a test that is not the same for everyone. Very few people get a perfect score no matter how hard they try.

[lilaPR]

Did you analyze the preptest to see what you are doing wrong??


I had a similar situation but I have not study for so long and I'm not taking the test anytime soon.


I took my first diagnostic in my finals week and scored a tragic 146 but I did not answer 10 questions and I had the language barrier.

I took a second preptest about two weeks later and  I scored 153 , thats a 7 point jump with almost no studying but choosing the right material.


Studying with stress is not going to take you anywhere , postpone , relax and start all over again.

Don't time yourself yet ,concentrate on understanding the technique in how to solve each type of questions after you understand them , practice .

After you finish a test, check why the answer were wrongs .  The lsat is about acquiring skills , not about learning a material it will take a lot of time before you see the results.