so discouraged and need some advice

[Tossy]

You diagnosed in the 160's and improved your score by roughly 10 points. Not everyone diagnoses at 160 in fact not everyone diagnoses at 150 or even 140.

No, I diagnosed in the low 150s.  I scored below a 155 on both of my initial diagnostics.  Actually, they were a 151 and a 153.

You might be right in that if someone literally spend 10 years studying for the LSAT they could go from 145 diagnostic to 170.

I told you, I know someone who did it, on her own.  She did not take a class and it took her nowhere near 10 years.

People start from different areas and you can train your brain to improve, but everyone has their limits.

Of course people will hit natural plateaus but it is a mistake to attribute the bulk of these plateaus to the test taker's native intelligence (and to be clear, we are talking 'IQ' here).  Of course intelligence plays a part, but effort, discipline and general educational preparation play a much greater role in LSAT performance and in life.   

We could then trace it back to the SAT where again not everybody scores a 1500+.  This is again because people have their limitations.

Wow, no.  The SATs are their own ugly beast, but they don't measure intelligence either.  Nowhere close, though at least scores on the SAT aren't manipulated into percentages in the manner of the LSATs and those sitting for the exam don't have as high a degree of self-selection.  The key to the SAT (way back in the day when I took it--before there was a writing section) was a large vocabulary and an understanding of math tricks; it was all factual knowledge and little skill beyond time management.  To prepare, I sat down and memorized a list of 200 words that frequently appeared on the SAT.  Then I bought an SAT math tricks book and did a bunch of the problems.  Neither of those things really made me any smarter, but my SAT score certainly went up.

[bigs5068]

[/quote]You might be right in that if someone literally spend 10 years studying for the LSAT they could go from 145 diagnostic to 170. [/quote]

I told you, I know someone who did it, on her own.  She did not take a class and it took her nowhere near 10 years.



I am not surprised someone did it. You can make that argument all day. You said you diagnosed at 151 that is not a bad starting point. I started with a 141 diagnostic. I ended up with a 155. Had I studied for a few more months maybe a year I might have been able to get to 160. I really do not think I could have scored much higher than that. You started at 151 although in your previous post I was pretty sure you said you diagnosed at 160. However, odds are you can probably improve 20 points from your diagnostic with a LOT of studying. With that start if you spent a year and a few thousand dollars and did not hold a job I would imagine you could get a 170. Most people do not have the time or resources to study for the test for a year. Even if they do the improvements will vary by individual. I am sure the person you listed might have gone from 140 to 170 with little effort it is certainly possible. My whole point on this entire thing it results differ and not everyone can achieve a 170. The test is learn able and you can certainly improve your score, but everyone has their plateus. Some people might be able to improve their diagnostic by as much as 20 -25 points while other can only improve 10-15.

[Tossy]

You started at 151 although in your previous post I was pretty sure you said you diagnosed at 160.

No, you misread.  Then you quoted, and then mis-analyzed the quote (FYI:  mid 160s and lower includes scores below 160).

My whole point on this entire thing it results differ and not everyone can achieve a 170. The test is learn able and you can certainly improve your score, but everyone has their plateus. Some people might be able to improve their diagnostic by as much as 20 -25 points while other can only improve 10-15.

If that is your point, then you should just say it and stop there.  It's your added on "points" and examples that are getting you in trouble.

I started with a 141 diagnostic. I ended up with a 155. Had I studied for a few more months maybe a year I might have been able to get to 160. I really do not think I could have scored much higher than that.

You may have peaked.  You may have reached the limitations of your discipline with regards to this test, but for your own dignity, please do not walk around asserting that a 155 is reflective of all you are and will ever be capable of achieving.

However, odds are you can probably improve 20 points from your diagnostic with a LOT of studying. With that start if you spent a year and a few thousand dollars and did not hold a job I would imagine you could get a 170.

Yeah, you needed to quit after that first part.  My scores went up after two grueling weeks while working a difficult full-time job.  I was the last amongst my law-school attending friends to enter school.  There was no prep course involved, I borrowed a book, in fact one of two books that were passed around amongst my friends and with which we all prepared.  Stop assuming that improvement only comes with money.  Even with courses, the improvement comes with effort, not with check writing.

[bigs5068]

I think you are right. I never took a prep course myself and many people that did were disappointed with it. It is the test takers effort that counts for improvement more than any course.

My whole point on this entire thing it results differ and not everyone can achieve a 170. The test is learnable and you can certainly improve your score, but everyone has their plateus. Some people might be able to improve their diagnostic by as much as 20 -25 points while others can only improve 10-15. That is essentially what I was getting at the whole time. I truly do not think everyone is meant for the T14 people have certain diagnostic scores. It is possible to improve by as much as 25 points maybe even 30, but I would imagine the vast majority of testtakers would increase their score with a solid effort by 15-20 points. Some will improve more and others less.

In regards to the OP who received a 140 I imagine you can increase that. If I remember the OP was shooting for a score of 163+ and that might be a bit out of range if after studying and putting in a solid effort you received a 140. I would imagine this score could get somewhere into the 150's, but as I said not everyone can get a 163+. The OP might be the exception and improve by 30 maybe even 40 points, but that type of improvement is rare.

[Framboise]

Well why doesn't everyone get a 170 then. If it is just work ethic everyone should be able to get a 170 or 175. If someone wants to put a standard that is above you I am sure you will say that is to far. Do you even go to law school by the way out of pure curiosity? Generally people that speak with such condescending tone on an internet site with anonymous people don't get so upset.

My whole point was that everyone has limits on their LSAT score. Of course you can improve it, but not everyone gets a 180. Percentiles come into the mix believe it or not it is a standardized test in which 80% of people will finish in the bottom 80%. Percentiles etc are part of standardized testing. If the ABA put a limit saying you should have to get a 160 to be in law school then that would be fine. Maybe they could even make it 170. Anti improved by 18 points and 151 + 18 as I understand it is 169. Maybe we should set the bar at 170 if you can't get a 170 on the LSAT you should not be in law school. You can set the bar wherever you want and at some point only a few people will be able to achieve it. This is because human beings have limitations I imagine even you cannot pull a 180 on the LSAT no matter how hard you try. Although if you have not officially taken the LSAT yet I hope you do pull a 180. That would be awesome and I wish everyone could score that highly, but reality is a female dog and very few people score as high as they would have expected or hoped. This is because only 20% of people can finish in the top 20%. If you are not in law school yet you will realize the same thing happens with your grades. On the first day of class everyone is convinced they will be in the top 10% and your grades will be based on work ethic etc. Some people at the beginning go so far as to say they cannot understand how anyone could not finish in the top half of the class. Sadly the people that make those kind of statements don't realize they have a 50% chance of being in the bottom 50% and 50% of the time they end up in the bottom half.

Is the question of whether or not I'm in law school related to the fact that you perceive me as talking in a condescending tone?  I really can't tell.  In any case, no, I'm not in law school yet.  I'm still in undergrad.  Could I make a 180?  I don't know yet, but I would be happy with a score much lower than that anyway.  Luckily, the rest of my application will be very strong.  But I'm talking about a 160, not a 180, and there is no doubt in my mind that I can get a 160 as long as I get the proper amount of sleep and nutrients, and don't show up to the test drunk.  If the June test rolls around and I'm consistently getting 150's or below, then I would not bother taking the test in the first place.  It would be a waste of all the hard work I put in during undergrad.

And as far as my frustration goes, it stems from the fact that you keep blatantly misreading everything that everyone says.  The points that everyone has made are extremely clear and easy to understand if we once again get back to talking about a 160, not a 170 or 180 (because that is a whole new can of worms).  If someone doesn't want to put in the work to get a 160, then I question their decision to become a lawyer.  I'm sure there is a better alternative.  Plus, even outside of this thread, I've noticed you've given some of the most ill-informed advice based on the worst logic I have ever seen as far as law school goes, and it boggles my mind.  It worries me that some people might take it too seriously, and I hope most people on this board are capable of good ole critical thinking.

Why doesn't everyone get a 170?  Because most people are satisfied with a score much lower than that.  Because their heart's not in law school, or they didn't get any sleep the night before, or they didn't prep enough, or their grandma died the night before the exam, or the girl sitting next to them threw up during Logic Games.  There are countless explanations.

Is it pure work ethic?  No.  It's learning how to handle each type of question in as little time as possible while controlling your nerves and keeping your brain alert.  That's the aspect that can be trained.  But can an absolute idiot get a 180?  Probably not.  But an absolute idiot shouldn't become a lawyer anyway.  The keyword is someone who is reasonably intelligent.  They don't have to be a genius, just not a dope.  I fully believe that every reasonable intelligent person can reach that 160, like I said barring serious anxiety issues.  How do you know if you've really plateaued?  Have you tried every study method available?  There are so many different test prep companies and in my experience, the people who get the best scores didn't take a class with a bunch of other people, they did some rigorous self-study, and that definitely doesn't cost thousands of dollars by any means.  They did all of the tests that the LSAC released and went over them afterward to see what they were doing wrong.  They even did the same logic games multiple times to hammer in the pattern.  They took tests in places where there would be a lot of distractions and stuck to very strict time limits.  They normalized their sleep schedule and ate as healthy as possible to insure the clearest mind possible.  Taking a course with Kaplan is child's play compared to a study regime like that.  How did you study bigs?  Maybe your method just didn't click.

[bigs5068]

Well if you ever take the LSAT hopefully it goes well. Same for law school. Be careful when calling people dopes who do not get a 160. It is very possible you will end up not scoring that considering a 160+ puts you in the top 20% of test takers. Before people actually do things they are convinced they will succeed and be the best. Almost everyone in undergrad feels this way about themselves. Then they have to take the LSAT and 80% of people believe or not do not finish in the top 20%. Still even if they did not finish in the top 20% of test takers many can still attend law school if you score in the top 40% of test takers generally. These remaining 20% are convinced the best was b.s. etc. They attend law school and at any ABA school incoming 1L's are convinced they will finish in the top 20% of the class.  Again, 80% of people do not finish in the top 20%.  Most 1L's are dissatisfied with their grades. I somehow ended up in the top 10% at my school, but there was a 90% chance of that not happening.  Remember if you start law school that only 20% of people can finish in the top 20%. If you ever put yourself out there and take the LSAT or go to law school you will realize these things. Hopefully, you finish in the top 20% of LSAT takers and if you go to law school in the top 20% of your class. Do realize there is an 80% chance neither of those things will happen for you. Good luck to you.

Maybe you are a super genius and you will just score a 170 with a minimal amount of preparation. If that is the case I have to question why you have not taken the test already?

[Framboise]

Well if you ever take the LSAT hopefully it goes well. Same for law school. I am doing fine in law school myself with the LSAT score I received even being paid to work in law firms. Be careful when calling people dopes who do not get a 160. It is very possible you will end up not scoring that considering a 160+ puts you in the top 20% of test takers. Before people actually do things they are convinced they will succeed and be the best. Almost everyone in undergrad feels this way about themselves. Then they have to take the LSAT and 80% of people believe or not do not finish in the top 20%. Still even if they did not finish in the top 20% of test takers they can still attend law school. Many convinced the best was b.s. etc, but at any school the incoming 1L students are convinced they will finish in the top 20% of the class.  Again, 80% of people do not finish in the top 20%.  Most 1L's are dissatisifed with their grades overall and most people would like to have done better on their LSAT. Again only 20% of people can finish in the top 20%. If you ever put yourself out there and take the LSAT or go to law school you will realize these things. Hopefully, you finish in the top 20% of LSAT takers and if you go to law school in the top 20% of your class, but there is an 80% chance neither of those things will happen for you. Good luck to you.

First of all, I definitely didn't call people who didn't get a 160+ dopes.    Do not twist my words.  As I've already stated, what someone gets on the LSAT their first time or even second time may not reveal their true potential at all.  Never did I say that someone who has a 159 on their score sheet is a dope.

Sure it's possible that I won't get a 160+.  I outlined some ways that would happen.  And I also stated that if I don't appear capable of that come test time (in June), I would without a doubt choose a different career.  I have other options for sure.  Luckily, given my diagnostic, it would be strange if I didn't make that 160.  And if the LSAT really was meant to test one's IQ and does correlate that strongly with SAT scores, couldn't people with high scores on those  actually be quite confident that they will land comfortably above the 80th percentile?

And duh it's not that easy to fall in the top 10% of 20% or whatever of one's law school class when most people in each class have a fairly comparable GPA and LSAT balance.  No one in this thread is debating that.

[bigs5068]

You are right and as I said good luck to you.

[EarlCat]

I have not yet taken a statistics class, but maybe you can enlighten as to how more than 20% of people can finish in the top 20%. Maybe I am way off base, but as my rudimentary math skills go if I had 10 people taking a test only 2 of them could finish in the top 20% of test takers. If I am mistaken on that premise then the Los Angeles Unified School District failed me miserably and hopefully you can help me out.

Maybe if you actually read the posts that already explained this very elementary concept, you might understand.

[bigs5068]

Well the intellectual power is just to much for me to comprehend. Maybe in layman terms you can help someone as dumb as me understand how if you have 100 people taking a test more than 20 could finish in the TOP 20%. As I understand it 1-10 would be in the top 10%, 11-20 would be in the top 20%, 21-30 would be in the top 30% and so on. I feel like if you finished 24th you would not be in the top 20% of 100 test takers, but I have not done much math since I have been in law school so maybe I am mistaken.