First of all, I really hope this post is correctly placed and I'm not asking a question that has been answered hundreds of times already. If I am in the wrong place I'd appreciate a referral to a forum better suited for my question.A little bit about me: Iím about to go into my first year at UCLA, currently declared as an Electrical Engineering major, but over the last year or so Iíve taken a pretty big interest in applying to law school after undergrad, and thus, have been doing quite a lot of research on the law school applications process and the LSATs. Iíve done a lot of research on study plans, information about the LSAT, and have even taken the June 2007 practice test to see where I currently falls. On the practice test I scored a 166, My end goal, as Iím sure is the same as many othersí, is to get that score to the mid-to-high 170s by the time I decide to take the test.I wanted to ask about how much time to allot to studying for the LSAT. Iíve seen study plans/schedules of various lengths on sites like the lsatblog and elsewhere, but have heard differing opinions on long-term vs shorter term studying. Some have said that long-term studying can help to really set in all the information while others, such as the writer at lawschooli.com, have suggested that 3-4 months is the optimal time and anything in the longer term can have a negative impact on retention (I also wonder about the limited number of preptests available to study from having to be spread over longer periods of time). Does anyone have an opinion on this and a suggestion on the optimal amount of studying time?Thanks so much for any and all input!
It's very difficult to predict what your LSAT score will be this early in the game. When you are a week or two away from the real test, and have been consistently scoring in the same range for a while, then you'll have a better idea. It's unlikely that you'll increase 3-4 points with every administration of the exam. The thing about the LSAT is that it gets exponentially harder to gain points the higher you go. In other words, going from 155 to 160 is a big leap, but going from 160 to 165 is even bigger. Far fewer people will score 165 than 160, and only a fraction of all applicants will score above 170. You would have to be making huge statistical leaps forward to consistently increase your score towards 170. In short, it's a lot harder than it sounds. Additionally, it seems that most people score lower on the actual LSAT than they did on practice exams. I think most people find that they plateau within a 3-5 point range. I had a friend who scored 174 on the LSAT, but even his diagnostic was something like 165.I'm not saying it's impossible, just that you should understand the statistical improbability of going from 149 to 170, and make a backup plan accordingly. Think about other options just in case you don't score 170, and other schools you may want to apply to.