What's the Max Point Jump?

[Majmun]

e -

Didn't you get a 153 and use your surpeme soft factors to get into NYU? Yet, here you mentioned going from 156 to 178? If you had a 178 on an LSAT, even with a 153 or 156 beforehand, it hardly makes your NYU acceptance noteworthy...

even though the new consensus is that e is a flame, I'll note that the LSATs were allegedly from different cycles.  Meaning he allegedly got in to NYU with the 156 not the 178

[LSAT All Star]

I think it depends on your starting point.  I took my first practice test without having seen a question before and scored in the low 150s.  Three months and a lot of work later my actual was a 176.

[«ě»]

e -

Didn't you get a 153 and use your surpeme soft factors to get into NYU? Yet, here you mentioned going from 156 to 178? If you had a 178 on an LSAT, even with a 153 or 156 beforehand, it hardly makes your NYU acceptance noteworthy...

I was accepted with a 156. I retook in June (2007) and scored a 178. That was obviously after my NYU acceptance, and did not affect it. Although I expect they were quite thrilled to be able to report me as a 178 instead of a 156 to USNews.

And yes, apparently the consensus (at least among a couple of people here) seems to be that I'm a flame. Can't really say I give a *&^%.

[studymaster]

i think that no more than a 20 point jump is possible, and even that's comically rare.  going from a 160 to a 170-175 is realistic, and:

140 to 155-160
150 to 165-170

anyone disagree?  i recently told some kid that prepped in the 150s that he shouldn't get his hopes up unless he's willing to walk a year-long LSAT mile.

This is pointless to debate as it will vary individually. Why don't you lose your holier than thy attitude and encourage this "kid" and give him advice on how to prepare?

Hmmmm.. if he tells the kid that it will take a mountain of work to get where he wants to eb that must be holier than thy.. It can't be injecting a little realism to prevent the kid from crushing dissapointment...
Posters here boggle my mind sometimes, and I think after the 10th post in support of you PBJ, I am officially your lackey..

[lawgal33]

18 points. took a year. and not a fun one. but it def possible to go higher.

[UMDMike]

I dont know if a jump is the correct term but my Sept was 12 points below my average, and I am hoping that I can hit that average in september. (I miss-bubbled the whole reading comp section...)

[JeNeSaisLaw]

e -

Didn't you get a 153 and use your surpeme soft factors to get into NYU? Yet, here you mentioned going from 156 to 178? If you had a 178 on an LSAT, even with a 153 or 156 beforehand, it hardly makes your NYU acceptance noteworthy...

I was accepted with a 156. I retook in June (2007) and scored a 178. That was obviously after my NYU acceptance, and did not affect it. Although I expect they were quite thrilled to be able to report me as a 178 instead of a 156 to USNews.

And yes, apparently the consensus (at least among a couple of people here) seems to be that I'm a flame. Can't really say I give a sh*t.

The real question is why did you bother retaking even though you were already in at NYU.

[Pop Up Video]

My first diagnostic was a fake online PR thing, but they gave me a 159. So I guess you could say I went up 17 points in ~6 months.

[treefity350]

do you all think the lsat is still valid as an indicator of how well you will do in the study/practice of law if you study for a year for it? In other words, if the LSAT is supposed to test innate analytic reasonings skills, and someone 'learns' how to pass the lsat, have they truly learned how to be better on thier feet analytical thinkers (a skill which would, in fact, help them in the study and practice of law) or have they just shown that they can master a particular symbolic language after a year of practice? Not trying to burst anyone's bubble. In any case I think the fact that you can study for a year solid for this one test is proof of a kind of perserverence that may be missing in many first time 170+ scorers, but I just wonder if the test effectively measures what it is supposed to when its studied for.

[treefity350]

Jeffort, your point is well taken. But I have to say that whether or not the LSAT is 'supposed' to test innate analytical reasoning skills is in some ways unimportant to the question I was really trying to pose. Perhaps it would be better phrased as a couple of seperate questions, as such: Does mastery of the LSAT prove mastery of analytic reasoning? Isn't it possible that those people who study hard for, and improve on, the LSAT, rather than learning to be "better" analytic reasoners, instead only memorize certain symbolic forms? And if this is the case, then later on in thier careers, when they're face with new symbolic forms, will it take them another year to master these forms? I guess my issue with your response is this: You seem to make the assumption that those people who have gained 'LSAT logical reasoning question skill' have learned 'logical reasoning skill' and I wonder if these are the same thing. I'm not saying they are not, I'm just not convinced that they are.