- Joined
- Jul 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
As someone who earned a 515 on the MCAT (~91st percentile) and a 170 on the LSAT (~97th percentile) on my first attempts, then improved to a 520 on the MCAT (~97th percentile) and a 175 on the LSAT (~99th percentile) on my second attempts, my biggest advice is: don't underestimate how much you can improve when you still have months before test day.
Going from a 152 diagnostic into the 160s in three months is a major accomplishment. I would focus less on whether 174 sounds ambitious and more on systematically eliminating every category of mistake. I’d thoroughly review every missed question, analyze why I chose the wrong answer, review questions I guessed correctly, and keep an error log to identify recurring weaknesses.
I’d also prioritize accuracy before speed. Once my reasoning became consistently reliable, I would gradually push my timing. With months remaining, I’d use full timed PTs to make sure my improvements transfer under realistic conditions.
My own progression from 170 → 175 on the LSAT is a reminder that a strong score isn't necessarily the endpoint. If I were in your position, I’d absolutely keep 174 as a stretch goal while concentrating on making 165+, then 170+, increasingly consistent.
And getting every section under double-digit wrong answers is absolutely worth celebrating. Going from 12 wrong in one LR section to that level of consistency shows real progress. Keep building on the process—you don't need to know today whether 174 is possible; you just need to keep becoming the person capable of scoring it.
I can relate to this, especially because I earned a 170 on the LSAT (roughly 95th–97th percentile) and a 515 on the MCAT (roughly 91st percentile). The biggest thing I learned is that being capable of getting the questions right is not the same skill as being able to execute under a clock. When there is a huge BR-to-timed gap, I would treat execution itself as the content you need to train.
For me, the biggest tactical change would be to stop measuring success primarily by whether I can eventually solve a question and start measuring how efficiently I make decisions while timed.
1. I would train myself to leave questions deliberately
I would create a hard rule:
If I have spent ~60–90 seconds without making meaningful progress, I move.
And I would practice this deliberately rather than waiting for it to happen naturally.
The key mental shift is that skipping is not giving up on the question. I am buying time for questions I have a higher probability of getting correct.
If I hit a difficult question, I would ask:
“Do I have a concrete path to the answer, or am I just rereading and hoping something clicks?”
If the answer is the latter, I flag it, make the best strategic move available, and continue.
I would actually drill this behavior. Take a timed section and intentionally practice leaving 2–4 questions that are consuming disproportionate time. Then review whether those decisions improved my overall section score.
You want walking away to become automatic, not something you have to emotionally negotiate with yourself every time.
2. I would stop letting one question dictate the entire section
This was probably the most important principle for me:
A hard question is worth exactly one question.
It is not worth sacrificing three subsequent questions because I became determined to conquer it.
If I spend 3 minutes fighting one question and then rush through four easier questions, I have allowed one difficult question to cost me multiple points.
I would therefore develop a very specific reset routine:
Recognize → Flag → Move → Reset.
No frustration, no internal debate, no “I should be able to get this.” Just execute the system.
3. I would absolutely continue full PTs
I would not eliminate full practice tests five weeks before the exam.
However, I also wouldn't take full PTs every day.
I'd use full PTs to diagnose whether my execution is transferring under realistic conditions, while using individual timed sections to fix specific execution problems.
A reasonable structure would be:
Weeks 1–2
1–2 full PTs/week
Several timed individual sections
Thorough BR/error analysis
Specific timing drills
Weeks 3–4
2 full PTs/week
Timed sections between PTs
Continue targeted drills based on recurring failures
Begin reproducing actual test-day conditions
Final week
Reduce volume
One or two final realistic simulations early enough to learn from them
Focus heavily on consistency, pacing, confidence, and sleep
Avoid trying to learn massive amounts of new material
The exact number of PTs matters less than whether each one produces actionable information.
4. I would keep an execution-error log
This is probably the single most useful thing I'd recommend.
After every timed section, categorize every missed question into something like:
Content/understanding
Misread
Timing
Changed correct answer
Overthought
Failed to recognize question type
Got stuck too long
Ran out of time
Panic/cognitive overload
Careless error
Then compare that against BR.
If you're consistently going 167–170 in BR but 140s timed, I wouldn't spend the next five weeks obsessively doing more untimed questions. Your data is already telling you that you can reason through the material.
Your question becomes:
Where exactly does my performance break down when the clock is running?
That's what I would attack.
5. I would practice pacing rather than merely timing
There's a difference between doing a section with a clock and actually having a pacing system.
I would establish checkpoints for myself and know approximately where I should be at different points in the section.
If I'm significantly behind at a checkpoint, I don't panic. I immediately become more selective about how long I'm willing to spend on individual questions.
The goal isn't to finish every question perfectly.
The goal is to maximize expected correct answers over the entire section.
That's a completely different mindset.
6. BR should become diagnostic, not comforting
One trap I'd avoid is getting a 170 in BR and thinking, “Great, I'm actually a 170.”
Your BR score tells you that your reasoning ceiling may be around that level. It does not guarantee that you'll produce that score under time pressure.
I'd therefore compare:
Timed answer → BR answer → Correct answer → Why the timed decision failed
That fourth column is the gold.
For example:
“I knew how to solve this, but I spent 2:45 because I refused to skip.”
That's not a content problem.
Or:
“I understood the stimulus but reread it three times because I panicked.”
That's not a content problem either.
Those are execution behaviors, and behaviors can be drilled.
7. I'd deliberately practice being uncomfortable
This is especially important with five weeks left.
I would occasionally do sections under conditions that force me to practice recovering from mistakes:
Start with a difficult question.
Intentionally skip a question.
If I fall behind, practice recovering rather than panicking.
Practice moving on even when I feel uncertain.
Practice making educated guesses without emotionally dwelling on them.
You want to teach your brain:
“I can feel behind and still execute.”
That is much more valuable than trying to create a practice environment where everything feels comfortable.
The biggest thing I'd change
If I had to choose one intervention, it would be this:
Train decision-making under time pressure, not just question-solving ability.
Your 167–170 BR performance is encouraging. I wouldn't interpret the 140s as evidence that you suddenly don't know LSAT material. I'd interpret the enormous gap as evidence that your current process collapses under time pressure.
Five weeks is enough time to make meaningful progress, but I'd stop trying to “prove” that you can get the questions right untimed.
Now I'd make every practice session answer one question:
“Can I make the correct decision quickly enough?”
If you can turn “I need to solve this” into “I need to make the best decision with the time available,” I think you'll be attacking the actual problem.
I can relate to this, especially because I earned a 170 on the LSAT (roughly 95th–97th percentile) and a 515 on the MCAT (roughly 91st percentile). The biggest thing I learned is that being capable of getting the questions right is not the same skill as being able to execute under a clock. When there is a huge BR-to-timed gap, I would treat execution itself as the content you need to train.
For me, the biggest tactical change would be to stop measuring success primarily by whether I can eventually solve a question and start measuring how efficiently I make decisions while timed.
1. I would train myself to leave questions deliberately
I would create a hard rule:
If I have spent ~60–90 seconds without making meaningful progress, I move.
And I would practice this deliberately rather than waiting for it to happen naturally.
The key mental shift is that skipping is not giving up on the question. I am buying time for questions I have a higher probability of getting correct.
If I hit a difficult question, I would ask:
“Do I have a concrete path to the answer, or am I just rereading and hoping something clicks?”
If the answer is the latter, I flag it, make the best strategic move available, and continue.
I would actually drill this behavior. Take a timed section and intentionally practice leaving 2–4 questions that are consuming disproportionate time. Then review whether those decisions improved my overall section score.
You want walking away to become automatic, not something you have to emotionally negotiate with yourself every time.
2. I would stop letting one question dictate the entire section
This was probably the most important principle for me:
A hard question is worth exactly one question.
It is not worth sacrificing three subsequent questions because I became determined to conquer it.
If I spend 3 minutes fighting one question and then rush through four easier questions, I have allowed one difficult question to cost me multiple points.
I would therefore develop a very specific reset routine:
Recognize → Flag → Move → Reset.
No frustration, no internal debate, no “I should be able to get this.” Just execute the system.
3. I would absolutely continue full PTs
I would not eliminate full practice tests five weeks before the exam.
However, I also wouldn't take full PTs every day.
I'd use full PTs to diagnose whether my execution is transferring under realistic conditions, while using individual timed sections to fix specific execution problems.
A reasonable structure would be:
Weeks 1–2
1–2 full PTs/week
Several timed individual sections
Thorough BR/error analysis
Specific timing drills
Weeks 3–4
2 full PTs/week
Timed sections between PTs
Continue targeted drills based on recurring failures
Begin reproducing actual test-day conditions
Final week
Reduce volume
One or two final realistic simulations early enough to learn from them
Focus heavily on consistency, pacing, confidence, and sleep
Avoid trying to learn massive amounts of new material
The exact number of PTs matters less than whether each one produces actionable information.
4. I would keep an execution-error log
This is probably the single most useful thing I'd recommend.
After every timed section, categorize every missed question into something like:
Content/understanding
Misread
Timing
Changed correct answer
Overthought
Failed to recognize question type
Got stuck too long
Ran out of time
Panic/cognitive overload
Careless error
Then compare that against BR.
If you're consistently going 167–170 in BR but 140s timed, I wouldn't spend the next five weeks obsessively doing more untimed questions. Your data is already telling you that you can reason through the material.
Your question becomes:
Where exactly does my performance break down when the clock is running?
That's what I would attack.
5. I would practice pacing rather than merely timing
There's a difference between doing a section with a clock and actually having a pacing system.
I would establish checkpoints for myself and know approximately where I should be at different points in the section.
If I'm significantly behind at a checkpoint, I don't panic. I immediately become more selective about how long I'm willing to spend on individual questions.
The goal isn't to finish every question perfectly.
The goal is to maximize expected correct answers over the entire section.
That's a completely different mindset.
6. BR should become diagnostic, not comforting
One trap I'd avoid is getting a 170 in BR and thinking, “Great, I'm actually a 170.”
Your BR score tells you that your reasoning ceiling may be around that level. It does not guarantee that you'll produce that score under time pressure.
I'd therefore compare:
Timed answer → BR answer → Correct answer → Why the timed decision failed
That fourth column is the gold.
For example:
“I knew how to solve this, but I spent 2:45 because I refused to skip.”
That's not a content problem.
Or:
“I understood the stimulus but reread it three times because I panicked.”
That's not a content problem either.
Those are execution behaviors, and behaviors can be drilled.
7. I'd deliberately practice being uncomfortable
This is especially important with five weeks left.
I would occasionally do sections under conditions that force me to practice recovering from mistakes:
Start with a difficult question.
Intentionally skip a question.
If I fall behind, practice recovering rather than panicking.
Practice moving on even when I feel uncertain.
Practice making educated guesses without emotionally dwelling on them.
You want to teach your brain:
“I can feel behind and still execute.”
That is much more valuable than trying to create a practice environment where everything feels comfortable.
The biggest thing I'd change
If I had to choose one intervention, it would be this:
Train decision-making under time pressure, not just question-solving ability.
Your 167–170 BR performance is encouraging. I wouldn't interpret the 140s as evidence that you suddenly don't know LSAT material. I'd interpret the enormous gap as evidence that your current process collapses under time pressure.
Five weeks is enough time to make meaningful progress, but I'd stop trying to “prove” that you can get the questions right untimed.
Now I'd make every practice session answer one question:
“Can I make the correct decision quickly enough?”
If you can turn “I need to solve this” into “I need to make the best decision with the time available,” I think you'll be attacking the actual problem.
I can definitely relate. I actually started with a 142 LSAT diagnostic, and my early practice tests were 164, 166, 168, and 168 before I eventually broke through to a 170 LSAT (about the 97th percentile). On the MCAT, my early full-length practice exams were in the 495–500 range, then I progressed through the 503–506 range, then 508–511, before eventually earning a 515 (about the 91st percentile) on the official exam. The MCAT is scored on a 472–528 scale.
For me, the biggest jump wasn't about learning brand-new concepts—it was about eliminating the small, inconsistent mistakes. I started reviewing every missed question (and even the ones I got right but wasn't 100% confident on) to figure out why I was tempted by the wrong answer. I kept a detailed error log and looked for recurring patterns instead of treating each miss as an isolated mistake.
For the LSAT, I focused on slowing down just enough in LR to identify the conclusion, evidence, and assumption before looking at the answer choices. I also forced myself to predict the correct answer whenever possible instead of immediately comparing the choices. For RC, I concentrated on understanding the author's purpose, viewpoint, and the role each paragraph played in the passage. Once I stopped trying to memorize details and instead focused on the passage's structure, I found that I could answer most questions by knowing exactly where to look.
For the MCAT, my biggest gains came from treating every full-length exam as a learning opportunity rather than just another score. I thoroughly reviewed every question—especially the ones I guessed correctly—to understand the underlying science and reasoning. I emphasized active recall, spaced repetition for content review, passage analysis, and identifying whether each mistake came from a content gap, flawed reasoning, or poor execution. Over time, that made my performance much more consistent.
One other thing that helped on both exams was reviewing my correct answers. If I couldn't clearly explain why every incorrect answer choice was wrong, I considered that question unfinished. That level of review made a huge difference.
Based on what you described, it sounds like you're already very close. If your reasoning is usually matching the official explanations, the jump into the 170s is often about tightening consistency, trusting your process, and reducing those last few avoidable errors rather than making major changes to your approach.
@LiamSturgess I completely relate to that experience. I’ve found that even when you’re performing at a high level, a single PT can make it feel like you’ve suddenly lost progress, when in reality it’s often just exposing a specific weakness or a few habits that need refinement.
I earned a 170 on the LSAT (approximately the 96th percentile) and a 515 on the MCAT (approximately the 91st percentile), and one thing I learned from preparing for both exams is that high scores don’t come from never making mistakes — they come from becoming extremely efficient at diagnosing and eliminating recurring mistakes.
Since you identified Conditional Reasoning as a consistent weakness, I think focusing there is exactly the right move. I would go beyond just watching explanations and really analyze the reasoning chain: identify the sufficient/necessary conditions, translate the relationships carefully, and ask yourself exactly where your thought process diverged from the correct approach.
I also found that keeping an error log was incredibly valuable. For each missed question, I would record the question type, why I chose my answer, why it was wrong, and what specific trigger I should recognize next time. Over time, patterns become much easier to spot.
Also, a jump from 160 to 176 shows you absolutely have the ability to score at that level. The 160 likely wasn’t a regression — it was a data point showing where your process broke down that day. If you can turn those Conditional Reasoning misses into a strength, your consistency should improve significantly. Best of luck with your studying as well!
One thing that helped me was changing the way I looked at bad sections. I earned a 170 on the LSAT (about the 96th percentile) and a 515 on the MCAT (about the 91st percentile), and I still had practice tests where I'd randomly drop several questions in a section. Those fluctuations are completely normal, even for high scorers.
What made the biggest difference for me was keeping an error journal. For every missed or uncertain question, I'd write down:
Why I picked the wrong answer (misread, rushed, overlooked a qualifier, fell for an attractive distractor, etc.).
Why the correct answer is objectively correct.
What concrete habit would have prevented the mistake.
The last point is the most important. Instead of writing "be more careful," I'd write something actionable like:
"Slow down when evaluating 'most strongly supported' questions."
"Always identify the conclusion before reading the answer choices."
"Verify that the correct answer is supported by the stimulus rather than my assumptions."
I also reviewed my best sections. If I went -0 or -1, I'd ask myself why. Did I stay disciplined? Did I avoid second-guessing? Was my pacing steady? I wanted to reinforce the habits that produced great sections just as much as I wanted to eliminate bad ones.
One more thing: if you're consistently scoring 170+ but occasionally have a -5 LR section, I'd be more interested in whether the mistakes follow a pattern than in the score itself. Are they clustered at the end because of pacing? Are they all Necessary Assumption questions? Are they mostly questions you changed from right to wrong? Patterns are fixable; random variance is part of standardized testing.
At your current level, consistency usually comes from refining a handful of recurring habits rather than learning new content. If you can identify and eliminate even one repeat mistake, those occasional -5 sections often become -2 or -1 sections over time.
Congratulations on your 168—that's an excellent score, and it's awesome that you're volunteering your time to help others.
I'd be happy to help as well. I earned a 170 on the LSAT (approximately the 95th–96th percentile) and a 515 on the MCAT (approximately the 90th–92nd percentile), so I've spent a lot of time developing strategies for both exams.
If anyone is looking for another person to work through questions with, I'm also happy to hop on Zoom and explain my reasoning step by step. Sometimes hearing the same concept explained in a different way makes everything click. Whether it's Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension, or general test-taking strategy, I'd be glad to help however I can. Best of luck to everyone preparing—you've got this!
@lagata My pleasure! I'm really glad it helped. I think that's a great decision. Writing things down at work has made a huge difference for me because it gets those thoughts out of my head and onto paper, so I'm not carrying them around afterward. I hope it helps you too, and I'm wishing you all the best!
I completely relate to this. I worked while studying, and one thing that helped me was accepting that I could never do my best studying if part of my brain was still at work.
For context, I earned a 515 on the MCAT (about the 91st percentile) and a 170 on the LSAT (about the 96th percentile). These are the habits that made the biggest difference for me:
I gave myself a 20–30 minute "shutdown routine" after work. I wrote down every client issue, task, or idea that was on my mind. Once it was on paper, I reminded myself, "I'll handle this tomorrow." That made it much easier to mentally transition into study mode.
Before opening my books, I spent 5–10 minutes taking a walk, stretching, or doing light exercise. That physical transition helped separate work from studying.
I studied in a different environment whenever possible. Even moving to another room or a library made my brain associate that location with LSAT mode instead of work mode.
I studied in focused blocks (45–60 minutes) with my phone completely out of sight. Even brief interruptions noticeably reduced my concentration.
I didn't aim for perfect focus—I aimed to get started. Once I was 10–15 minutes into a Logical Reasoning section or Reading Comprehension passage, the work thoughts usually faded on their own.
As for actually enjoying the LSAT, my mindset changed when I stopped treating it like a test and started treating it like a game of finding flaws in arguments and solving puzzles.
A few things that helped:
I celebrated getting difficult questions right instead of being frustrated when I missed them.
I reviewed every mistake until I could explain exactly why the correct answer was right and why every other choice was wrong.
I tracked my progress instead of obsessing over my score. Watching my accuracy improve made studying much more rewarding.
I reminded myself that every question has one objectively correct answer. That made the exam feel like a puzzle with rules rather than something subjective.
The people I know who scored in the 170s didn't necessarily "love" the LSAT at first—they learned to enjoy the challenge because every mistake was an opportunity to sharpen their reasoning. Once I viewed each question as a puzzle instead of an obstacle, studying became much more engaging, and my focus improved significantly.
@superchillasian Thank you so much for your kind words and support! I really appreciate it. It means a lot to hear that my journey has been inspiring. The road definitely had its ups and downs, but staying consistent made a huge difference, and I’m excited for the next chapter in law school.
For context, I was fortunate to earn a 515 on the MCAT (approximately the 91st percentile) and a 170 on the LSAT (approximately the 96th percentile). Those scores came from a lot of disciplined preparation, consistency, and learning from mistakes along the way.
If there’s one piece of advice I would give, it’s to focus on steady improvement rather than perfection. Small gains every day add up over time. If my experience can motivate someone else to keep going, then sharing it is absolutely worthwhile.
Thank you again for the encouragement. I wish you all the success with your own goals, and I’m confident that with persistence and hard work, you can achieve them too. Wishing you nothing but the very best! 🩵
@KeltonRivas Thank you so much! I really appreciate your kind words, and I wish you the very best on your journey toward a 170.
Having earned a 170 on the LSAT (approximately the 95th–97th percentile) and a 515 on the MCAT (approximately the 91st percentile), the biggest lessons I learned were that consistency, careful review, and focusing on the quality of preparation matter more than simply increasing the number of hours studied.
For the LSAT, my best advice is:
Master the fundamentals before chasing speed. Make sure you fully understand why each answer choice is right or wrong.
Keep an error log. Every missed question should become a lesson. Identify whether the mistake came from misunderstanding the stimulus, a logic error, rushing, or falling for a trap answer.
Prioritize accuracy first, then timing. Speed naturally improves once your recognition of patterns becomes stronger.
Practice under realistic conditions. Full-length timed exams are essential for building endurance and confidence.
For the MCAT, my biggest recommendations are:
Focus on active learning rather than passive review. Practice questions and explaining concepts in your own words are much more valuable than rereading content.
Review every practice question deeply. Understanding why you missed something is where the greatest improvement happens.
Build strong foundations in the sciences while continuously practicing passage-based reasoning.
Develop a consistent schedule and track weaknesses over time.
Most importantly, don't become discouraged by practice scores that are lower than your goal. Improvement often happens gradually, and every mistake is an opportunity to strengthen your approach. Stay disciplined, trust the process, and keep refining your strategy.
I’m rooting for you—you can absolutely make significant progress with the right preparation and mindset. Best of luck on your LSAT journey!
@J.Y.Ping Thank you so much! I really appreciate your kind words.
My final LSAT score was 170. Because my long-term goal is to practice medical malpractice law while also training as a physician, I prepared for and took both the LSAT and the MCAT. The LSAT was essential for pursuing legal education, while the MCAT was required for medical school admissions. Since I plan to build a career at the intersection of medicine and law, strong preparation for both exams was an important part of that path.
I ultimately earned a 170 on the LSAT (approximately the 95th–97th percentile) and a 515 on the MCAT (approximately the 91st percentile). Reaching those scores took consistent preparation, careful review of my mistakes, and steady improvement over time. My progress wasn't the result of one breakthrough—it came from continually refining my approach, strengthening my reasoning skills, and learning from each practice test.
If anyone has questions about preparing for either exam or wants advice on pursuing both medicine and law, I'm always happy to share what I learned and help however I can.
@PhoebeHopp Thank you so much! I really appreciate your kind words.
My final LSAT score was 170. Because my long-term goal is to practice medical malpractice law while also training as a physician, I prepared for and took both the LSAT and the MCAT. The LSAT was essential for pursuing legal education, while the MCAT was required for medical school admissions. Since I plan to build a career at the intersection of medicine and law, strong preparation for both exams was an important part of that path.
I ultimately earned a 170 on the LSAT (approximately the 95th–97th percentile) and a 515 on the MCAT (approximately the 91st percentile). Reaching those scores took consistent preparation, careful review of my mistakes, and steady improvement over time. My progress wasn't the result of one breakthrough—it came from continually refining my approach, strengthening my reasoning skills, and learning from each practice test.
If anyone has questions about preparing for either exam or wants advice on pursuing both medicine and law, I'm always happy to share what I learned and help however I can.
@KeltonRivas Thank you so much! I really appreciate your kind words.
My final LSAT score was 170. Because my long-term goal is to practice medical malpractice law while also training as a physician, I prepared for and took both the LSAT and the MCAT. The LSAT was essential for pursuing legal education, while the MCAT was required for medical school admissions. Since I plan to build a career at the intersection of medicine and law, strong preparation for both exams was an important part of that path.
I ultimately earned a 170 on the LSAT (approximately the 95th–97th percentile) and a 515 on the MCAT (approximately the 91st percentile). Reaching those scores took consistent preparation, careful review of my mistakes, and steady improvement over time. My progress wasn't the result of one breakthrough—it came from continually refining my approach, strengthening my reasoning skills, and learning from each practice test.
If anyone has questions about preparing for either exam or wants advice on pursuing both medicine and law, I'm always happy to share what I learned and help however I can.
@bilingualspeechpath107 Thank you so much! It’s my pleasure, and I truly appreciate your kind words. I completely understand how you feel, but keep pushing forward and don’t give up. I started with my lowest practice exam scores and had to keep improving through persistence, discipline, and believing in the process. Applying for accommodations like TLL can be an important step in creating the right testing environment, so keep advocating for yourself. Wishing you the very best on your LSAT journey—you’ve got this!
One additional thing I wanted to share is that my journey did not begin with strong practice scores. My first MCAT practice exam was a 472 (the minimum possible composite score based on four 118 section scores), and my first LSAT practice exam was a 120. At that point, the goal I was working toward felt extremely far away.
The gap between where I started and where I ultimately finished was built through consistency, discipline, and learning from every mistake. I had to completely rebuild my approach, strengthen my foundations, and commit to improving a little bit every day.
Eventually, that work led to earning a 515 on the MCAT (approximately the 91st percentile) and a 170 on the LSAT (approximately the 97th percentile), along with a 4.0 GPA.
The biggest lesson I learned is that your starting point does not determine your destination. A disappointing diagnostic score is simply a snapshot of where you are today—not a limit on where you can go. Keep working, trust the process, and remember that significant growth is possible with dedication and perseverance.
Congratulations! This is an incredible accomplishment, and your perseverance is truly inspiring. Stories like yours are a reminder that setbacks don't define the outcome—determination, resilience, and consistency do.
Your journey resonates with me because I've also dedicated years to pursuing ambitious academic goals. I was incredibly grateful to earn a 4.0 GPA, a 515 on the MCAT (approximately the 91st percentile), and a 170 on the LSAT (approximately the 97th percentile). Those achievements ultimately led to acceptances to MD–JD programs at many of the nation's most selective institutions, including Harvard, Yale, the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Stanford, Northwestern, the University of Chicago, the University of Michigan, the University of Virginia, and other leading MD–JD programs from all these schools. Receiving full-ride scholarships made the opportunity even more meaningful, and I'm deeply thankful for everyone who supported me throughout the journey.
Your story is another example that persistence pays off. Congratulations again on your acceptance and scholarship. I wish you every success as you begin law school this fall, and I hope others who are facing setbacks today will keep believing in themselves and continue working toward their goals. Please do not hesitate to ask me questions for everyone and anyone needing advice.
I completely understand where you’re coming from. I experienced a similar challenge while preparing for major standardized exams. I earned a 515 on the MCAT (approximately the 91st percentile) and a 170 on the LSAT (approximately the 97th percentile), and one of the biggest lessons I learned was that maximizing study time does not mean studying at maximum intensity every single day.
When I started feeling burnout, I focused on making my preparation more sustainable rather than simply adding more hours. A few things that helped me:
Build in intentional recovery time: I treated rest as part of my study plan rather than something I had to “earn.” A consistent schedule with breaks helped me stay focused over the long term.
Prioritize quality over quantity: A few hours of deeply focused LSAT practice with thorough review was often more valuable than forcing myself through endless drills while mentally exhausted.
Track progress beyond scores: I paid attention to improvements in specific skills—like recognizing patterns, reducing mistakes, and improving timing—rather than only judging myself by practice test numbers.
Change the routine, but keep structure: Studying in different locations, volunteering, exercising, and maintaining hobbies can help prevent monotony, but having a predictable daily framework is what kept me consistent.
Review mistakes carefully: For the LSAT especially, improvement came less from doing more questions and more from understanding exactly why I missed questions and building better habits.
Since you still have about a month before starting your new job, I would try to view this period as a marathon rather than a sprint. The goal is to arrive at test day confident, mentally sharp, and consistent—not exhausted from trying to be perfect every day.
You’re already doing a lot of the right things by recognizing burnout early and making adjustments. Keep protecting your energy while continuing deliberate practice, and you’ll put yourself in a much stronger position for September.
I was in a similar position before my official MCAT. What ultimately helped me earn a 515 (91st percentile) was focusing on consistency and learning from every mistake rather than just trying to complete more practice questions.
A few things made the biggest difference for me:
I took a full-length practice exam regularly under realistic testing conditions and spent far more time reviewing it than taking it.
I kept a detailed error log to identify patterns in my mistakes, whether they were content gaps, reasoning errors, or misreading the question.
I made sure I truly understood every question I missed instead of simply memorizing the correct answer.
I prioritized high-yield topics while still reviewing weaker areas consistently.
I used spaced repetition for equations, amino acids, metabolic pathways, and other concepts that required long-term retention.
I practiced CARS every day, focusing on understanding the author's reasoning rather than rushing through passages.
I treated every practice exam as if it were the real MCAT so test day felt familiar.
The biggest improvement came from the quality of my review, not the quantity of questions I completed. Once I started fixing the underlying reasons for my mistakes instead of repeating them, my scores steadily improved and eventually reached 515.
If you're feeling stuck, don't get discouraged. Progress on the MCAT is rarely linear. Stay consistent, trust your review process, and keep building on your weaknesses one step at a time. You've got this!
I was in a similar position before my official LSAT. What ultimately helped me earn a 170 (97th percentile) was improving my consistency rather than looking for a single breakthrough.
A few things made the biggest difference for me:
I took a timed, full-length practice test every week and thoroughly reviewed every question afterward, especially the ones I answered correctly for the wrong reasons.
I kept an error log to identify recurring patterns in my mistakes instead of simply tracking my score.
I focused on accuracy first, then gradually increased my pace. Speed came naturally as my reasoning improved.
For Logical Reasoning, I practiced identifying the conclusion, evidence, and assumption before looking at the answer choices.
For Reading Comprehension, I concentrated on understanding the author's viewpoint and the structure of the passage rather than trying to memorize every detail.
I simulated official testing conditions as closely as possible so test day felt routine.
The review process was far more valuable than taking additional practice tests. Once I began understanding why I was making mistakes and eliminated those patterns, my score consistently moved into the 160s and eventually reached 170.
You're already scoring in the 154–158 range, so you're within striking distance of your goal. Stay disciplined with your review, trust the process, and don't let a single practice test define your progress. Good luck in August—you've got this!
I earned a 515 on the MCAT (≈91st–92nd percentile) and a 170 on the LSAT (≈97th–98th percentile), and the biggest shift for me was realizing that understanding material during review and performing under timed conditions are almost completely different skills.
At first, I was exactly in the same situation: I would drill questions, review them carefully, and feel like I “got it,” but my full-length performance stayed flat. The breakthrough happened when I stopped treating review as the goal. Review only told me what was wrong—it didn’t train me to not do it again under time pressure.
What actually moved my scores:
I stopped relying on passive understanding and forced repetition under conditions that matched the real exam. Every missed question wasn’t just reviewed—I re-did it cold days later until I could consistently get it right without hesitation. That gap between “I recognize it” and “I can generate it under pressure” is where most score ceilings live.
I also stopped treating full-length tests as progress indicators on their own. A single PT meant very little. What mattered was whether the same mistake type was disappearing over time. When I noticed patterns—like misreading conditional logic or falling for LSAT trap answers—I trained those categories in isolation instead of doing broad, unfocused practice.
Another key adjustment was separating accuracy from speed. I first trained myself to get near-perfect accuracy untimed, then gradually layered in timing pressure. Trying to do both at once earlier just reinforced mistakes.
Mentally, what kept me consistent was not expecting every PT to improve. My scores fluctuated, but I tracked progress by error elimination, not raw numbers. Once repeated mistakes started disappearing, the score jump followed naturally.
The discouraging part early on is that improvement feels invisible. But at this level, progress is mostly happening in pattern correction, not in obvious score jumps until a threshold breaks.
I don't think you're late at all. I know people who started the process several years after graduating and were very successful. The most important thing is submitting the strongest application you can, not rushing it.
For context, I earned a 515 MCAT (about the 91st percentile), a 170 LSAT (about the 97th percentile), an 800 GMAT Focus (100th percentile), and a 340 GRE (about the 99th percentile). Based on my experience preparing for standardized tests, I'd recommend focusing on earning the highest LSAT score you can rather than trying to test as early as possible.
An October LSAT can still work for Fall 2027 applications, but if you think waiting until a later administration would result in a meaningfully higher score, that can be a worthwhile tradeoff depending on your target schools and application timeline. A stronger LSAT score generally has a greater impact than rushing to take the exam before you're ready.
My biggest tips would be:
Don't rush your LSAT preparation—master logical reasoning and take plenty of timed practice tests.
Apply as early in the admissions cycle as you reasonably can after you have your score.
Spend time crafting a compelling personal statement and obtaining strong letters of recommendation.
Apply broadly, including reach, target, and safety schools.
You've got plenty of time to put together a competitive application for Fall 2027. A well-prepared application is far more valuable than simply being a few weeks earlier.
I can definitely relate to the feeling of being stuck at a score plateau. When I was preparing, I ultimately earned a 170 LSAT (approximately the 97th percentile) and a 515 MCAT (approximately the 91st percentile), and one of the biggest lessons I learned was that the jump from the mid-160s to 170+ is very different from the jump from the 150s to the 160s.
At a 165, you're already getting the vast majority of questions correct. The difference between 165 and 170 is often just a handful of questions per test, which means the focus shifts from learning concepts to eliminating recurring mistakes.
A few things that helped me:
Track every missed question by type. Don't just review why an answer was wrong. Create an error log and look for patterns. Are the misses concentrated in Necessary Assumption, Parallel Reasoning, Strengthen, Weaken, RC inference questions, or something else? Many people think their mistakes are random when they're actually clustered.
Study the questions you get wrong after predicting the answer. If you're successfully predicting most answers but still missing questions, the issue may not be comprehension. It may be that attractive wrong answers are pulling you away from your initial reasoning. Analyze exactly what made the wrong choice tempting.
Slow down on the hardest questions. The highest-difficulty questions are often where 170+ scorers separate themselves. Rather than trying to force speed everywhere, make sure you're fully understanding the argument structure and answer choice language on those final few questions.
Review correct answers too. Some of my biggest improvements came from questions I answered correctly but wasn't fully confident about. Those are often hidden weaknesses waiting to become future mistakes.
Prioritize quality over volume. Two hundred questions per day is an enormous workload. If you're already averaging 86% on drills, it may be more beneficial to spend additional time dissecting the hardest misses than simply completing more questions.
Look for recurring reasoning errors rather than content gaps. At your level, improvements often come from refining judgment—recognizing subtle logical shifts, scope issues, causation problems, and unsupported assumptions.
An 86% drill average and consecutive 165 practice tests suggest that you're already operating at a strong level. If you continue identifying and eliminating the specific reasons behind those 5–7 misses per section, a move into the high 160s and potentially 170+ by August is absolutely realistic. The key is making your review process more precise than your practice process.
Hi Ethan,
Thank you for sharing this update. I appreciate the heads-up about the changes to application requirements, especially the increased use of Why X essays and the “agreeable disagreement” essays.
I earned a 515 on the MCAT, approximately the 91st percentile, and a 170 on the LSAT, approximately the 94th percentile. I’m particularly interested in pursuing a JD–MD and am looking carefully at how these updated law-school requirements may affect my applications.
I’ll definitely review the updated requirements on 7Sage, including the schools that have not yet announced their changes. I also appreciate the opportunity to use 7Sage Admissions as a resource as I navigate the application process.
Thank you again for the information!