Subscription pricing
Hey there,
I want to check on whether I'm evaluating my LSAT progress and scoring potential correctly.
Basically, I've been averaging two versions of my score: 1) my score if the experimental section were my worst performing section and 2) my score if the experimental section were my best performing section.
I started doing this because I noticed the experimental section would often wind up being the anomaly among my sections. In other words, I felt like my practice test score would be due to a huge amount of good luck or bad luck!
My question is, is it reasonable to track my progress this way? I really wanted to ask today because I've gotten the biggest discrepancy between these two versions of my scores yet. One is a 171 and one is a 179. I got a full score on two LRs, -2 on the one RC, and -5 on one LR. The experimental section was one of the LRs I got a full score on. So the actual score, where the experimental section is left as originally is, is a 171.
But the average (175) is the biggest improvement I've seen, so I do want to believe that I've made some good progress. But if I'm evaluating my scores wrong and I really should only be paying attention to the 171, I need to face the facts haha.
I appreciate your advice.
This was me until not too long ago (and honestly, even now, I'm getting low 170s only, which is another few points after 168). I think for me, the issue wasn't just LSAT-specific skills. It was related to life skills as well, haha. For example -- letting nerves get to me, having a perfectionist mindset with questions, trying to read RC passages too closely.
I'd really recommend identifying what's holding your score down. It might be a specific question type, or it might just be RC vs. LR in general. For me, since I was doing a lot better on LR than RC, and I knew I was having trouble completing all RC questions on time, I think I really started to improve in RC after practicing reading in general. News articles, books, and stuff like that. I think starting a new job where I had to read dozens of legal documents really helped, too. It's only after months of "life" I realized that I had to start embracing SKIMMING to break that 170 ceiling.
Last thought is -- I've seen lots of sources say that 170 is called a "ceiling" for a reason. It's harder to break from high 160s to low 170s, for example, than mid 160s to high 160s. Also, if you're already scoring in the high 160s range, you're already doing really, really well. So it's about getting just a couple of questions more right.........and there's likely a specific reason those couple of questions evade you.
Good luck! Don't give up. It was so discouraging for me when I was stuck in that mid-to-high 160s range, but I promise, even if it takes forever, it is possible.