[Ended] Disappointing Scores: Let's Talk About It

Cant Get Right

Hey 7Sagers, this time of year can be rough for those of us who are disappointed in our scores as the cycle begins coming to its end, and paths forward begin to feel closed. There are hard choices to make, difficult conversations to have, and challenging emotions to process. I gave up LSAT and law school altogether when my last-chance-for-the-cycle score came back a point lower than my previous test. I got back to it eventually, but it took months to process. And things worked out fine for me.

And they'll work out fine for you too.

Anyway, I thought it might be good for folks to meet up and talk through some of this. I'm happy to moderate and talk about my experiences, but mostly I think it's just good to hear from others in a similar situation.

fatimahbajaha23

Can't wait to attend.

Bloomfield

I got a 131 diagnostic without test accommodations and a 137 with time and a half. I have a severe physical disability, so I will more than likely be able to get time and a half. Either way, these scores seem so low for a diagnostic when I hear stores about people getting high 140s, or even 150s, to sometimes 160s diagnostic scores.

This is a little disheartening considering I come from a background in English and graduated with a Literature & Writing degree. I hear all the time how people do well on the LSAT if they're good at English. I feel like I am good at English and write well too. I don't understand why my diagnostic is so low; I think someone could borderline guess on all the questions and probably get a higher score than that. I am shooting for a 165 minimum, but I am aiming for a 170+ considering my UGPA is a 3.0. I didn't do great clearly and would like to make up for it with an outstanding LSAT score.

canihazJD

@bloomfield992 said:
This is a little disheartening considering I come from a background in English and graduated with a Literature & Writing degree. I hear all the time how people do well on the LSAT if they're good at English. I feel like I am good at English and write well too.

YMMV but my experience has been that beyond a certain point, an extensive English/literature background (particularly in the absence of philisophy exposure) brings with it biases and tendency to employ heuristics that can start to function as handicaps. The test knows how we tend to think about and react to language, and uses it against us. Makes sense that the more intuitively adept you are the thing they are exploiting, the more vulnerable you'll be. Conversely the outlier freak RC standouts I've worked with have tended to be ESL. People who seem to be impervious to traps... their only weakness (and I suppose the tradeoff) being the chance English word they are not familiar with. Obviously, not to say you're worse off having a lit background, but there is definitely something going on there IMO. Consider thinking in terms of reframing your intuition and strategies and deploying them in the context of the typical tricks we see on the test. Like you know you're walking into an ambush.

Cant Get Right

Just added the zoom link for this. See folks soon.