Anyone get a higher actual LSAT score than on PT's?

danilphillips

Just wondering (i.e., hoping) if anyone got a higher score on the actual exam than on their PT's?

BruiserWoods

I don't think this happens very often, but I have heard of a couple instances. Typically you'll score within +/- 3 points of your 5 most recent PTs. So you might score a couple points higher, but I would certainly not count on scoring significantly higher.

Nicole Hopkins

I have heard of one person anecdotally to whom this happened. And I have talked to hundreds of people about this test and read many more accounts. So, it does not happen very often at all. In fact I and almost everyone I've been close to throughout this process scored on the lower end of our range, not the higher.

Ron Swanson

I'm confused as to why that would be the case..is the drop in score due to psychological factors?

For people taking ~30 practice tests how could the real deal be that much different the 2nd/3rd time around? I got caught up in the jitters last time but that was my first take, I feel pretty ready this time around.

Legitimately asking, not trolling about test day penalty/people with test anxiety

Jonathan Wang

I did. +3 from previous best. But like people are saying, it's very rare.

Nicole Hopkins

@"Jonathan Wang" said:
But like people are saying, it's very rare.

Wild. Now I know of exactly 2.

Nicole Hopkins

@"Ron Swanson" said:
For people taking ~30 practice tests how could the real deal be that much different the 2nd/3rd time around? I got caught up in the jitters last time but that was my first take, I feel pretty ready this time around.

I took 70+ PT's and still underperformed by 4/5 points on my last take (and those were from 3 fresh PT's). It probably depends on how much the stress of the real thing affects you.

StopLawying

I think the reason people tend to underperform is because they don't take the test under test-like conditions: filling in bubbles after time is called, taking breaks between sections, taking a longer break than the 15 min, no experimental section, eating/drinking during test, etc. This results in an inflated score. Thats why I encourage people to take proctored exams. My belief is that if you take a bunch of those your PT scores will be similar to your real one.
But I haven't taken the LSAT yet and it could just be nerves. Hoping that's not the case.

Nicole Hopkins

@StopLawying said:
I think the reason people tend to underperform is because they don't take the test under test-like conditions: filling in bubbles after time is called, taking breaks between sections, taking a longer break than the 15 min, no experimental section, eating/drinking during test, etc.

False (at least in my case)

StopLawying

@"Nicole Hopkins" obviously wasn't referring to everyone, but I find that to be the case with lots of people I spoke to.
Want to ask you though: why do you think you scored 4,5 points lower than your PT average? Do you attribute it to nerves? I'm really hoping test day doesn't feel that different from a regular PT, assuming of course one takes under test-like conditions.

Pacifico

Test-like conditions are just that... They are like the conditions but it is impossible to simulate the stress/anxiety/adrenaline you will feel on test day. Furthermore, simply taking it once and thinking all that will go away the second time around is not likely to be how things play out. Instead you need to be developing strategies to cope with stress that happens during the test. But nothing you do can replicate the feeling in your body that only game day can give you. If anything I feel like proctored exams might give some people a false sense of security.

Also, if you're asking a question like this my advice would be to postpone.

BruiserWoods

@Pacifico said:
Also, if you're asking a question like this my advice would be to postpone.

yeh

Nicole Hopkins

@Pacifico said:
But nothing you do can replicate the feeling in your body that only game day can give you. If anything I feel like proctored exams might give some people a false sense of security.

Amen

apublicdisplay

@StopLawying said:
taking a longer break than the 15 min

Any general estimate of how much longer than 15 min the break may take?

Nicole Hopkins

@apublicdisplay said:
Any general estimate of how much longer than 15 min the break may take?

The break will take 15 minutes unless you're in a super messed up test center.

Addistotle

@"Nicole Hopkins" said:
Wild. Now I know of exactly 2.

Soon to be 3

Addistotle

I found that my score went up after I stopped wearing "professional" clothes to write. I had been writing PTs in my sweats and a t shirt and a trusted friend said "I always find if you dress the part, you'll perform better," so I started wearing a khakis and a collared shirt...

I'll be writing in my PJs and a tank top, apparently collared shirts have been tied to an increase in stress

joecarterruskey

Some dude over at Top Law Schools Forum never scored above a 173 and managed to get a 180.

ethaaaan

A part of test day performance variance is definitely based on how strict of conditions you've taken PTs under; obviously if you've never taken a timed section you're probably going to see your score suffer. Generally, I think people tend to point to things like lack of stamina to explain this phenomenon because it's more tangible and therefore has an identifiable path to "improvement".
However, I would attribute the majority of test day performance variance to how a person deals with stress; some thrive under pressure, others perish - it's as simple as that. Everyone who has played a sport at a competitive level has probably made this observation of their teammates - the person who makes the most goals in practice isn't always the one who is scoring in the game.

The actual size of the variance I think is also highly dependent on a person's PT score range/average. A guy averaging in the high 150s probably has more variation in his performance on PTs than someone in the 170s, and his variation from PT to PT is probably more attributable to luck/guessing than anything else. So he probably has a decent shot of going in on test day and pulling out a score above his average/in the top range of his PT scores just because he got lucky.

A high scorer, who seemingly understands and answers each question during time, has no real potential for upside improvement from luck/guessing because s/he didn't really guess that often, if at all. Someone in the 170s is also subject to more of a penalty for missing a question than someone in the mid-range; it's sometimes possible to drop 2 points in the 170s by missing 1 question, where in the 150s you can miss 2 questions and only drop 1 point. There's also just less room to have a favorable variation if you're PTing in the mid-upper 170s, if you're averaging a 178, you literally cannot see a +3 point variation on test day, but you can still see a -3 point variation.

To get a score on test day that exceeds any PT you've taken is even less likely than scoring toward the top end of your range; it's not impossible, it probably just indicates that you thrived under the pressure.

joecarterruskey

I've taken 50 practice tests under exact test conditions, with the lone exception being that as soon as I finish a section I move on to the next one instead of waiting around for the timer.

I've been getting pretty stressed lately, but I feel like I have a history of being a high performer; did well in sports, was an actor in high school and college, etc.

I guess it's been a while since I've been in a situation like that though.....the only thing I can think of is to embrace the adrenaline and let it be a force of energy to propel you through the test rather than letting your anxiety distract you. I know there will be times where something will stump you....I've had practice tests where a game was so hard I had to redo it during the timed section, but still ended up okay. Just have to remember how you've handled the hard times in the past.

ozboy

I did, +3. There are two reasons behind that. I never guessed when I PT'ed. I left the questions I didn't know/reach empty, but I of course bubbled everything during official test, so this is a factor. The other reason is that it was my second writing -- no novelty factor.

twssmith

@ethan.ames Great Post!!

Ron Swanson

@ethan.ames

Really well written post. When you're up in the 170s range every little mistake is magnified in terms of your score. Much easier to notice a drop when you don't have leeway

danilphillips

@Pacifico I'm asking because a lawyer friend of mine insists people's scores go up a few points on the actual test. Not sure where she got that info, probably just anecdotal.

ethaaaan

@twssmith Thank you!

@"Ron Swanson" Thank you! Absolutely, once you get to certain point the only way to go is down.

Cant Get Right

The point I'm gathering from this thread is that, of course it can happen. But don't count on it. If you're PTing properly, your PT average is a good indicator of where you're at. If it happens its bonus points. Agree with above comments that if you need it to happen to be happy with your score, you should really consider postponing.

BruiserWoods

@ethan.ames that was a great and well-thought-out analysis. Very smart. Very interesting. I think you have a few good points.

stepharizona

@danilphillips said:
I'm asking because a lawyer friend of mine insists people's scores go up a few points on the actual test.

Now you'll be able to share that that is fairly rare. It does and can happen, but a drop seems to be more common. I think the -3 is a great anticipatory score as it helps people to analyze if they are really ready to take the test.

joecarterruskey

@"Cant Get Right" said:
The point I'm gathering from this thread is that, of course it can happen. But don't count on it. If you're PTing properly, your PT average is a good indicator of where you're at. If it happens its bonus points. Agree with above comments that if you need it to happen to be happy with your score, you should really consider postponing.

I think that should be the takeaway of this entire thread

joecarterruskey

@stepharizona said:
I think the -3 is a great anticipatory score as it helps people to analyze if they are really ready to take the test.

I guess that's one way to look at it; if you'd be happy with a score 3 points below your average or whatever. But I think that's a pretty dangerous mindset to have going into the test.

joecarterruskey

One more comment on my end - it's probably best not to even think about "what score am I going to get" or "how can I determine based off of my past practice tests what I'll get"?

Show up, rock the test, and then worry about what you got/look for clues in your past takes for some sort of indicator. Showing up to the big game with an idea of how you'll do can be good, but it can also mentally lock you in and focused on something that is ultimately a waste of energy.

ethaaaan

@joecarterruskey

But I think that's a pretty dangerous mindset to have going into the test.

Exactly, be realistic about your abilities, but you should not go into test day with the mindset of expecting to do worse than your average - because that pretty much guarantees that you will. I've never heard a track coach say "Hey kid, I know you've been running a 5:10 mile in practice, but during today's race you should probably just envision yourself running it in 6:00 right before the race."

ethaaaan

When you think about test day, you should envision yourself going in and scoring your highest score yet. That is absolutely the mindset to have, you should not be negotiating with yourself about how much you can underperform and still be satisfied. I'll be happy if I score even 4 points under my current average, but I'm not about to go in on Monday telling myself that's what I should expect to get.

Sprinkles

@ethan.ames is spitting too much fire in one thread.

stepharizona

@joecarterruskey said:
if you'd be happy with a score 3 points below your average or whatever.

I get what you are saying, but the average of your last 5 PTs is an excellent gauge to what you will score on the actual test. So many people go and test way before they have reached their potential or are ready. So if you want a 167 for your final score, and your average is at a 164, you are far more likely to get a 161 than you are a 167, but hopefully you nail the 164. Also, if you were averaging a 170 and wanted a 167, I'd be really confident that I will not only hit my Target score but exceed it, but I would be thrilled.

I always recommend that people prep to +3 above their Target for this reason. It adds a bit of security to test day.

@ethan.ames said:
"Hey kid, I know you've been running a 5:10 mile in practice, but during today's race you should probably just envision yourself running it in 6:00 right before the race."

True, but if you know you will NOT be satisfied with a 6:00 then you should wait to enter the race, if you are feeling unprepared. That was the point of my comment. And I'd say a 3 point drop is more like a 5:45

The up to -3 is a pretty standard concept here and other places as well. (I actually learned it here and have seen it seems fairly accurate). Does everyone score -3 below their average, of course not. But Its meant to help manage expectations and plan accordingly.

If you are within striking distance of your score, meaning you've had that as your average or greater, you should test. If you have not, you should pause and decide if testing is right for you at this moment. People hear/read that all the time, but when you add in the -3 it seems to make people be better at evaluating their current abilities.

It is so difficult to simulate test conditions perfectly as others have described

@StopLawying said:
I think the reason people tend to underperform is because they don't take the test under test-like conditions: filling in bubbles after time is called, taking breaks between sections, taking a longer break than the 15 min, no experimental section, eating/drinking during test, etc. This results in an inflated score

I also think this can be true as well,

@Pacifico said:
But nothing you do can replicate the feeling in your body that only game day can give you. If anything I feel like proctored exams might give some people a false sense of security.

And I think that is why there is often a small drop. Whenever people tell me they are nervous to test and are not sure if they are ready. I always ask what there target score is, what the average is of their last 5 PTs (under simulated conditions) and then if they took a -3 drop how that would impact them. For many it helps them decide if they should take or they are like oh wow yeah I totally have this!

danilphillips

Thanks, all. Probably not a great question to ask right before the test, but I can handle the truth! At the end of the day, this test is a means to an end for me. I'm not aiming for a top tier school (the school I want to attend isn't even in the top 50!) and with 2 kids, a job, a husband with a very busy career, and me living in London far from friends and family, I've done as much as I can do for now so I'm sucking it up and taking my chances. I probably could study for over a year trying to eek out every point but that's not feasible for me at the moment and the goal isn't to master a test it's to gain entrance to law school and be a lawyer! I know many many people who scored in the 150s and are in law school or are lawyers now. As long as this score gets me in, that's pretty much the goal!

ethaaaan

@stepharizona
I understand where you're coming from on gauging preparedness, but I seriously think that its a very poor way to go into test day. I don't think that anyone should be "managing expectations" before they're about to take the test. That's a fine mindset to have in the period between the end of the writing section and the time you get your score e-mail, but it's a poor way to be thinking during the instructions.

As to the analogy, I'll just say this - If I was on a relay team and my teammate would be "satisfied" with running 50 seconds off his average pace in a race, I would not want him on my team.

stepharizona

@ethan.ames said:
I seriously think that its a very poor way to go into test day. I don't think that anyone should be "managing expectations" before they're about to take the test.

Agreed which is why I was talking about using that method to gauge prepardness and if you should take.

If you're taking you need to have your focus, trust in what you have done and as joe put it,

@joecarterruskey said:
rock the test

stepharizona

@danilphillips said:
I've done as much as I can do for now so I'm sucking it up and taking my chances.

You've done the work, you know what you need to do, you've got this!

danilphillips

@stepharizona @ethan.ames - thanks for the help. I'm honestly so much further than I ever thought I could go on this test. I remember getting an LSAT book many years ago and being completely scared off by the games. I opened the book, saw the games, closed it, and never thought about law school again for another few years. I literally thought I would be intellectually incapable of taking this test. If I had the luxury of spending another few months, I know I could get even better, but right now my kids need their mother at night (and not the beast yelling 'get away from me, I need to study!').