PT score range & consistency

natashaprocenko

Hi all, first time poster here!

I've done quite a few practice tests and while there is (happily) a general upward trend between all of them, my last 5 are sort of all over the place with 10 points between the best and worst and no decipherable trend. While it seems like one should be scoring within a certain range (for example, 160-165), I am not sure what the acceptable limits of the range are- that is, a 10-point range seems way too large to accurately predict a potential test-day score. So my questions are:

1. What does constitute as an acceptable range within which one can reasonably get a good idea of what their score will be on test day? 5 points? 6? 7? What is your range from your last 5 tests, and do you feel it accurately reflects your potential?

2. How does one differentiate between a representative score on a PT and an outlier score? (An outlier score being one that is way above or way below the mainstream, and since it doesn't fit in with the general trend, may not actually represent anything of significance.) Example: Did I score 175, which is x points above my average, because I'm legitimately improving, or because I got lucky that day?

3. Any tips on making scores more consistent? All of my sections are usually +/- 5 EXCEPT for RC which is either real good or real bad and never in between...

Thank you all in advance for the help!

Alex

@natashaprocenko said:
Hi all, first time poster here!

Hi! Nice to meet you Natasha - Welcome!

@natashaprocenko said:
1. What does constitute as an acceptable range within which one can reasonably get a good idea of what their score will be on test day? 5 points? 6? 7? What is your range from your last 5 tests, and do you feel it accurately reflects your potential?

I'm not sure there is a definite "acceptable" range. I think it is a largely subjective thing with a large chunk of that subjectivity contingent on your score goal and how long you have until the test. I think the higher your score goal and the closer the test the more tight-knit range you will want. For example, someone trying to get a 177 on Sept 24th should probably make sure their range is somewhere around 3 points or less at this point. The reason being that the margin or error for getting a 177 is so so small and there isn't much time left to expect substantial improvement.

@natashaprocenko said:
How does one differentiate between a representative score on a PT and an outlier score? (An outlier score being one that is way above or way below the mainstream, and since it doesn't fit in with the general trend, may not actually represent anything of significance.) Example: Did I score 175, which is x points above my average, because I'm legitimately improving, or because I got lucky that day?

This is also a hard question to answer with a definite X number of points. I think it is kind of the same as my answer above. Fluctuating between a 158 and a 165 (7 points difference) is so much different from fluctuating between a 168 and a 175. As a rule of thumb, though, I would say any fluctuation more than 5 points one way or the other is probably an outlier.

That said, I am a believer that anytime your score increases that is a sign of improvement. I don't think something being an outlier and you improving are mutually exclusive ideas. There is a reason that score why higher than last - remember that!

@natashaprocenko said:
Any tips on making scores more consistent? All of my sections are usually +/- 5 EXCEPT for RC which is either real good or real bad and never in between...

I actually restarted the entire core curriculum because my scores were so inconsistent. Some LRs I would miss 3-4 and others 6-7. What has really helped me is making sure my understanding of the basics is at a level of mastery. A lot of getting good at the LSAT is just getting really good at the small easy things. Things like argument structure, conditional logic, valid and invalid argument forms, and memorizing inferences in logic games. Once you are really learned in these subjects the rest becomes a lot easier and your scores will become more consistent. The reason for inconsistent scores is because different sections will exploit different weaknesses you have. I realized that when I would go -3 on one LR section and the next -8. It was because I sucked at MBT, Necessary assumption, and parallel reasoning questions. The ones where I missed more where the ones where there were more of those types of questions.

Also, learning proper skipping methods helped me to be a lot more consistent. I learned that no matter how good I got at the LSAT, there would still be questions I found challenging. By learning when and how to skip questions, I gave myself extra time at the end of the sections to come back and get those questions right. Whereas before, I wouldn't have enough time or would rush thinking I was wasting too much time on the hard ones. I made sure to get the low hanging fruit first and then come back armed with more time (and confidence) for the more challenging curve breakers.

For LG: I fool proofed the hell out of every game I got my hands on. Now I'm very confident I can get a consistent -3/-4 on any games section if not better. I still have a lot of work to do there, but the consistency came with lots and lots of practice.

For RC: Lots and lots of untimed RC passages helped me. I began to be able to predict what questions they would ask and what to take mental note of and prioritize. I am still working on RC so I don't have all the answers, but untimed practice is helping me a ton.

Good Luck!