How do you know your target score is too high and unrealistic?

Tina Cho

Hello,
So how do you know you have a realistic goal?
How do you know you reach your ceiling and cannot actually improve anymore but still hope so (=unrealisitc)?
I mean...I want to know when to "give up" and just take the test...
For some people, I think it's not true that if you devote time and effort you can get any score you want.
Some people may be able to do so, but it may take 5 years, who knows. But then I wonder...does it worth it when you think about the cost and return? (and the return is not sure until you get the score)
When I read some threads here, it is encouraging, but also sometimes feel not sure about "when is the best timing to take the test."
It seems people recommend to take the test when you are ready, but when is it?
It can be years later, you may extend&extend&extend...feeling it's not the right time and you can still improve.
And when you turn back, you may feel "since I devoted so much effort and time, I have to get good score, otherwise, I wasted so many things" etc.
I'm afraid this can happen...
So, I'd like to know how to know you have a decent target score or not, so that I don't have to expect too high and study realistically.

Thanks!

Q.E.D

Hey @"Tina Cho"

Too many factors to know that with confidence. Some ppl plateau, it's true. From what I've seen so far, I think that has little to do with intelligence and a lot to do with literacy and preparation. That means you can learn your way up and, if that's true, ppl plateau just bc they're not addressing their weaknesses.

Sections and question types are good indicators, but no one has a "MBT" weakness, for example. Maybe the weakness is not seeing logical form or not understanding validity. You might have a global RC weakness, but it may be more fruitful to narrow down to weaknesses in getting tone, structure, inflection, syntax, vocab or whatever. Point is many ppl think they know their weaknesses but really don't. That would explain how some can supposedly work on weaknesses and not improve.

It's early for you to be fatalistic. Anyway, it's just not an empirically well-founded hypothesis with ppl going from the 140s to the 160s. You just need to decide how much time you're willing to spend, and then you need to prepare effectively, which is much easier said than done.

Good luck to you, Tina. You can do it.

Alex

@"Tina Cho" said:
Hello,
So how do you know you have a realistic goal?
How do you know you reach your ceiling and cannot actually improve anymore but still hope so (=unrealisitc)?

So I think what this questions comes down to at the core is time. How much time do you realistically have to spend on this test? That answer is different for everyone. I'm personally ready to spend about 18 months mastering this test. My goal is a 180 with a plan to retake anything below a 170. Just ask yourself how much time you're willing to devote to reach your goal. No goal is unrealistic or too high. Most people have the opposite problem and set their goals too low. I'm a true believer that everyone's ultimate goal should be a 180. Why shoot for anything less than perfect? The realistic part to me is choosing what score you'll be happy with...

@"Tina Cho" said:
It can be years later, you may extend&extend&extend...feeling it's not the right time and you can still improve.
And when you turn back, you may feel "since I devoted so much effort and time, I have to get good score, otherwise, I wasted so many things" etc.
I'm afraid this can happen...

It's a legitimate concern, but I think this can be applied to almost anything in life. It is just a bad mentality to have, worrying about "what if it's all a waste...." If you know you want to be an attorney, then I don't see how investing in your future is a waste? I heartily recommend getting a job/internship working in a legal setting. I think these feelings often arise when we might not be sure we want to be lawyers. This way you'll know for sure you want to be a lawyer and studying for the LSAT will never feel like a waste, no matter the outcome/score.

@"Tina Cho" said:
Some people may be able to do so, but it may take 5 years, who knows. But then I wonder...does it worth it when you think about the cost and return? (and the return is not sure until you get the score)

I mean, yeah, I think taking a long time to study for the LSAT is almost always worth the return. You do need to consider the barometer by which you measure the return and worth, however. I plan to leave my job this spring and I have definitely calculated the forgone opportunity cost and salary many times. You reference the return being a score... Well I will put it this way, you'll almost always score higher prepping for longer. So the more time you put into this test, the more you'll get out of it.

If you're aiming for a top law school, the expected return over a 30 year career almost is always going to be worth it. Not to mention how much scholarship money you can get with a higher LSAT. For example, I know 2 people at Georgetown law school. Person A is paying near sticker and Person B got a (near) full scholarship. The $300,000 debt person A is paying to attend would have likely been worth taking a year or two to prep for the LSAT longer. That's an extreme example, but I think it illustrates that studying for the LSAT is almost always worth the return.

For what its worth, I've never heard anyone regretting spending a lot of time prepping for the LSAT. On the contrary, I've heard about a lot of people who on regret not spending enough time prepping. This is a much more common outcome.