Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.2K All Categories
- 27.2K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5.1K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 72 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.4K Specific LSAT Dates
- 11 June 2024 LSAT
- 3 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 41 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 2 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 3.9K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 581 Technical Problems
- 276 Off-topic
Related Discussions
PT average of 169+ scorers
Hi all, I'm posting so as to ask for help in regards to how I should be interpreting my PT scores. When I take the LSAT this coming December, I'm aiming for a 169+. If I don't get that, I'm retaking. Also, come December I intend to have taken at least 35 PTs. I'm working towards that goal now, and am about 2/5ths of the way through.
I don't know what to make of my PT scores. I've been told that people generally score lower on the real test than they do on PTs, which is worrying to me, given that my current average is roughly a 170. In any case, I'm curious as to what kind of PT scores people who have taken the test and who have score at or about my goal were averaging. I'm wondering basically whether the fact that I'm not doing better, or the potential that I might not do substantially do better as I work my way through the rest of my PTs, is a problem.
Thanks
I don't know what to make of my PT scores. I've been told that people generally score lower on the real test than they do on PTs, which is worrying to me, given that my current average is roughly a 170. In any case, I'm curious as to what kind of PT scores people who have taken the test and who have score at or about my goal were averaging. I'm wondering basically whether the fact that I'm not doing better, or the potential that I might not do substantially do better as I work my way through the rest of my PTs, is a problem.
Thanks
Comments
This is only based on my experience, so don't take it as gospel.
However,I don't think that there is any reason to assume you will score lower on the actual test than practice tests. In fact, I don't know if I am unusually consistent (I think that may be the case to some degree) but I honestly believe that the 2-point margin of error that LSAC says the test has is an exaggeration. I suspect that that the real margin of error is less than one point.
Incidentally, I'm not putting my numbers in here to brag. Just for context. Thought about typing it with variables, but I think my answer will be more useful this way.
Diagnostic: 162
After 13 PT's, averaging 163-164, max of 165: Feb test was 165
Feb to June, did 76 more PT's. I was a little bit inconsistent towards the end, I think because of massive burnout. I was averaging 176 or so, but occasionally plunging to 170. Got 170 on the real tests.
June to October I slowed down my study a lot. I did only 2 tests/week and this is where the consistency hit. My lowest score in this time (only once) was 173. Other than that, my average was 177.1, and towards the end I had ten consecutive tests that were all 178 or 179. Actual test was 178.
The real place where I find consistence is in number of questions wrong per section. And when I say every, I mean that it is invariable. Even at -10, I was getting -10 on every single section. No more, no less. I really think the test is statistically perfect.
So I think the lesson is that you have nothing to worry about. You'll do great. The test is extremely well written and well researched. You will probably get your preptest average exactly, and definitely within a couple of points, unless you burn yourself out like I did before June.
Before Feb:
EVERY LG section: -10
EVERY RC section: -8
EVERY LR section: -1 to 3
Actual unknown of course, as test was undisclosed.
Before June:
Every LG section: -0
Every RC section: -3
Every LR section: -1 to -3
Actual: LG -4 (bombed it
Before Oct:
Every LG section: -0
Every RC section: -1
Every LR section: -1
Actual: LG -0; RC -1; LR: -2, -1
You need to set yourself up for success. If your average is actually a 170 (and it sounds like it is less than that) then you should expect a 167-173 on the test given how well it jives with you and how well you perform on test day. While people greatly underperform for a variety of reasons including the ones listed above, the vast majority of people never outperform this score band. People who get 170+ are pretty much always above 170 on every test, and have a few in the mid to high 170s, and their BR is in the high 170s. People that hover around 170 usually get in the high 160s.
But back to the original point. Your plan is going to set you up to fail because you are going to shortchange the learning process in order to just hit a higher quantity of PTs and hopefully get the instant gratification of a 170+ score on them. You would do better to do a quantity of PTs somewhere in the 10-12 range over the next 4-5 weeks with excellent clean copy BR in which you develop a deeper recognition of the patterns across tests. Quality over quantity. Notice @josephellengar's note about massive burnout. It is real and it is not to be trifled with, especially when there is simply no time to recover from it on this short timeline. Tread carefully. Good luck!
Over the course of my study I did roughly 130 PT's and definitely did reuse. I did the 60's tests 3 times, the 50's tests twice (some three), the 30's twice, and a couple random tests (I think numbers 43 and 46 or so) also twice. Everything else I did once.
I'm probably grating on @Pacifico 's ears at this point, since I've said it elsewhere (just kidding!) but I really think that retaking has a ton of value. A ton.
Regarding your original question, which I don't think I entirely answered in my first post, I would say that if you are going to retake if you don't hit 169, then you shouldn't test in December unless your preptest average is at least 169. I really regret not cancelling at the very least my first score, since I knew I was going to retake. Now I have a substantial blemish on my record.
And honestly, sending applications in January is pretty late anyway for the schools that take the type of scores you're going for (I'm guessing with a 170+ that you're at least looking at like UPenn and NYU/Columbia). My consultant wants my applications in before Thanksgiving. So it might be a good idea to push back a year and study more.
So you would be doing yourself a huge favour by not doing that many PTs, and taking a break here and there. It's something that I wish I did.
I studied seriously in Jan. and Feb., then took a long break as I was working a ridiculous amount and knew that preparing for the June test wasn't possible. In September, I began studying again. At the time, I wasn't using 7sage. My PT average was 171/172. I took fewer than 10 PTs though. My highest was 176. My lowest 166 due to -9 in LG. The 166 was the only PT I did where my score was under 170. I never missed more than 4 questions in any section except LG. My BR score was probably 179 or 180 for all of them.
When I took the test in October, I think my score was slightly lower than my average and the recent PTs I'd done because I was nervous and panicked. My test was not released but I imagine that I did as I normally had in RC and LR. In LG, I had never been consistent and I was incredibly confused by one of the games so... I also hadn't studied that much, so my confidence wasn't high, even though I tried to build myself up.
I think having the right mindset is important. If you practice a lot and go in calm and confident, you should hit your average.