Top Law Schools

Hey everyone,

Just wanted some anecdata on where 170+ testers began in terms of diagnostics and initial scores. I have a 4.0 and am aiming for the top of the T14 so 170+ in June is basically a necessity for me... I got a 160 on my diagnostic and although I'm mostly satisfied with that, it worries me a bit because I know the average improvement is less than 10 points, which would leave me just short of 170 and would be a letdown. As I've browsed the forums I've noticed that high scorers tend to have diags in the mid 160s (163-165 mostly, which considering the difficulty of LG is unfathomable to me). I've still got 5 months and am going to work my ass off but I guess I need some encouragement that a 10-15 point jump isn't too steep of a hill to climb.

High 150s. Ended well above 170. Work hard, put the time in, be prepared to retake if things go badly, and you'll be fine.

164 to 174, with most improvement coming from logic games.

dm1683 wrote:Hey everyone,

Just wanted some anecdata on where 170+ testers began in terms of diagnostics and initial scores. I have a 4.0 and am aiming for the top of the T14 so 170+ in June is basically a necessity for me... I got a 160 on my diagnostic and although I'm mostly satisfied with that, it worries me a bit because I know the average improvement is less than 10 points, which would leave me just short of 170 and would be a letdown. As I've browsed the forums I've noticed that high scorers tend to have diags in the mid 160s (163-165 mostly, which considering the difficulty of LG is unfathomable to me). I've still got 5 months and am going to work my ass off but I guess I need some encouragement that a 10-15 point jump isn't too steep of a hill to climb.

Went 142 --> 170. Went from -16 to -0 in LG. I wouldn't see why with a 160 diag you can't hit 170+ if you put the work in.

dm1683 wrote:Hey everyone,

Just wanted some anecdata on where 170+ testers began in terms of diagnostics and initial scores. I have a 4.0 and am aiming for the top of the T14 so 170+ in June is basically a necessity for me... I got a 160 on my diagnostic and although I'm mostly satisfied with that, it worries me a bit because I know the average improvement is less than 10 points, which would leave me just short of 170 and would be a letdown. As I've browsed the forums I've noticed that high scorers tend to have diags in the mid 160s (163-165 mostly, which considering the difficulty of LG is unfathomable to me). I've still got 5 months and am going to work my ass off but I guess I need some encouragement that a 10-15 point jump isn't too steep of a hill to climb.

Well, I don't really fit your criteria since my official score is a 169, but I got up to 175 in practice tests and was averaging a 171 on PTs prior to the exam. I started with a 156 diagnostic. 160 is great and if LG is what you're having the most trouble with, that is good because LG is the most easily learned section. Fairly formulaic except for the misc games that are often getting thrown in at the end.

7sage will be an indispensable resource in your studies for the logic games. Their free tutorials are crucial. I definitely think you can get mid 170s by June. Much of the improvement comes from familiarity with the test and the types of questions they ask, which in turn gives you better timing as well. Also being comfortable and confident on test day is crucial. Bad nerves will wreck the best.

But yeah, don't be worried. I personally never heard that stat about average improvement, but regardless, a stat reflecting the general outcome doesn't necessarily apply to a specific individual. 160 is a great start and you've got plenty of time for improvement.

Started at 159. Practiced LGs the most, because those are easiest to improve on with inductive reasoning. Got none wrong on the actual exam... but left one page blank bc I was a horrible mix of over-confident and over-anxious. Don't be like me. Ended up with 17X, but still. The scholarship $ I've certainly missed out on leaves me saddened.

Started at 167, ended at 171. Wish I'd studied harder on logic games because that was always my worst section. Went -5 on logic games on my 171 test.

.

142 diagnostic to 175+ final take

.

My diagnostic was 160, I got a 175 on the test. The jump is definitely possible - just make sure you study right. (I took TestMasters and made sure I thought through and absorbed the material and took the timed practice tests).

Remember that average in terms of the LSAT means very little on a case-by-case basis as a poster said above. With a 160 diagnostic, you're already in like the 70th percentile or something, so from the get-go, you aren't average and even if you were average in terms of your diagnostic, a 170+ would still be in reach.

I also had a 160 diagnostic and got a 174 on my second take (168 first time around).

As for a specific starting point, I think the Trainer is very good, cost-effective, and accessible. Do LGs in your free time since they're kind of fun and can keep you interested. (they have good unofficial ones on the Manhattan website) The rest of the above is good advice: work hard, practice, don't be afraid of a retake, wash, rinse, repeat

grades?? wrote:142 diagnostic to 175+ final take

Holy shizzles.

dm1683 wrote:

grades?? wrote:142 diagnostic to 175+ final take

Holy shizzles.

Thats proof that you just have to be "smart-enough" to crush the LSAT and the majority is just the work and time you dedicate to it. #relentless

jagerbom79 wrote:

dm1683 wrote:

grades?? wrote:142 diagnostic to 175+ final take

Holy shizzles.

Thats proof that you just have to be "smart-enough" to crush the LSAT and the majority is just the work and time you dedicate to it. #relentless

Yes. The lsat doesn't prove anything other than a desire to want to succeed. I could teach an 8 year old how to score well on the lsat. What matters is you have to be willing to put the time in to improve.

158-->174.

158 was my first diagnostic score. Got a 162 on my first go at the LSAT, 174 on my second and final go.

149 -> mid 160s first take -> upper 170s final take

Studied casually for about a year from diagnostic to first take (drilled and took more than 30 PTs), was PTing low 170s but scored mid 160s. In the two months between my first and second takes, I retook all previous PTs in doubles (8 sections in a row) and drilled all the material available. Was PTing upper 170s-180 and scored in that range on the real thing.

dm1683 wrote: As I've browsed the forums I've noticed that high scorers tend to have diags in the mid 160s (163-165 mostly, which considering the difficulty of LG is unfathomable to me).

+1

Color me extremely impressed by anyone who understood logic games the first time they looked at them. My first true (ice cold) diagnostic was a 154, but I'm optimistic about making serious improvement because of how much I feel I learned in just one pass through the LGB.

I imagine you'll feel like I do and quickly realize how easy it is to pick up points on LG. For example, I missed a few List questions on my diagnostic even though they are free points once you understand how to simply apply the rules of the game to the answer choices.

161 diagnostic, 166 first take, 180 second take (one year later).

169 ---> 173. Missed six LG questions on the real thing.

167 -> ~175

TAD wrote:

dm1683 wrote:Hey everyone,

Just wanted some anecdata on where 170+ testers began in terms of diagnostics and initial scores. I have a 4.0 and am aiming for the top of the T14 so 170+ in June is basically a necessity for me... I got a 160 on my diagnostic and although I'm mostly satisfied with that, it worries me a bit because I know the average improvement is less than 10 points, which would leave me just short of 170 and would be a letdown. As I've browsed the forums I've noticed that high scorers tend to have diags in the mid 160s (163-165 mostly, which considering the difficulty of LG is unfathomable to me). I've still got 5 months and am going to work my ass off but I guess I need some encouragement that a 10-15 point jump isn't too steep of a hill to climb.

Went 142 --> 170. Went from -16 to -0 in LG. I wouldn't see why with a 160 diag you can't hit 170+ if you put the work in.

grades?? wrote:142 diagnostic to 175+ final take

How long did it take you guys to pull this off? I started at 141, but I'm still in undergrad and it's really keeping me from dedicating full time to this LSAT prep. Were you still in undergrad or working? Also, I think I may have asked you guys before, but what materials?

Also, what kinds of obstacles or roadblocks can you expect when you're trying to increase 20+ points (especially 30+ if you're starting in the low 140s)?

I'd love to PM you guys if you don't mind. That is an awesome feat!

My first practice test, having never seen a test before, was a 158. I ended up making a 170 in September.

cm4998 wrote:
How long did it take you guys to pull this off? I started at 141, but I'm still in undergrad and it's really keeping me from dedicating full time to this LSAT prep. Were you still in undergrad or working? Also, I think I may have asked you guys before, but what materials?

Also, what kinds of obstacles or roadblocks can you expect when you're trying to increase 20+ points (especially 30+ if you're starting in the low 140s)?

I'd love to PM you guys if you don't mind. That is an awesome feat!

I was in undergrad and working. It took me a little over 10 months with undergrad and work. I actually extended my undergrad degree by two semesters so I could study (took three classes a semester while working 20-25hrs, instead of 4 classes). I made the mistake of not blind reviewing my exams until I found TLS, and by then I was a month and a bit away from test day, but it luckily worked out. But ya feel free to PM me if you want me to go into details.

I scored 168 but really stunk up the analytical reasoning section missing about 7 or 8 questions. Do you guys have any advice for improving that? It was section I devoted the least amount of time to. As for the other two sections I'd be happy to help if I can.