Top Law Schools

Hi all,

I know my question "what will it take " is vague..but by that I really mean to ask:

1) how long might this take. Diagnostic is 141... I will be going to school 15 hrs and and am not looking for job or internship on the side just so I can kill this test hopefully , which gives me anywhere from 4- 6 hrs each day to study for lsat and 5-7 hrs on wknds. I feel like it will take me like 9 months of prep minimum based on my diagnostic and if I study for minimum 5 hrs each day

2) is aiming to PT 174 plus consistently in order to max my chances of getting dream score a realistic goal for me?

Thank you

nicole1994 wrote:Hi all,

I know my question "what will it take " is vague..but by that I really mean to ask:

1) how long might this take. Diagnostic is 141... I will be going to school 15 hrs and and am not looking for job or internship on the side just so I can kill this test hopefully , which gives me anywhere from 4- 6 hrs each day to study for lsat and 5-7 hrs on wknds. I feel like it will take me like 9 months of prep minimum based on my diagnostic and if I study for minimum 5 hrs each day

2) is aiming to PT 174 plus consistently in order to max my chances of getting dream score a realistic goal for me?

Thank you

Yes, but it will take time. 4-6 hours may be a lot and you may burn out. Do an amount that you will be able to do consistently. Consistency > Intensity for any skill burning exercise. You never want to put 100% full effort into anything in life unless it's actually game time. That's a recipe for burnout. You want to do the most you can do 6 days a week. Focus on individual question types. In fact, I'd start with becoming an expert in formal logic and main conclusion questions before worrying about any other question type. These are two foundational sills that LSAC tests again and again, and if you are great at both it becomes difficult not to break a 160. From there, begin learning each type of game and LR question individually.

UBETutoring wrote:

nicole1994 wrote:Hi all,

I know my question "what will it take " is vague..but by that I really mean to ask:

1) how long might this take. Diagnostic is 141... I will be going to school 15 hrs and and am not looking for job or internship on the side just so I can kill this test hopefully , which gives me anywhere from 4- 6 hrs each day to study for lsat and 5-7 hrs on wknds. I feel like it will take me like 9 months of prep minimum based on my diagnostic and if I study for minimum 5 hrs each day

2) is aiming to PT 174 plus consistently in order to max my chances of getting dream score a realistic goal for me?

Thank you

Yes, but it will take time. 4-6 hours may be a lot and you may burn out. Do an amount that you will be able to do consistently. Consistency > Intensity for any skill burning exercise. You never want to put 100% full effort into anything in life unless it's actually game time. That's a recipe for burnout. You want to do the most you can do 6 days a week. Focus on individual question types. In fact, I'd start with becoming an expert in formal logic and main conclusion questions before worrying about any other question type. These are two foundational sills that LSAC tests again and agikain, and if you are great at both it becomes difficult not to break a 160. From there, begin learning each type of game and LR question individually.

9

thanks !! if i am able to 6 hrs a day(let's see lol) how many months do you think it would take to do this ..( to PT 174) ?

aniston958 wrote:

UBETutoring wrote:

nicole1994 wrote:Hi all,

I know my question "what will it take " is vague..but by that I really mean to ask:

1) how long might this take. Diagnostic is 141... I will be going to school 15 hrs and and am not looking for job or internship on the side just so I can kill this test hopefully , which gives me anywhere from 4- 6 hrs each day to study for lsat and 5-7 hrs on wknds. I feel like it will take me like 9 months of prep minimum based on my diagnostic and if I study for minimum 5 hrs each day

2) is aiming to PT 174 plus consistently in order to max my chances of getting dream score a realistic goal for me?

Thank you

Yes, but it will take time. 4-6 hours may be a lot and you may burn out. Do an amount that you will be able to do consistently. Consistency > Intensity for any skill burning exercise. You never want to put 100% full effort into anything in life unless it's actually game time. That's a recipe for burnout. You want to do the most you can do 6 days a week. Focus on individual question types. In fact, I'd start with becoming an expert in formal logic and main conclusion questions before worrying about any other question type. These are two foundational sills that LSAC tests again and agikain, and if you are great at both it becomes difficult not to break a 160. From there, begin learning each type of game and LR question individually.

9

thanks !! if i am able to 6 hrs a day(let's see lol) how many months do you think it would take to do this ..( to PT 174) ?

It takes as long as it takes. For me it took 4 solid months of about an hour a day. Most people will never get there. Don’t put time limits on yourself. If it was easily replicatable to get into the top 1% of lsat scores there wouldn’t be any of this discussion. Just study well and get better.

aniston958 wrote:

UBETutoring wrote:

nicole1994 wrote:Hi all,

I know my question "what will it take " is vague..but by that I really mean to ask:

1) how long might this take. Diagnostic is 141... I will be going to school 15 hrs and and am not looking for job or internship on the side just so I can kill this test hopefully , which gives me anywhere from 4- 6 hrs each day to study for lsat and 5-7 hrs on wknds. I feel like it will take me like 9 months of prep minimum based on my diagnostic and if I study for minimum 5 hrs each day

2) is aiming to PT 174 plus consistently in order to max my chances of getting dream score a realistic goal for me?

Thank you

Yes, but it will take time. 4-6 hours may be a lot and you may burn out. Do an amount that you will be able to do consistently. Consistency > Intensity for any skill burning exercise. You never want to put 100% full effort into anything in life unless it's actually game time. That's a recipe for burnout. You want to do the most you can do 6 days a week. Focus on individual question types. In fact, I'd start with becoming an expert in formal logic and main conclusion questions before worrying about any other question type. These are two foundational sills that LSAC tests again and agikain, and if you are great at both it becomes difficult not to break a 160. From there, begin learning each type of game and LR question individually.

9

thanks !! if i am able to 6 hrs a day(let's see lol) how many months do you think it would take to do this ..( to PT 174) ?

IDK. If I buckle down and workout for 27 hours a day for 6 months, will I get jacked? Probably but I could also just workout for a reasonable amount of time, and see how long it takes. I can tell you the first step to go from a 141 to a 173 is to get a 142, and then a 143. Don't ask, just do.

I went from a 163 practice test to a 172 LSAT. It took me about 6 weeks of taking practice tests and working to understand why I missed questions working about 3 - 4 hours/day. To be perfectly honest I don't know if a 30 point score increase is something you should plan on without divine intervention. I'm sure it happens but this is a jump from maybe 40th percentile to 99.X percentile

I went from 149 to 170 but it took 6 months. I studied 6 hours a day, 7 days a week. I was PTing like 173-177 consistently though.

gaddockteeg wrote:I went from 149 to 170 but it took 6 months. I studied 6 hours a day, 7 days a week. I was PTing like 173-177 consistently though.

How did you do it? How was your study plan please?

dassale1 wrote:

gaddockteeg wrote:I went from 149 to 170 but it took 6 months. I studied 6 hours a day, 7 days a week. I was PTing like 173-177 consistently though.

How did you do it? How was your study plan please?

I second this question. Thanks in advance!

OnThePrecipice wrote:

dassale1 wrote:

gaddockteeg wrote:I went from 149 to 170 but it took 6 months. I studied 6 hours a day, 7 days a week. I was PTing like 173-177 consistently though.

How did you do it? How was your study plan please?

I second this question. Thanks in advance!

No real study plan. I took a 3 month class (testmasters) but I wasn't ready after finishing it so I kept studying for another 3 months. Basically just repeatedly took practice exams and reviewed my answers. I took every single LSAT exam ever released at least once and most of them I took twice because I ran out of study material.

nicole1994 wrote:Hi all,

I know my question "what will it take " is vague..but by that I really mean to ask:

1) how long might this take. Diagnostic is 141... I will be going to school 15 hrs and and am not looking for job or internship on the side just so I can kill this test hopefully , which gives me anywhere from 4- 6 hrs each day to study for lsat and 5-7 hrs on wknds. I feel like it will take me like 9 months of prep minimum based on my diagnostic and if I study for minimum 5 hrs each day

2) is aiming to PT 174 plus consistently in order to max my chances of getting dream score a realistic goal for me?

Thank you

Plan on taking 2+ years to study. It's not as easy as you think it is. If you were starting at 160, then 2-5 months would be reasonable. If you were starting at 150, then 6-18 months would probably be reasonable. But if you're starting at 140, 18+ months is almost certainly what it's going to take.

mcat4life87 wrote:
Plan on taking 2+ years to study. It's not as easy as you think it is. If you were starting at 160, then 2-5 months would be reasonable. If you were starting at 150, then 6-18 months would probably be reasonable. But if you're starting at 140, 18+ months is almost certainly what it's going to take.

While I think these guestimates might not be far off, I think op would benefit from studying for a month and assessing progress. Can they get into the 160s in a month? Then, maybe, they can make the step up to the 170s more quickly.

Nonetheless, folk who have done this and scored in the 170s know and understand that there's an element of luck or at least good fortune involved. One or two unusual questions on the day could undo everything.

If you're looking for a score in the 170s, you need to be practicing regularly and consistently scoring in the 170s on PT's taken under test conditions.

albanach wrote:

mcat4life87 wrote:
Plan on taking 2+ years to study. It's not as easy as you think it is. If you were starting at 160, then 2-5 months would be reasonable. If you were starting at 150, then 6-18 months would probably be reasonable. But if you're starting at 140, 18+ months is almost certainly what it's going to take.

While I think these guestimates might not be far off, I think op would benefit from studying for a month and assessing progress. Can they get into the 160s in a month? Then, maybe, they can make the step up to the 170s more quickly.

Nonetheless, folk who have done this and scored in the 170s know and understand that there's an element of luck or at least good fortune involved. One or two unusual questions on the day could undo everything.

If you're looking for a score in the 170s, you need to be practicing regularly and consistently scoring in the 170s on PT's taken under test conditions.

Want to quote and respond because I also feel like the luck aspect is underappreciated. Even those with the resources of time, energy, and skill could still fail to get to 173 several times over. It's not a matter of "once I get to 173 on my practice tests I will go score a 173". That level is so bunched vis-a-vis the amount of correct answer choices that one or two stupid mistakes coupled with a few odd questions will very likely fall under the goal. In fact, I never tell my students to set a point goal to which they're achieving. Obviously they can maintain one, but it just becomes too defeating when that first plateau hits. Depending on where you start you will likely hit several plateaus. The only answer is, then, if you can get over the hump in each instance. The moment you start to tell yourself that your process of learning is a failure against your goal that creates another significant barrier to progress. So, don't do that. Just get a little better each day. Make sure you're not going through the motions. Learn something.

gaddockteeg wrote:I went from 149 to 170 but it took 6 months. I studied 6 hours a day, 7 days a week. I was PTing like 173-177 consistently though.

Hey!! Would you be interested in tutoring or helping at all? I started at a 148, and PTing around 163 and need a 170.

Nicolelkh wrote:

gaddockteeg wrote:I went from 149 to 170 but it took 6 months. I studied 6 hours a day, 7 days a week. I was PTing like 173-177 consistently though.

Hey!! Would you be interested in tutoring or helping at all? I started at a 148, and PTing around 163 and need a 170.

Hah, sorry; I'm way too far removed from the LSAT now to be any help.

Some one said to study 2 yrs ...well.im willing to put in at least 12 months of study...I can guarantee that.

You definitely have the right attitude.

My advice is to plan on getting a job of some sort, but one that you can clock out right at 5 or before.

Don’t take the test until you’re getting 100% on games every single time when practicing, and 100% on arguments virtually every time.

RC is way more subjective than the others, meaning it’s less learnable, so that’s usually what keeps top scorers from 180 (it’s what kept me from it). But if you hit most RC questions most of the time and all other questions virtually all of the time, that’s when you’ll be good to go.

Take every Lsat ever made 2 or maybe even 3 times and go back through your wrong answers and be able to internalize why they were wrong.

If you do that, a decade from now, you will be extremely glad that you invested the time required to do it.

Tbh I guees I'd be happy with 171..I plan on focusing on drilling more than anything. And yes was gonna folllw ur strategies for test taking. You really think it would takd more than 15 months tho? im either gonna graduate nxt spring or the year after that. Worst case scenario if I'm not there in a year I'll just keep studying and get a light weight job

objctnyrhnr wrote:You definitely have the right attitude.

My advice is to plan on getting a job of some sort, but one that you can clock out right at 5 or before.

Don’t take the test until you’re getting 100% on games every single time when practicing, and 100% on arguments virtually every time.

RC is way more subjective than the others, meaning it’s less learnable, so that’s usually what keeps top scorers from 180 (it’s what kept me from it). But if you hit most RC questions most of the time and all other questions virtually all of the time, that’s when you’ll be good to go.

Take every Lsat ever made 2 or maybe even 3 times and go back through your wrong answers and be able to internalize why they were wrong.

If you do that, a decade from now, you will be extremely glad that you invested the time required to do it.

nicole1994 wrote:Tbh I guees I'd be happy with 171..I plan on focusing on drilling more than anything. And yes was gonna folllw ur strategies for test taking. You really think it would takd more than 15 months tho? im either gonna graduate nxt spring or the year after that. Worst case scenario if I'm not there in a year I'll just keep studying and get a light weight job

objctnyrhnr wrote:You definitely have the right attitude.

My advice is to plan on getting a job of some sort, but one that you can clock out right at 5 or before.

Don’t take the test until you’re getting 100% on games every single time when practicing, and 100% on arguments virtually every time.

RC is way more subjective than the others, meaning it’s less learnable, so that’s usually what keeps top scorers from 180 (it’s what kept me from it). But if you hit most RC questions most of the time and all other questions virtually all of the time, that’s when you’ll be good to go.

Take every Lsat ever made 2 or maybe even 3 times and go back through your wrong answers and be able to internalize why they were wrong.

If you do that, a decade from now, you will be extremely glad that you invested the time required to do it.

Generally speaking, people like doing things at which they find success. You need to get to the point where (I know it sounds crazy) you enjoy taking practice tests. In this scenario, you’ll enjoy them because you’ll know many of the right answers before you even finish reading the options. That’s the goal. That’s how most top scorers feel. So yes, it might take 15 months.

objctnyrhnr wrote:You definitely have the right attitude.

My advice is to plan on getting a job of some sort, but one that you can clock out right at 5 or before.

Don’t take the test until you’re getting 100% on games every single time when practicing, and 100% on arguments virtually every time.

RC is way more subjective than the others, meaning it’s less learnable, so that’s usually what keeps top scorers from 180 (it’s what kept me from it). But if you hit most RC questions most of the time and all other questions virtually all of the time, that’s when you’ll be good to go.

Take every Lsat ever made 2 or maybe even 3 times and go back through your wrong answers and be able to internalize why they were wrong.

If you do that, a decade from now, you will be extremely glad that you invested the time required to do it.

I do believe the LSAT is learnable to an extent, but I think a baseline level of intellect is necessary to get a high score like a 173. Due to the timed nature of the test, you need to be able read quickly while understanding what you are reading. This is a skill that you start developing when you're a kid. A non-native speaker might be intelligent, but this is a barrier that they are going to face with the LSAT.

A 141 is a pretty low diagnostic for someone aiming to score a 173. If someone has a diagnostic of say, 155, then yes - I think it's a lot more realistic to say that if they put enough effort in, they can eventually score a 173 on the real thing. Sure, there may be a few people here and there that go from a low 140s diagnostic to getting a mid 170s score on the real test, but those instances are very rare.

Just look at OP's posts in this thread. They have a hard time spelling every-day words correctly and their sentences are riddled with grammatical errors. Does this prove that they have poor reading comprehension skills? No. But I have a hard time believing that someone with the reading comprehension skills necessary to eventually get a high score on the LSAT would be writing the way the OP is.

Studying for a decade for the LSAT is ridiculous. Is your post a troll? And I'm also not convinced that any given person can study for the LSAT for a decade and eventually get a 173.

Vianco wrote:

objctnyrhnr wrote:You definitely have the right attitude.

My advice is to plan on getting a job of some sort, but one that you can clock out right at 5 or before.

Don’t take the test until you’re getting 100% on games every single time when practicing, and 100% on arguments virtually every time.

RC is way more subjective than the others, meaning it’s less learnable, so that’s usually what keeps top scorers from 180 (it’s what kept me from it). But if you hit most RC questions most of the time and all other questions virtually all of the time, that’s when you’ll be good to go.

Take every Lsat ever made 2 or maybe even 3 times and go back through your wrong answers and be able to internalize why they were wrong.

If you do that, a decade from now, you will be extremely glad that you invested the time required to do it.

I do believe the LSAT is learnable to an extent, but I think a baseline level of intellect is necessary to get a high score like a 173. Due to the timed nature of the test, you need to be able read quickly while understanding what you are reading. This is a skill that you start developing when you're a kid. A non-native speaker might be intelligent, but this is a barrier that they are going to face with the LSAT.

A 141 is a pretty low diagnostic for someone aiming to score a 173. If someone has a diagnostic of say, 155, then yes - I think it's a lot more realistic to say that if they put enough effort in, they can eventually score a 173 on the real thing. Sure, there may be a few people here and there that go from a low 140s diagnostic to getting a mid 170s score on the real test, but those instances are very rare.

Just look at OP's posts in this thread. They have a hard time spelling every-day words correctly and their sentences are riddled with grammatical errors. Does this prove that they have poor reading comprehension skills? No. But I have a hard time believing that someone with the reading comprehension skills necessary to eventually get a high score on the LSAT would be writing the way the OP is.

Studying for a decade for the LSAT is ridiculous. Is your post a troll? And I'm also not convinced that any given person can study for the LSAT for a decade and eventually get a 173.

Seems OP isn’t the only one with reading comprehension issues. I said in a decade (presumably by the time he’s been practicing for 4 or so years), he will have a much more informed idea regarding the doors that have been opened by going to a good school, minimizing debt, or both. At no point did I say he should study for a decade.

objctnyrhnr wrote:

Vianco wrote:

objctnyrhnr wrote:You definitely have the right attitude.

My advice is to plan on getting a job of some sort, but one that you can clock out right at 5 or before.

Don’t take the test until you’re getting 100% on games every single time when practicing, and 100% on arguments virtually every time.

RC is way more subjective than the others, meaning it’s less learnable, so that’s usually what keeps top scorers from 180 (it’s what kept me from it). But if you hit most RC questions most of the time and all other questions virtually all of the time, that’s when you’ll be good to go.

Take every Lsat ever made 2 or maybe even 3 times and go back through your wrong answers and be able to internalize why they were wrong.

If you do that, a decade from now, you will be extremely glad that you invested the time required to do it.

I do believe the LSAT is learnable to an extent, but I think a baseline level of intellect is necessary to get a high score like a 173. Due to the timed nature of the test, you need to be able read quickly while understanding what you are reading. This is a skill that you start developing when you're a kid. A non-native speaker might be intelligent, but this is a barrier that they are going to face with the LSAT.

A 141 is a pretty low diagnostic for someone aiming to score a 173. If someone has a diagnostic of say, 155, then yes - I think it's a lot more realistic to say that if they put enough effort in, they can eventually score a 173 on the real thing. Sure, there may be a few people here and there that go from a low 140s diagnostic to getting a mid 170s score on the real test, but those instances are very rare.

Just look at OP's posts in this thread. They have a hard time spelling every-day words correctly and their sentences are riddled with grammatical errors. Does this prove that they have poor reading comprehension skills? No. But I have a hard time believing that someone with the reading comprehension skills necessary to eventually get a high score on the LSAT would be writing the way the OP is.

Studying for a decade for the LSAT is ridiculous. Is your post a troll? And I'm also not convinced that any given person can study for the LSAT for a decade and eventually get a 173.

Seems OP isn’t the only one with reading comprehension issues. I said in a decade (presumably by the time he’s been practicing for 4 or so years), he will have a much more informed idea regarding the doors that have been opened by going to a good school, minimizing debt, or both. At no point did I say he should study for a decade.

Well, your statement was vague - "extremely glad that you invested the time required to do it" is open to interpretation. I took that as meaning they will be glad that they finally got their 173. Now that you've explained what you intended the statement to mean, I definitely see where you're coming from. But this thread is strictly about getting a 173, not about how it will impact one's potential legal career. So I'm not sure why you're being overly critical of my interpretation of your statement.

Anyways, my main point still stands. It's misleading to tell people that if they study enough, they'll eventually be able to get a 99th percentile score.

I don't plan on studying for a decade. Two years max.and that's in the worst of circumstances .

I don't know how reflective diagnostic score is of baseline intellect. My transcript shows that I'm capable of making a 3.85 gpa consistently for like two years . I didn't take school seriously until college due to social circumstances , and ive worked hard to try to get the grades I'm capable of attaining .

Also I'm typing on a shifty android phone .it isnt reflective of my writing ability in an academic /professional setting.

Not into big law whatsoever , dream was t10-t14 for big fed. But that's a dream...I'll be I'm with getting a half ride (160 lsat ) at a decent regional school since my parents are covering a third or half.

Although the dream is a 171, I guess I just need to study as hard as my mind will allow and see what will happen, since I only need a 160 plus to survive. LOL

Srsly eff anyone that literally meant for me to take a decade ...not even gonna take half that long . after not even studying for the SAT ,getting super avg, and being able to get good grades at a tier 1 flagship , i know the test of how you think isn't predictive of your abilities .sure, it tests your speed/strength at comprehending random info quickly which will certainly help in law school, but it isnt determinative of law school pefromance.

It sucks knowing that the 171 might not be possible, but I guess I'll just study as hard as I can (since that whay truly matters) either go to a t14 or a regional debt free, and kill it in law school regardless of where I go.

Vianco wrote:

objctnyrhnr wrote:

Vianco wrote:

objctnyrhnr wrote:You definitely have the right attitude.

My advice is to plan on getting a job of some sort, but one that you can clock out right at 5 or before.

Don’t take the test until you’re getting 100% on games every single time when practicing, and 100% on arguments virtually every time.

RC is way more subjective than the others, meaning it’s less learnable, so that’s usually what keeps top scorers from 180 (it’s what kept me from it). But if you hit most RC questions most of the time and all other questions virtually all of the time, that’s when you’ll be good to go.

Take every Lsat ever made 2 or maybe even 3 times and go back through your wrong answers and be able to internalize why they were wrong.

If you do that, a decade from now, you will be extremely glad that you invested the time required to do it.

I do believe the LSAT is learnable to an extent, but I think a baseline level of intellect is necessary to get a high score like a 173. Due to the timed nature of the test, you need to be able read quickly while understanding what you are reading. This is a skill that you start developing when you're a kid. A non-native speaker might be intelligent, but this is a barrier that they are going to face with the LSAT.

A 141 is a pretty low diagnostic for someone aiming to score a 173. If someone has a diagnostic of say, 155, then yes - I think it's a lot more realistic to say that if they put enough effort in, they can eventually score a 173 on the real thing. Sure, there may be a few people here and there that go from a low 140s diagnostic to getting a mid 170s score on the real test, but those instances are very rare.

Just look at OP's posts in this thread. They have a hard time spelling every-day words correctly and their sentences are riddled with grammatical errors. Does this prove that they have poor reading comprehension skills? No. But I have a hard time believing that someone with the reading comprehension skills necessary to eventually get a high score on the LSAT would be writing the way the OP is.

Studying for a decade for the LSAT is ridiculous. Is your post a troll? And I'm also not convinced that any given person can study for the LSAT for a decade and eventually get a 173.

Seems OP isn’t the only one with reading comprehension issues. I said in a decade (presumably by the time he’s been practicing for 4 or so years), he will have a much more informed idea regarding the doors that have been opened by going to a good school, minimizing debt, or both. At no point did I say he should study for a decade.

Well, your statement was vague - "extremely glad that you invested the time required to do it" is open to interpretation. I took that as meaning they will be glad that they finally got their 173. Now that you've explained what you intended the statement to mean, I definitely see where you're coming from. But this thread is strictly about getting a 173, not about how it will impact one's potential legal career. So I'm not sure why you're being overly critical of my interpretation of your statement.

Anyways, my main point still stands. It's misleading to tell people that if they study enough, they'll eventually be able to get a 99th percentile score.

Btw, I am a she not he. Seems like a lot of people have reading comprehension issues sincr my screen name literally says Nicole....

This is a very trivial matter, but I rescind my previous comment. Didn't initially think moderator meant for me to take 10 yrs...just thought he did later after I read someone else thinking he meant that. Oops. Anyway, carry on.

objctnyrhnr wrote:

Vianco wrote:

objctnyrhnr wrote:You definitely have the right attitude.

My advice is to plan on getting a job of some sort, but one that you can clock out right at 5 or before.

Don’t take the test until you’re getting 100% on games every single time when practicing, and 100% on arguments virtually every time.

RC is way more subjective than the others, meaning it’s less learnable, so that’s usually what keeps top scorers from 180 (it’s what kept me from it). But if you hit most RC questions most of the time and all other questions virtually all of the time, that’s when you’ll be good to go.

Take every Lsat ever made 2 or maybe even 3 times and go back through your wrong answers and be able to internalize why they were wrong.

If you do that, a decade from now, you will be extremely glad that you invested the time required to do it.

I do believe the LSAT is learnable to an extent, but I think a baseline level of intellect is necessary to get a high score like a 173. Due to the timed nature of the test, you need to be able read quickly while understanding what you are reading. This is a skill that you start developing when you're a kid. A non-native speaker might be intelligent, but this is a barrier that they are going to face with the LSAT.

A 141 is a pretty low diagnostic for someone aiming to score a 173. If someone has a diagnostic of say, 155, then yes - I think it's a lot more realistic to say that if they put enough effort in, they can eventually score a 173 on the real thing. Sure, there may be a few people here and there that go from a low 140s diagnostic to getting a mid 170s score on the real test, but those instances are very rare.

Just look at OP's posts in this thread. They have a hard time spelling every-day words correctly and their sentences are riddled with grammatical errors. Does this prove that they have poor reading comprehension skills? No. But I have a hard time believing that someone with the reading comprehension skills necessary to eventually get a high score on the LSAT would be writing the way the OP is.

Studying for a decade for the LSAT is ridiculous. Is your post a troll? And I'm also not convinced that any given person can study for the LSAT for a decade and eventually get a 173.

Seems OP isn’t the only one with reading comprehension issues. I said in a decade (presumably by the time he’s been practicing for 4 or so years), he will have a much more informed idea regarding the doors that have been opened by going to a good school, minimizing debt, or both. At no point did I say he should study for a decade.