<p>Without really knowing what to expect at all. It was in timed conditions and towards the end I was sort of hurrying just because I wanted to see what I scored. I know this is low, but is it way too low? Would I be able to see a lot of improvement if I studied for the year / took a course?</p>
<p>Way too low for what? There are law schools that will take applicants with 150 LSATs (which ones would depend on the other parts of your application, mostly your GPA).</p>
<p>Yes, you will likely (but not definitely) see improvement if you study or take a course. It's impossible to guess how much your score will improve. Some people, even with practice, can't get over 150. Some people improve a lot.</p>
<p>10-15 points is a typical gain, but many people see less (or more) than that. SAT scores have some predictive value. "Good enough" depends on, as stacy pointed out, "Good enough" for what?</p>
<p>I think 10-15 points is extremely optimistic...going from just below the 50th percentile to the 85th-90th percentile would be a very big jump. But anything's possible.</p>
<p>I got a 143 cold. I heard that in some cases your score can go up 30 points. I'm hoping to be one of those "some cases."</p>
<p>It really depends on if your problem was just timing and lack of familiarity with the test, or if it was comprehension. Reading was my strong-point in the beginning, but I think it must be hard to learn reading comprehension in a short period of time. It's something you develop over time by reading a lot in college and before. The games section is easier to learn because it's unfamiliar and hard to do quickly at first. The arguments section is sort of in-between because some techniques and practice can help, but it's also important to have comprehension.</p>
<p>Problem is I had no idea what the test was like (I had looked a couple practice tests before, but never did them) and that I'm an extremely slow reader. Grr.</p>
<p>Um, you're a very slow reader and you want to go to law school. No offense, but you do realize how much reading it entails don't you?</p>
<p>^So? I'll pull multiple all nighters a week and get through it, just like I'm getting through college now and just like I got through high school.</p>
<p>Slow, close reading is very important in law school. Quality, not quantity, is key. A lot of fast readers have trouble slowing down and parsing the individual words in a case or statute. Don't worry about it.</p>
<p>Oh, okay. :D</p>
<p>
^So? I'll pull multiple all nighters a week and get through it, just like I'm getting through college now and just like I got through high school.
</p>
<p>
Senior Member</p>
<p>Join Date: May 2006 Location: Harvard Law School....in my imagination
</p>
<p>I go to NYU, I pull at most a few all-nighters a semester, my reading speed is well above-average, my cold LSAT score was higher than yours, yet I wouldn't bank myself on getting into Harvard Law (as you seem to daydream about). NYU is not an overly difficult school and the fact that you are pulling "multiple all-nighters" a week, coupled with your claim that you read very slowly, leads me to think that your expectations are too high and will probably be shattered when D-Day comes. I'm not saying it's not possible for you to gain admission into a top law school; I'm just encouraging you to keep a realistic and open-minded perspective on things.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Slow, close reading is very important in law school. Quality, not quantity, is key. A lot of fast readers have trouble slowing down and parsing the individual words in a case or statute. Don't worry about it.
[/quote]
I think this is a mischaracterization. While it's true that fast readers must slow down, this isn't because they're fast; it's because legal reading is much more difficult than standard reading. Slow readers will also have to slow down. And given the volume of reading that must sometimes be done, quality and quantity are key.</p>
<p>It's a mistake to argue that poor readers as undergraduates will somehow find a comparative advantage when they get to law school. Law school is difficult for skilled, fast readers; it compounds the insult to slow, poor ones.</p>
<p>Poor readers and slow readers are two different things. Close reading is by definition slow. If you are a slow reader because you habitually read closely, you will do fine, and you won't need to slow down, at least not after you get used to the analytics of reading law. If it's because you have to sound out each word then this is a problem.</p>
<p>I know plenty of slow readers who satisfy the above -- and plenty of fast readers who aren't particularly skilled. The former did well in law school, the latter, not so hot.</p>
<p>coolbluebeans-I'm a firm believer in the 90% Achievement Theory-whatever you aim for, you'll most likely only achieve 90% or less of it. Thus if I aim for a 180 on the LSAT I'm likely to only get a 175 or less, if I aim for Harvard Law School, chances are I'll end up at UVa or Penn Law (not that those are bad institutions-because they're excellent institutions), if I aim for a 100 on a test I'll likely get a 90, if I aim to make $100k on an investment I'll likely only make $90k, etc. etc.</p>
<p>Thus I must aim for Harvard so that I'll get somwhere in the top 14.</p>
<p>... but that... it... doesn't work. I can't try really hard to be a Hall-of-Fame baseball player and magically become a serviceable third baseman. I can't decide right now that I'm going to be President and automatically become a Senator. You don't get places by aiming for higher places; you get places through a combination of talent, well-targeted work, perseverance, and luck. Incorrect goals are either totally irrelevant or, if anything, a hindrance.</p>
<p>i love bluedevilmike.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can't decide right now that I'm going to be President and automatically become a Senator.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Says who? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Who says I'm just going to have goals? You aim for Harvard and work toward it rather than aiming for something lower. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>90% of 180 is 162, not 175.</p>
<p>
coolbluebeans-I'm a firm believer in the 90% Achievement Theory-whatever you aim for, you'll most likely only achieve 90% or less of it.
Lol. Never heard that one before. I'll aim to be God then. I might not get to be God but I'll at least end up at something 90% there. Maybe I'll have special powers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Thus if I aim for a 180 on the LSAT I'm likely to only get a 175 or less
[/quote]
175 is not necessarily 90% of achieving a 180 until proven otherwise.</p>
<p>
[quote]
if I aim for Harvard Law School, chances are I'll end up at UVa or Penn Law (not that those are bad institutions-because they're excellent institutions),
[/quote]
UVA or Penn Law are not necessarily 90% of achieving Harvard until proven otherwise.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Thus I must aim for Harvard so that I'll get somwhere in the top 14.
[/quote]
Supposing Harvard is the 100% mark for you, that does not mean the next school down encompasses at least the 90% mark. For example, let's suppose Stanford is the next school down for you, and it is actually the 89% mark rather than the 90% mark. Then, if you aim for the 100% mark but miss the 100% mark, the next best possible alternative is nothing greater than the 89% mark, so you will not have achieved the 90% mark or greater.</p>
<p>In other words, you have to find better evidence for your claims that x is 90% of y.</p>
<p>Also, let's just use common sense: this is ******** (see my example of God above). Let's look at another example: someone with Down's Syndrome and no hands got a 120 on his LSAT test because he couldn't fill in any of the bubbles (since he didn't have hands). He had aimed for a 180 the previous hour but failed. Assuming 120 is not at least the 90% of the mark of 180 (that may be debatable), he has FAILED THE 90% ACHIEVEMENT TEST THEORY OH NOES.</p>
<p>But seriously, bro, take it easy. What happens if you don't get into the T14? Do you have any alternatives? You gotta think things through or you might regret it later on.</p>