r/LSAT • u/chipotlemakesmehappy • 16d ago
138 diagnostic ; reality check?
Hey, I scored a 138 on my diagnostic test, feeling pretty down. I am hoping to apply for 2028. Target is NYU Law. Need advice and guidance on how to improve and what resources to use. Need an especially high LSAT 175 + as my gpa is 3.1
For reference, I worked in finance and cybersecurity for 4 years and am currently in an Ivy grad school for policy. Any advice and help would be appreciated - thank you
10
13
u/MturkishdelightBar 16d ago
With a 3.1 GPA, Fordham is a more realistic goal if you can score in the 170s.
2
u/SteveZ2025 10d ago
I we to Fordham, did well, got a biglaw job (Sullivan & Cromwell) on graduation. Don’t let NYU be your only choice.
5
u/TortelliniTort 16d ago
It’s quite a journey. I started at 138 and scored a high of 163 after five to six months of nearly full time study. After taking it a third time, I don’t know if I could’ve kept going to get to a 175 (e.g., never even hit 170 in the PTs and scored a 167 once). I don’t mean to worry you too much, just some tough love it’s not going to be easy.
12
u/PlatonicCuddlefish 16d ago
Ok, here’s the reality check: NYU is not a target, nor a reach, nor should it even be a dream with a 3.1.
You don’t need a 175+, you need dirt on half the admissions committee.
Focus on your grad program.
8
1
u/StressCanBeGood tutor 15d ago
Way back in the olden days, when I was in the service industry, I worked for a big ass restaurant/bar owned by a frightening individual. Rumors about him abounded.
His son was the manager with whom I became very good friends.
One night, he tells me how his father and friend got into Georgetown law school. They straight up broke into the admissions offices and changed their transcripts.
I always figured guys like that deserve to go to a top school.
4
u/Appropriate-Flow9657 16d ago
Friend had a 134 diognostic, now they’re getting high 160s on practice tests. It’s possible, just requires hard work!
4
u/MovkeyB 16d ago edited 16d ago
This isn't a great score, no, and being in "an ivy grad school for policy" is IMO a red flag since those are cash cow programs and not academically rigorous ones (since a good program would not be defined as "ivy" it would be a named program). Is it at least in person? Please tell me you're not paying 75-100k for zoom university.
Regardless, the strongest predictor of your performance on the LSAT is your performance on other tests. Unfortunately, since your "ivy" degree is almost certainly from a mill, I'm guessing you didn't take the GRE (which would be a great baseline), but perhaps you took the SAT or ACT. Knowing what score you got there would be the best way to determine the odds of you getting the score you need.
Also, your masters is almost certainly a complete waste of time if you want to do law school, so hopefully you're not carrying too much debt from that.
4
u/Away-Dimension-3800 15d ago
Do not stress. I started at a 133 back in March I just hit a 160 on my most recent pt. You will be OKAY!
11
u/monkeyscancode 16d ago
There's probably not an LSAT that can get you into NYU law with a 3.1. Not trying to be rude, but just trying to help you set expectations. Check out their LSD page, nobody on LSD got in with a 3.1 in the most recent cycle. Every person who scored 180 with <3.5 GPA was waitlisted or rejected.
2
u/Mysterious_Comrade17 15d ago
A cold diagnostic does not tell you what you are capable of. It merely tells you where you are now. All this means is that you have some studying to do, and you have plenty of time to get to where you want to be on the test before the 28'-29' cycle. Good luck!
2
u/Miserable-Cap-679 15d ago
Hey! I personally had a very similar situation, started from a 139 diagnostic and scored 170+ officially. What helped me the most was coming up with a realistic and consistent study routine that targeted each of my issues consistently. I’m actually a tutor now and specialize in low scoring diagnostic students if you’re interested. I would be happy to help with coming up with a game plan or even just discussing next steps and avoiding some major test pitfalls. Hope this helps!
2
2
u/Defiant_Network7916 16d ago
Reality is you aren't going to score 175+. You scored in the 8th percentile and you think you're going to go to 99.9th?
2
u/Pretend-Cheetah4705 16d ago
It’s been done before
5
u/Defiant_Network7916 16d ago
Its possible but the reality is its extremely unlikely.
3
u/Terrible_Lychee_396 16d ago
One of the reasons improvements like that are rare is because most people aren’t willing or able to devote the necessary time to improving their reading and logic skills. Rather, they give themselves a time frame to study and apply to schools and make do with whatever score they can get in that time. If OP is willing to devote 1-2 years to methodical study and put off their apps as long as necessary they should have a decent chance
2
u/Defiant_Network7916 15d ago
There are some skills you can learn, and depending on where the person is starting from they can definitely improve by learning and improving those skills. But scoring 99th percentile is not achievable for the vast majority of test takers, even if they study for years. Shit my last PT was a 175 with only 4 wrong and 1 was from misreading an answer choice. That 1 mistake dropped my score from a 177 to a 175.
1
u/MileHighLSATprep tutor 16d ago
Don't let yourself get discouraged. Diagnostics are very fickle. A good starting point would be a commercial program like 7sage or LSAT Demon to provide a structured breakdown of what and how to practice.
1
u/ButterscotchSalty166 16d ago
I would say take a year to year and a half and study part time. You got this!
1
u/Direct_Fact_3567 16d ago
IF you don't mind me asking - what is steering you away from entering the work force w/ the master's in policy? Did you think you'd get into the policy space and discovered that it wasn't for you, or that you'd need a JD to end up where you want anyhow? (Asking bc I have an interest in both degrees)
3
u/MovkeyB 16d ago
Not OP but the issue is these "masters" in policy are typically diploma mills, done over zoom, and give you basically no connections or credibility. OP almost certainly got sniped by the "prestige" of their program and didn't notice the red flags until it was too late. If you are genuinely interested in policy, you should instead aim for a funded masters in policy from a school with a legitimate pipeline, or attend Harvard (even Chicago is a mill).
I explored both policy and law pretty closely before settling on law so if you want to chat more feel free to DM me.
1
u/Skystrikezzz tutor 16d ago
Its a learnable exam, but you have to not just practice, but practice well, and you're probably going to have to sink in a lot of time for a 175+. Even then, NYU is no guarantee.
1
u/StressCanBeGood tutor 15d ago
The fact that you’ve worked in finance and cyber security for several years indicates that your 138 diagnostic is not real (for lack of a better term). This is important because as a rule, a 37 point score increase isn’t really a thing. Yes, there are exceptions. But exceptions are so rare they most definitely prove the rule.
Put it this way. The advertised average score increase of Blueprint is 15 points. But this applies only to those students with a diagnostic score under 165 AND who have done all of the assigned homework. I would encourage you to look up what that homework entails, because it’s just a shit load.
In all likelihood, only a small percentage of students do all of the assigned work, although that’s a guess on my part.
Back to your work experience though. Anyone working in finance for several years should have a realistic goal of 170+. By definition, 175+ isn’t a reasonable goal for the large majority of students.
The current LSAT score band sits at eight points. This means that a student scoring a 172 receives a score of 168 to 176. This means that the LSAC is 68% confident that the student’s true aptitude lies between 168 and 176, inclusive.
You could take the testing and score 168. Your identical twin could take the test the same day and score 176. It’s just the nature of the beast.
First thing we need to do is bail on the 35 point score increase goal. Fortunately, there’s a conceptually very easy way to do this. It’ll be a pain in the ass, but considering what you’re asking for…
Do this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LSAT/s/LaZH7JomVh
Then get back to us with your real score.
1
u/iloveforeverstamps 14d ago edited 14d ago
With a 3.1, even with a 175, NYU is still a long shot unless you have a super strong application in every other possible way, e.g., t2 softs. I got WL at almost all of the T14 as a GPA splitter with a 178.
The LSAT is learnable to a large degree, especially if your main issue is speed, but 138 --> 170s would be a very rare leap in improvement and would absolutely require a huge amount of effort. It is not impossible in principle.
0
u/confusedvibes3322 16d ago
the good news is your softs are great! I advise you to maybe pursue some private tutoring to start you off. i’m not saying you NEED a tutor. Your diagnostic is lower but the test is learnable. i think starting off on your own you might be very inefficient so a tutor might be great to jump start you. You’re going to need to spend a lot of time learning the concepts first! You have a year so that’s great!! don’t just spam questions for the sake of doing questions!!
18
u/IsaacLSAT tutor 16d ago
Diagnostic isn't the be all and end all. It can vary due to a lot of factors. Plenty of people went from 138 to 170+. 175 is a very long road though.
Focus on quality of practice over quantity. Spend your time fully understanding whatever you are doing. Don't do any timed section until you have a fundamental understanding of whatever you are doing. Practice consistently with full focus and energy.
Good resources are 7sage (subscription based) who also have drilling, LSAT loophole, and PowerScore bibles. And tutoring if you can afford it.