2 tests back to back = stupid?

User avatar
lebob
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:25 pm

2 tests back to back = stupid?

Postby lebob » Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:36 am

For the purpose of building endurance:
is it a dumb idea to do 2 practice tests back to back, so, 8 sections in total (not doing any experimental sections)?

has anyone tried anything like this?

romanholiday
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:04 am

Re: 2 tests back to back = stupid?

Postby romanholiday » Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:58 am

lebob wrote:For the purpose of building endurance:
is it a dumb idea to do 2 practice tests back to back, so, 8 sections in total (not doing any experimental sections)?

has anyone tried anything like this?


I understand why you would try to do this, but I think your time would be better spent just taking one real practice test and carefully reviewing your mistakes.

It's not like the LSAT has a magical POP QUIZ section that requires you to do an extra RC or something.

mps200
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:16 am

Re: 2 tests back to back = stupid?

Postby mps200 » Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:05 am

Stupid...if you're trying to simulate the LSAT experience, DO THE EXPERIMENTAL while taking the exam and then review afterwards

User avatar
Richie Tenenbaum
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:17 am

Re: 2 tests back to back = stupid?

Postby Richie Tenenbaum » Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:16 am

lebob wrote:For the purpose of building endurance:
is it a dumb idea to do 2 practice tests back to back, so, 8 sections in total (not doing any experimental sections)?

has anyone tried anything like this?


Yes.

If you want to work on endurance trying doing marathons of 3 LR sections, 3 RC, or 3 LG. Or trying doing 5 sections, strictly timed, with no break.

8 sections in a row just seems like an unnecessary punishment though.

User avatar
kazu
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: 2 tests back to back = stupid?

Postby kazu » Fri Mar 05, 2010 5:37 am

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:Yes.

If you want to work on endurance trying doing marathons of 3 LR sections, 3 RC, or 3 LG. Or trying doing 5 sections, strictly timed, with no break.

8 sections in a row just seems like an unnecessary punishment though.


+1, especially the bolded part. Marathons of 3 same sections back-to-back will help your endurance more than simply going through 8 sections. You only have a limited number of prep tests, so you should use them as wisely as possible.

februaryftw
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:01 pm

Re: 2 tests back to back = stupid?

Postby februaryftw » Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:01 pm

I used this method occasionally because I wanted to practice questions as much as possible and didn't have excess time (so didn't have to ration tests, but I did use them all).

It was helpful for me, but tiring. One of the advantages is by the 3 or 4th section, you are practicing taking the test tired. Or that is what I thought, theoretically. The real advantage for me personally was I realized I am much better once I get going on questions, and fatigue wasn't much of a concern (my first 180 was a back to back session). So the morning of the exam I did a little more warm up than most people (about 20 minutes, first 10 LR + 2 games). It also helped me practice the exam, which helped my timing, etc.

The main disadvantage is I felt wiped out the next day, if I recall. So I'd say you might try it occasionally as long as you guard against burnout. I'd also say it is probably only helpful if you are already accurate (I was in the low to mid 170s before I started trying this); the gains are practice and timing and endurance, things that are useful once you are already accurate.

Finally, I ended up switching to six section tests because I found them more useful and something I could do every day. But don't be wary of experimenting in your practice, especially with old tests.

skip james
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:53 am

Re: 2 tests back to back = stupid?

Postby skip james » Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:33 am

februaryftw wrote:I used this method occasionally because I wanted to practice questions as much as possible and didn't have excess time (so didn't have to ration tests, but I did use them all).

It was helpful for me, but tiring. One of the advantages is by the 3 or 4th section, you are practicing taking the test tired. Or that is what I thought, theoretically. The real advantage for me personally was I realized I am much better once I get going on questions, and fatigue wasn't much of a concern (my first 180 was a back to back session). So the morning of the exam I did a little more warm up than most people (about 20 minutes, first 10 LR + 2 games). It also helped me practice the exam, which helped my timing, etc.

The main disadvantage is I felt wiped out the next day, if I recall. So I'd say you might try it occasionally as long as you guard against burnout. I'd also say it is probably only helpful if you are already accurate (I was in the low to mid 170s before I started trying this); the gains are practice and timing and endurance, things that are useful once you are already accurate.

Finally, I ended up switching to six section tests because I found them more useful and something I could do every day. But don't be wary of experimenting in your practice, especially with old tests.


I would agree with this assessment.

User avatar
Cupidity
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:21 pm

Re: 2 tests back to back = stupid?

Postby Cupidity » Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:43 am

'cha I got 3 LR's in a row on the real thing. That takes endurance, I imagine 2 games would as well.

pattymac
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:44 pm

Re: 2 tests back to back = stupid?

Postby pattymac » Sun Mar 07, 2010 9:05 am

Might be cool on the first run to take a test you've seen before, albeit not recently?? Kind of get used to the endurance part...just a thought.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kakistocracy, MichiganHoosier and 5 guests