mst wrote:citrustang wrote:It is a very unique idea, and it has a lot of merit. Plenty of cons though: People don't have the same 3 sections first, so those who have certain forms will be at a distinct advantage depending on their circumstances. I think that this could be avoided in some regards if they ensured everyone had the same first 3 sections, just in different order.
At the very least, this clears up peoples ability to cheat in many circumstances, and even clears up much of their motivation. The problem with score differentials still be rather meaningless yet critically important would still exist.
Yeah, actually it doesn't address the issue you brought up at all. I was originally gonna write 2 suggestions, but this one seemed so cool to me that I just dropped the first. My first idea was to make the LSAT a 2-day, 16 hour test. Roughly the same format, just lots more questions. That would make any one question 1/4th as important. They used to do the LSAT this way back in the 50's or 60's, it was probably too expensive to make that many questions and also for test-takers who might require a hotel or something. But I'd gladly do this if it meant I didn't have to worry about bombing one logic game destroying my score.
As for my other idea, yeah, they'd have to make sure everyone took the first three sections together, though not necessarily in the same order. Shouldn't be a big obstacle. It'd still be difficult to look at someone else's test and figure out anything useful, since their #10 wouldn't be your #10.