December 2010 Initial Reactions Forum

[2011Law]

Am I the only one that remembers a male/female whales question

its bad to take mushrooms before the lsat

Get high --> take the LSAT high --> score high marks?

which one of the following exhibits a similar.... fuck this i'm too tired

[Moral_Midgetry]

I like people who help the curve. There was a guy at my center who was taking the test for the third time on three hours of sleep. Ha

Me too. When I took in Oct a girl next to me was only able to get through about 10 on each section and bubbled D for the rest. I thought "God bless you and I hope you have friends."

[noleknight16]

Look they have done -14 curves before. And they have done -4 for a 180. I have taken those tests(June 2010) and it was a much much easier test than this test. I think they will bump it up at least to -15. But I am guessing -17.

So what you're saying is that my first LSAT was the hardest one ever administered?

[jtoppe2]

This curve is going to be -15-17. Not kidding. At least -5 to get a 180. 102 questions is very strange unless you are trying to pwn hard.

I don't believe you, but I really really want to.

+1

[pineappledazzler]

I had LR RC LR LR LG - so one of the first 2 LR's (either 25 or 26) was experimental. I thought LR was average, RC seemed a little science-heavy in terms of content, but LG - where I usually get -0 or at most -1 for a silly slip-up - completely killed me. First/last games were all right, stained glass was hard but I got through it - but that left me with time to solve only 1 conference question fully, guess between a few answers on another, and bubble 3 in randomly. Which will kill my score if they're not nice on the curve :/
but seems like that's true for a lot of test-takers on here - here's hoping for a great curve slash removal of some of those insane LGs from scoring...

[testmachine45]

No, I am saying you fucked up by not taking your first lsat score because this one is even harder.

[2Serious4Numbers]

Look they have done -14 curves before. And they have done -4 for a 180. I have taken those tests(June 2010) and it was a much much easier test than this test. I think they will bump it up at least to -15. But I am guessing -17.

i'm not disputing that it couldn't happen. i was just curious as to what you basis for such a large jump was

[Dr. Strangelove]

*sigh*

LR 1: Nice
RC: Tough..some passages were easier for me than others. (The teeth one was good.. the medical diagram one... )
LG 1: Rocked it.. too bad it was experimental.
LR 2: A little tougher but certainly better than anything I had in June.
LG 2: YAY.. Huh, okay I got it... GRRRRRR..... YAY
Writing Sample:

[jwmalone87]

Regarding RC...

I thought the passages were not that bad except for the one about Agriculture and Studying teeth which got pretty detailed in the second passage...

Also I thought Jewett was pretty tough had to guess on 2 because of time...

Ugh. The caries passage sucked.

I'm not optimistic for that kind of curve. If the test is harder, I think it's because the test is simply trending that way since 60...more people taking prep courses is my theory.

[Beas]

all i can think about is how fucking awesome i would have done if the easy LG section was the real one.. everything else was cake

Which one do you think is the experimental one and which one the real one is?

[dlbuhr]

I had LR RC LR LR LG - so one of the first 2 LR's (either 25 or 26) was experimental. I thought LR was average, RC seemed a little science-heavy in terms of content, but LG - where I usually get -0 or at most -1 for a silly slip-up - completely killed me. First/last games were all right, stained glass was hard but I got through it - but that left me with time to solve only 1 conference question fully, guess between a few answers on another, and bubble 3 in randomly. Which will kill my score if they're not nice on the curve :/
but seems like that's true for a lot of test-takers on here - here's hoping for a great curve slash removal of some of those insane LGs from scoring...

This exactly

[gens1tb]

edited

[Tullstone]

I am both dissappointed and glad to hear that everyone thought the conferences game was that hard. i simply couldnt make the inferences after 3 mins, moved to the last game, pwned it, then went back and stared at it and made some guesses. No clue lol.


RC was alot of science!! yay!!

[Dr. Strangelove]

The curve was -14 last December.. so might be around there this time.
I think I did better this time around even though I messed up on a logic game.

[Moral_Midgetry]

Whoever wrote those LGs needs to be shot.

[novab]

wow - I came out of there utterly confused as to how I did. I was PTing 167-169, took October and got a 164 so I took it again today.

I had: RC LR LG LG LR

Test will be out of 102.

LG is by far my best section out of about 15-20 PTs I have taken I have only gotten three questions wrong total - two dumb mistakes and one that I read the question wrong.

The exp LG was easy (I had 8 minutes left) then came section 4. games 2 and 3 were killer just in that they were time consuming...I had one question left and had gone through three answer choices so I may have gotten that one wrong and there were about 2 other questions that I was not sure about but since I knew I was running out of time I didnt get a chance to check.

RC killed me. Its my worst section anyway - and the last passage just threw me. I ended up at -9 last time around and I felt worse this time...

LR - i'm not sure how this went. It seemed pretty standard...there were some questions that kind of threw me (organic elements and mental illness was one...)

overall i am upset to say I think I did the same or worse than last time.....

hopefully there is a killer curve (maybe the extra LR question will help too???) haha one can wish

has there ever been a test with 102 before??

[testmachine45]

Only a fucking freakish genius could get a 172+ on this one without a nice curve!!!

[DukeCornell]

I like people who help the curve. There was a guy at my center who was taking the test for the third time on three hours of sleep. Ha

Me too. When I took in Oct a girl next to me was only able to get through about 10 on each section and bubbled D for the rest. I thought "God bless you and I hope you have friends."

Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

[Tullstone]

That question about suns older than time was the only thing in LR that tripped me up, and I don't even know know

You mean stars older than the universe?

[veragood]

Uh, I'm looking at the June 2010 "official lsat preptest" and 180 was 97-99 correct.. it was out of 100 (one dropped). soo you're full of bullshit on that one.

doesn't mean there hasn't been a -4 180 before. i would have no idea where to look for that information, though.

[lilliea]

That question about suns older than time was the only thing in LR that tripped me up, and I don't even know why

+1 I stared at that for a good three minutes.

[Tullstone]

Look they have done -14 curves before. And they have done -4 for a 180. I have taken those tests(June 2010) and it was a much much easier test than this test. I think they will bump it up at least to -15. But I am guessing -17.

So what you're saying is that my first LSAT was the hardest one ever administered?

Its certainly the hardest games section i think ive seen.

[psg237]

The curve was -14 last December.. so might be around there this time.
I think I did better this time around even though I messed up on a logic game.

I took last December too. I was much more prepared for this, but I think that this one was much harder (after retaking the Dec 09 as a prac. test). Here's to hoping...that LG section was a schmuck.

[jwmalone87]

Whoever wrote those LGs needs to be shot.

Hahaha.

I could get anywhere from 162-169 and NOT be surprised at all. I feel like I did OK, but the first LR section was unusually hard and RC had a couple of tough passages.

I've never been this clueless on my score after taking a test before.

[Diiizzzzoooo]

Look they have done -14 curves before. And they have done -4 for a 180. I have taken those tests(June 2010) and it was a much much easier test than this test. I think they will bump it up at least to -15. But I am guessing -17.

I tend to agree here. Both the June and October 2010 were very uneventful. This test seemed to come out of nowhere. Actually the last three December exams were all tough. I would put this one in front of 56, and that one in front of 59