Page 11 of 30

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:35 pm
by thsmthcrmnl
Dotson525 wrote:In your opinion, how does the previous Feb. test you've taken compared to the other tests? Since Feb. is undisclosed, there is little to compare it to.


That's the only one I've taken for real. It was exactly like most of the PT tests in the 50s. (Except, mercifully, there were no dinosaurs.) I thought at the time some of the questions seemed less tightly written, but in retrospect, I'm pretty sure that was just test-day nerves.

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:45 pm
by 8675309
Is anyone else finding it hard to study because of the NFL playoffs?

I am dying here. All I wanna do is watch some football.

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:52 pm
by Dotson525
thsmthcrmnl wrote:
Dotson525 wrote:In your opinion, how does the previous Feb. test you've taken compared to the other tests? Since Feb. is undisclosed, there is little to compare it to.


That's the only one I've taken for real. It was exactly like most of the PT tests in the 50s. (Except, mercifully, there were no dinosaurs.) I thought at the time some of the questions seemed less tightly written, but in retrospect, I'm pretty sure that was just test-day nerves.



Thanks for the input. Reading around, you hear some pretty strange stories concerning the Feb. tests. I've taken the lsat before, just retaking to score higher for additional funding.

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:02 pm
by Pleasye
Dotson525 wrote:
thsmthcrmnl wrote:
Dotson525 wrote:In your opinion, how does the previous Feb. test you've taken compared to the other tests? Since Feb. is undisclosed, there is little to compare it to.


That's the only one I've taken for real. It was exactly like most of the PT tests in the 50s. (Except, mercifully, there were no dinosaurs.) I thought at the time some of the questions seemed less tightly written, but in retrospect, I'm pretty sure that was just test-day nerves.



Thanks for the input. Reading around, you hear some pretty strange stories concerning the Feb. tests. I've taken the lsat before, just retaking to score higher for additional funding.

This is my theory: you know how after every LSAT people come on here and are like ZOMG hardest/easiest test ever, LG WAS SO HARD, LR isa chaanginggg, RC made no sense, LSAC IS TRYING TO TRICK US!!1!1one, etc. That happens EVERY time, but then the test comes out and its like, "oh, it was a normal test just like all the other ones". However, the February test has just as much discussion and freaking out as the other tests but nobody ever gets to see it so there's still a mystery as to whether or not its actually different.

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:10 pm
by vissidarte27
Is it weird that it doesn't bother me that it's undisclosed? I don't think I've ever taken a standardized test that was disclosed, so I was pretty surprised to find that LSAT releases your test (on other test dates, obviously) and you can see where you went wrong.

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:23 pm
by Pleasye
vissidarte27 wrote:Is it weird that it doesn't bother me that it's undisclosed? I don't think I've ever taken a standardized test that was disclosed, so I was pretty surprised to find that LSAT releases your test (on other test dates, obviously) and you can see where you went wrong.

I don't think its weird. The only reason it bothers me now is because I took it in October and got to see where I went wrong then so its weird that I won't this time. If I get in the area of my target score I won't give a shiiiit that I can't see the test.

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:13 pm
by vissidarte27
Why are these 50s tests kicking my butt???? I want to go back to the 30s where I was getting 173s instead of these stupid 163s that I'm getting now.

WTF, LSAT? WTF?

(Should I be panicking yet? I'm not sure.)

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:15 pm
by Pleasye
vissidarte27 wrote:Why are these 50s tests kicking my butt???? I want to go back to the 30s where I was getting 173s instead of these stupid 163s that I'm getting now.

WTF, LSAT? WTF?

(Should I be panicking yet? I'm not sure.)

Where are you losing points? Also, you were doing tests untimed, there's a huuuge difference between untimed tests and timed tests so that may also be affecting you.

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:21 pm
by vissidarte27
LSpleaseee wrote:
vissidarte27 wrote:Why are these 50s tests kicking my butt???? I want to go back to the 30s where I was getting 173s instead of these stupid 163s that I'm getting now.

WTF, LSAT? WTF?

(Should I be panicking yet? I'm not sure.)

Where are you losing points? Also, you were doing tests untimed, there's a huuuge difference between untimed tests and timed tests so that may also be affecting you.


My last couple of 30s tests were timed so I don't think that's the main factor.

I'm losing points on all of the sections, frankly. My last 30s PT was like this:

LR1: -2
LG: -0
LR2: -4
RC: -3

I scored a 173.

I took PT54 yesterday, and it looked like this:

RC: -6
LR1: -4
LG: -3
LR2: -5

I scored a 163.

It looks like it hit me across the board, not in any one specific area. I mean, it's better than PT 53 which was better than PT52, but still. That's a BIG difference.

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:16 pm
by Lasker
thsmthcrmnl wrote:
Lasker wrote:Got a bit lucky on the RC though; the final passage had some difficult questions where I didn't feel certain of my answer. I seem to have at least 1-2 questions like that on every recent (PT 50 on) RC section. Finding a way to eliminate those will be one of my main goals in the next few weeks. Does anyone have any advice?


Keep in mind that an LSAT question won't have a good answer and a goodish answer; it has a right answer and a wrong answer. If you're unsure about a question, it's because you're missing something, maybe something as subtle as a word like "might" instead of "will" or calling a subsidiary conclusion "the conclusion" instead of "a conclusion." In the time left over after finishing a section, I'll go back and spend a few minutes on just one question I was unsure of to really carefully parse the diction of the two choices I'm considering.


Yeah this is important advice, thanks for the reminder; this was a key realization for me on the path to consistently beating LR sections. I guess I just need more practice to feel as confident eliminating wrong RC answers. I'll just keep telling myself: its not that they are less objective, its just that you are missing something.

The LSAT is a fascinating test. Even though I am getting high scores I can still see huge room for improvement.

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:23 am
by JenDarby
Well, it's official, just registered, late fee and all, and ordered preptests 57-60. If nothing else, having already applied and been accepted to a few schools, I'm at least not the least bit nervous this time around. Though if I blow my first score out of the water, I WILL regret not having applied to any real reaches.

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:18 pm
by SchopenhauerFTW
vissidarte27 wrote:
LSpleaseee wrote:
vissidarte27 wrote:Why are these 50s tests kicking my butt???? I want to go back to the 30s where I was getting 173s instead of these stupid 163s that I'm getting now.

WTF, LSAT? WTF?

(Should I be panicking yet? I'm not sure.)

Where are you losing points? Also, you were doing tests untimed, there's a huuuge difference between untimed tests and timed tests so that may also be affecting you.


My last couple of 30s tests were timed so I don't think that's the main factor.

I'm losing points on all of the sections, frankly. My last 30s PT was like this:

LR1: -2
LG: -0
LR2: -4
RC: -3

I scored a 173.

I took PT54 yesterday, and it looked like this:

RC: -6
LR1: -4
LG: -3
LR2: -5

I scored a 163.

It looks like it hit me across the board, not in any one specific area. I mean, it's better than PT 53 which was better than PT52, but still. That's a BIG difference.


I sucked at the 50s test as well. Watched myself plummet in that generation from a 166 to a 160 to a 157. I almost lost my mind. A huge 'WTF?!' My score went back up with some of the later ones, but the previous tests felt like a bad dream.
I think LR and LG have been getting trickier over the past few years. I'm planning on doing a massive review of the 50s tests this week to see if there's a particular trend that's killing my score.

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:21 pm
by Pleasye
JenDarby wrote:Well, it's official, just registered, late fee and all, and ordered preptests 57-60. If nothing else, having already applied and been accepted to a few schools, I'm at least not the least bit nervous this time around. Though if I blow my first score out of the water, I WILL regret not having applied to any real reaches.

Why are you retaking? Waitlists/scholarship money?

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:46 pm
by Sandro
guys if you havent gotten LG down on the most recent tests I suggest focusing on it. It is only my personal experience but I missed a combined ~17 or so on Oct and Dec almost half of my total mistakes , and I scored in the 90-95th percentile each time. If I could go back I would alter my strategy to make sure I got 3 games down pat and got 2 or maybe even 3 right on the last game.... I missed -11 on my first ever LSAT a year+ ago and only improved to -9 on my most recent , despite doing the LG bible multiple times, Atlas LG guide, and doing dozens and dozens of games/sections.

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:08 pm
by JenDarby
LSpleaseee wrote:
JenDarby wrote:Well, it's official, just registered, late fee and all, and ordered preptests 57-60. If nothing else, having already applied and been accepted to a few schools, I'm at least not the least bit nervous this time around. Though if I blow my first score out of the water, I WILL regret not having applied to any real reaches.

Why are you retaking? Waitlists/scholarship money?


Yea, I'm worried about UCLA. I think my chances at being accepted are decent, but they certainly won't be giving me any money. If I somehow manage to pull an amazing score, I may also wait and reapply next year, since the highest ranked school I applied to this year was Cornell.

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:38 pm
by SchopenhauerFTW
Sandro777 wrote:guys if you havent gotten LG down on the most recent tests I suggest focusing on it. It is only my personal experience but I missed a combined ~17 or so on Oct and Dec almost half of my total mistakes , and I scored in the 90-95th percentile each time. If I could go back I would alter my strategy to make sure I got 3 games down pat and got 2 or maybe even 3 right on the last game.... I missed -11 on my first ever LSAT a year+ ago and only improved to -9 on my most recent , despite doing the LG bible multiple times, Atlas LG guide, and doing dozens and dozens of games/sections.


I am drilling games this whole week. LR sucked the most for me on the recent test, but I just need to get back on track with games before I tackle LR again.

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:24 am
by 99.9luft
I am doing this old-ass testmasters handout called "LRO" - which is 450 LR questions from the 90s tests. Timing all of them. So far did 270 questions and got 88% of them right -- the same as getting -6 on both LR (50 questions) sections in a given PT. Not good for someone shooting for 170s, if you ask me. [goes back to studying]

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:36 am
by DarkPhantom
Man the damn NFL play offs ruined my momentum! Bah...struggling to get back into it...especially since I'm taking a PT in the morning! >:(

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:41 am
by 8675309
DarkPhantom wrote:Man the damn NFL play offs ruined my momentum! Bah...struggling to get back into it...especially since I'm taking a PT in the morning! >:(


I feel you. I might be going to the Packers game on Sunday too. Talk about ruining momentum for the rest of the week.

edited spelling error

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:44 am
by DarkPhantom
^what?! Are you kidding me?!?!

T_T

p.s. are ear buds allowed during the test?

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:10 am
by 99.9luft
DarkPhantom wrote:^what?! Are you kidding me?!?!

T_T

p.s. are ear buds allowed during the test?



No

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:27 am
by SchopenhauerFTW
99.9luft wrote:I am doing this old-ass testmasters handout called "LR Odyssey" - which is 450 LR questions from the 90s tests. Timing all of them. So far did 270 questions and got 88% of them right -- the same as getting -6 on both LR (50 questions) sections in a given PT. Not good for someone shooting for 170s, if you ask me. [goes back to studying]


I must find this for myself. Are they grouped by type?

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:28 am
by 8675309
^what?! Are you kidding me?!?!


Nope, I find out tomorrow if I can get the tickets. I'm pretty excited. I have my first day of classes the next day though, so that's going to kind of suck.

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:31 am
by 99.9luft
SchopenhauerFTW wrote:
99.9luft wrote:I am doing this old-ass testmasters handout called "LR Odyssey" - which is 450 LR questions from the 90s tests. Timing all of them. So far did 270 questions and got 88% of them right -- the same as getting -6 on both LR (50 questions) sections in a given PT. Not good for someone shooting for 170s, if you ask me. [goes back to studying]


I must find this for myself. Are they grouped by type?


No, not grouped by type, it's all mixed.

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:04 am
by SchopenhauerFTW
Well, full speed ahead.