Top Law Schools

You don't have to rank them or get into specifics as to certain questions/sections; I'm just seeking an unscientific opinion. That's all.

It seems as though (for me at least) PTs 48-52 was quite challenging (especially the LR questions).

I will second that.

I did a 7 section marathon today (1/2 PT 49, 1/2 54 + 51 LG). I got owned on the 4 LR sections. I mean no shit owned. I normally miss 2-3 per section, I missed 7 in a section. Not sure if it was fatigue (this is my 4th day in a row of >5 hours of studying) but man...

Yep. RC takes me longer, and the LG get easier. I should have started taking these more recent tests sooner...

MarineLaw wrote:I normally miss 2-3 per section, I missed 7 in a section.

My goodness! Hear hear! Ditto. The LRs are surprisingly difficult in this range. And the consensus extends TLS (friends have said so, that's why I wanted to gauge TLS feedback).

Me too. I usually get 2-4 wrong, but in those PTs (which I did recently, well-rested and all) I got anywhere from 5-11 wrong.

Thanks for sharing!

LR on 49 did seem unusually difficult to me as well

Hm, LR on PT 49 was my best LR score ever out of about 20 tests.

LR on 45, however, owned me. I'm generally -1 or -2, and I was -5 on both LR sections.

coldshoulder wrote:Hm, LR on PT 49 was my best LR score ever out of about 20 tests.

LR on 45, however, owned me. I'm generally -1 or -2, and I was -5 on both LR sections.

Hmm.. on PT 45 I was within my average. After beginning my review on 49 it seems that the problems were not necessarily harder, just more complex (specifically in that inferences were a bit more difficult). Maybe just an off day, takin tomorrow off for some rest.

Re. PT 49.

Yep, I got raped on PT 49 in general, mostly on LRs though.

I try and not worry about that too much.

The consensus seem to be that PTs late 40s/early 50s seem rather difficult than the rest. So no biggie.

dang i'm so happy to see this thread.

I did 48, 49, and 50 for Monday through Wednesday respectively and I felt miserable because I was no where of getting near to my goal. Last week I got it up to missing about 2~3 per sections for PT in 30s. But I missed 4 and 5 for 48, 7 and 5 for 49, and 8 and 6 for 50.

It's good to see that I'm not the only one struggling.

It seems to me that standardized tests are, well, standardized. Especially with a test as well written as the LSAT.

Whichever one had the dino game

Campagnolo wrote:It seems to me that standardized tests are, well, standardized. Especially with a test as well written as the LSAT.

True, but that's only from a structural standpoint.

The universal application and impact of these tests, however, is not all that standardized; a credible argument could be made that it isn't most of the times.

If Persons X, Y, Z take standardized tests, then we can gauge their performance on a level-playing field. But, if Person U or Person V were to take tests that are far more complicated than the tests taken by Persons X, Y, Z, then clearly the 'standardized' element is arguably invalid simply because Persons U and/or V are disadvantaged...

Well, you see where I'm going with this.

kls120 wrote:dang i'm so happy to see this thread.

I did 48, 49, and 50 for Monday through Wednesday respectively and I felt miserable because I was no where of getting near to my goal. Last week I got it up to missing about 2~3 per sections for PT in 30s. But I missed 4 and 5 for 48, 7 and 5 for 49, and 8 and 6 for 50.

It's good to see that I'm not the only one struggling.

Lol it's interesting that my average is about -2 _ -3 and for PT 49 I missed 7 and 5,respectively

Curry wrote:Whichever one had the dino game

Just took it today and got a 163 (my average is a 167-171). The mauve dinosaurs weren't even the issue (I did miss three due to random guesses as I ran out of time), it was the LR sections. I usually miss 2-4 on LR and I missed 5 and 9 respectively. Anyone else have this much trouble? (It's PT 57 by the way.)

kls120 wrote:dang i'm so happy to see this thread.

Thanks! That's why I made this thread, ie. to seek an unscientific consensus. And it confirmed my doubts that the LRs on PTs 48-51 are just brutal. So no one should feel awful if they did bad.

Also, here's some quick observations:

PTs 51 and below:

-> LGs are somewhat tough and time-consuming (ie. advanced linear, circular, etc)
-> LRs are fairly decent;
-> RCs are okay.

PTs 52 and above:

-> LGs are fairly normal with grouping, sequencing, etc. (but some odd ones notwithstanding, ie. dino game, "rule substitution", etc)
-> LRs are much more harder and challenging, also more verbose in terms of content;
-> RCs ditto, more challenging than RCs before.

Just my 2 cents.

justbubbles wrote:

Campagnolo wrote:It seems to me that standardized tests are, well, standardized. Especially with a test as well written as the LSAT.

True, but that's only from a structural standpoint.

The universal application and impact of these tests, however, is not all that standardized; a credible argument could be made that it isn't most of the times.

If Persons X, Y, Z take standardized tests, then we can gauge their performance on a level-playing field. But, if Person U or Person V were to take tests that are far more complicated than the tests taken by Persons X, Y, Z, then clearly the 'standardized' element is arguably invalid simply because Persons U and/or V are disadvantaged...

Well, you see where I'm going with this.

I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with this. For any given admissions cycle, there are people applying with LSAT scores from a five-year spread. I don't think anyone can say that people who took June 08 are disadvantaged over someone applying with a score from December 10 (or any other random administration you choose).

Isn't it more likely that you just had a bad day?

Note: edited for grammar