Top Law Schools

Micdiddy wrote:

glucose101 wrote:

patienunderstanding wrote:Question to those who already took the LSAT. When you have a booklet in front of you, can you 'delicately' skim through, let say just barely look through it and see what is section 2 or 3 for example?

Um, no.

I was wondering this too. At the end of your first section can't you just flip the page fr a second? How would the procor know you're not going from the 2nd to last page to the last??

If you get caught your score is invalidated and LSAC will inform every school you apply to that you're a cheater.
Basically, your legal career will be dead in the water

In Oct 2011 I had two LRs in the first three sections (1,3). As I was taking it, section 3 seemed "off". I was sure that this was the experimental, and didn't take it as seriously when I ran out of time. After the break, my thoughts were further validated when section 4 was once again a LR. Surely this section was the real deal, so with the joy of correctly guessing the experimental, I felt that I nailed the section.

Section 4 was the experimental. I bombed section 3. Don't do what I did.

superbloom wrote:In Oct 2011 I had two LRs in the first three sections (1,3). As I was taking it, section 3 seemed "off". I was sure that this was the experimental, and didn't take it as seriously when I ran out of time. After the break, my thoughts were further validated when section 4 was once again a LR. Surely this section was the real deal, so with the joy of correctly guessing the experimental, I felt that I nailed the section.

Section 4 was the experimental. I bombed section 3. Don't do what I did.

Mind of I asked what felt "off" about section 3 that made you sure enough to take it easy??

Also, though we've all heard the stories of experimental RC section with like 30 line passages, which should make it pretty obvious, aren't most EX. sections completely normal? They're trying to gauge that a question is fit to be on the real thing, so most of the time EX passage have questions strongly vetted already and practically identical to real questions, right?

Micdiddy wrote:

superbloom wrote:In Oct 2011 I had two LRs in the first three sections (1,3). As I was taking it, section 3 seemed "off". I was sure that this was the experimental, and didn't take it as seriously when I ran out of time. After the break, my thoughts were further validated when section 4 was once again a LR. Surely this section was the real deal, so with the joy of correctly guessing the experimental, I felt that I nailed the section.

Section 4 was the experimental. I bombed section 3. Don't do what I did.

Mind of I asked what felt "off" about section 3 that made you sure enough to take it easy??

Also, though we've all heard the stories of experimental RC section with like 30 line passages, which should make it pretty obvious, aren't most EX. sections completely normal? They're trying to gauge that a question is fit to be on the real thing, so most of the time EX passage have questions strongly vetted already and practically identical to real questions, right?

I made the assumption that the experimental section would somehow seem different from the other sections. For me, the section to which I referring was especially difficult and I could not wrap my head around a couple questions. Knowing that I already had a LR section I assumed that this must have been the experiemental. I focused too much on finding the experimental so I must have convinced myself that the difficult questions were somehow flawed. My next time around I got the exact same format (LR,LG,LR,LR,RC) but didn't concern myself with guessing the experimental (This time it was sec. 3). Worked out much better for me. In the end I'm not sure there are any indicators of an experiemental (the LRs are all I've experienced), and if there are, I wasn't sharp enough to catch them.

superbloom wrote:

Micdiddy wrote:

superbloom wrote:In Oct 2011 I had two LRs in the first three sections (1,3). As I was taking it, section 3 seemed "off". I was sure that this was the experimental, and didn't take it as seriously when I ran out of time. After the break, my thoughts were further validated when section 4 was once again a LR. Surely this section was the real deal, so with the joy of correctly guessing the experimental, I felt that I nailed the section.

Section 4 was the experimental. I bombed section 3. Don't do what I did.

Mind of I asked what felt "off" about section 3 that made you sure enough to take it easy??

Also, though we've all heard the stories of experimental RC section with like 30 line passages, which should make it pretty obvious, aren't most EX. sections completely normal? They're trying to gauge that a question is fit to be on the real thing, so most of the time EX passage have questions strongly vetted already and practically identical to real questions, right?

I made the assumption that the experimental section would somehow seem different from the other sections. For me, the section to which I referring was especially difficult and I could not wrap my head around a couple questions. Knowing that I already had a LR section I assumed that this must have been the experiemental. I focused too much on finding the experimental so I must have convinced myself that the difficult questions were somehow flawed. My next time around I got the exact same format (LR,LG,LR,LR,RC) but didn't concern myself with guessing the experimental (This time it was sec. 3). Worked out much better for me. In the end I'm not sure there are any indicators of an experiemental (the LRs are all I've experienced), and if there are, I wasn't sharp enough to catch them.

No worries, glad it worked out better the second time!

I think people who go into it thinking they will "catch" that pesky experimental section and sit it out are inevitably more likely to A: Guess which section is experimental, and B: Be wrong and do poorly on a real section. I'll prob not risk it, but I can't help but feel a part of my mind will be wondering if I'm doing an experimental section right now...that might be annoying.

October 10 test. i had RCRC LR in the first 3 sections. Knew one of the RC was experimental but not sure which one. Ended up guessing that the second one was experimental, but it was the first. Didnt matter, I did well enough, but unless you are prepared to take the thing again, go in with the assumption that all 5 sections are graded and there are no experimentals..... then re assess that though process AFTER the last section

** and by last section, I mean when you manage to put something legible down on the writing section**


but you could take a bet as to who actually reads the writing section, and if its graded or not ( that would be a shocker if LSAC decided to actually grade the writing sectoin like a law school exam.....)

I learned how to recognize the experimental section, but I never gambled with it. Just take five sections of the LSAT at a time when practicing, and your brain will be used to that. No sense in taking a stupid risk when you can avoid it with just a bit more work.

The experimental section tends to either have odd question types, is unusually easy, or is otherwise awkward.

That said, you should never rely on a guess as to whether you need to focus.

Wow. The fact that everyone in here who did adopt this strategy guessed WRONG. Makes me want to be the first one to guess RIGHT.

DaRascal wrote:Wow. The fact that everyone in here who did adopt this strategy guessed WRONG. Makes me want to be the first one to guess RIGHT.

You must have missed a) the guy ITT that guessed correctly and b) all the posts saying not to do this.

Scotusnerd wrote:
The experimental section tends to either have odd question types, is unusually easy, or is otherwise awkward.

How many times did you take the LSAT?

I knew section 1 of my Feb admin was the experimental, but I still put forth my best effort, took it as a warm up basically. The second passage was literally 2 paragraphs, you could have fit 2 questions on the bottom left of the page if you wanted to! It was an absurd anomaly for an RC passage. It wasn't even like concise, it barely had a purpose.

suspicious android wrote:How many times did you take the LSAT?

Three times. Scored a 157, a 151, and a 164. Why?

Scotusnerd wrote: Three times. Scored a 157, a 151, and a 164. Why?

Just wondered how many times you dealt with experimental sections.

Scotusnerd wrote:

suspicious android wrote:How many times did you take the LSAT?

Three times. Scored a 157, a 151, and a 164. Why?

3 times for me, as well.

mattviphky wrote:3 times for me, as well.

Yah, I remember you inspiring me to make my own thread due to your success Looks like we both got to where we wanted to.

But seriously. Friends don't let friends guess which LSAT section is experimental.