Top Law Schools

How does LSAC account for the relative difficulty of the LSAT based on which experimental section you need to chug through?

For example, I find that taking an RC experimental drastically improves my RC performance for the second RC section but at the same time occasionally leaves me drained for my second LR section; especially if it is the 5th section.

Also, my highest PT scores are consistently ones in which I use an LG as experimental. Is the score band we get supposed to account for this disparity in scores? Do they arrange sections in a manner that makes the relative difficulty of the full test experience equalize regardless of which experimental section you get?

Just curious. Any thoughts?

They don't account for it. Different sections are easier/harder for different people, and it all averages out.

rinkrat19 wrote:They don't account for it. Different sections are easier/harder for different people, and it all averages out.

How does it all average out? I think there have been some notoriously difficult LG games and some notoriously difficult RC passages which have been tested on people in years prior on experimentals. Is that just part of the game? Having some people endure experimentals of varying difficulty in general (regardless of the relative strengths and weaknesses of all people) does not make sense to me.

abdistotle wrote:

rinkrat19 wrote:They don't account for it. Different sections are easier/harder for different people, and it all averages out.

How does it all average out? I think there have been some notoriously difficult LG games and some notoriously difficult RC passages which have been tested on people in years prior on experimentals. Is that just part of the game? Having some people endure experimentals of varying difficulty in general (regardless of the relative strengths and weaknesses of all people) does not make sense to me.

It all averages out because A)there are no "universally" difficult or easy sections. Someone will always find a section easy and someone will always find it hard. And B)not everyone takes the same experimental section. As much as it might affect one person's score, the difficulty of one particular experimental section for one particular person does not, statistically, matter.

The correct answer is, of course, to prepare yourself for the test so that getting one kind of experimental section won't bother you.

You're right in your third point. Prepping can eliminate this issue for some people.

When companies test the viability of a product or sales pitch/advertisement, they have a group of independent participants partake in experiencing the product/sales pitch/advertisement before it is released to the general public. Why doesn't LSAC do the same?

abdistotle wrote:You're right in your third point. Prepping can eliminate this issue for some people.

When companies test the viability of a product or sales pitch/advertisement, they have a group of independent participants partake in experiencing the product/sales pitch/advertisement before it is released to the general public. Why doesn't LSAC do the same?

What on earth are you talking about? You want LSAC to have a bunch of people take the LSAT every year before that particular test is administered to real test takers? Where would LSAC find all these people who are willing to prep like the test matters and take the test like the test matters, but who don't actually want a real LSAT result? And how would LSAC make sure that these people didn't memorize what's on the test and run and sell that information to the future test-takers?

This is exactly what the experimental section does. If you wanna whine about unfairness, go whine about something legitimate, like schools that don't offer A+ grades.

I don't know the specific logistics of an alternate solution. It is not a perfect system though. There could be ways to account for this though, which is why I was curious as to whether there were currently any efforts being made. I was not whining though. chill