VUSisterRayVU wrote: 99.9luft wrote:
dba415 wrote:Do they exist?
Seems like everyone is complaining about the test, the dumb !Kung and Zones for sure, but did anyone find this test easy?
Seems like with the amount of people scoring upwards of 175 on here on PTs, there has to be some folks with this opinion.
If this exam had, say, June 12's LG section, i'd say that it was overall easy, yes. I think they threw in the zones LG section (experimental in Oct 2010) to balance out the test, but I am pretty biased (and bitter) of course.
I'd say it was easy just because 66's LG was easy. But if you replace 67's LGs with 'average' LGs, I'd say the test was right around average. The big question in my head is whether LR was actually easy or if I just got better at recognizing 60s LRs. A lot of the Qs that would have been hard were really REALLY similar to Qs on the last 5 PTs that I got wrong, so I just 'ported' tcr and that thought process.
completely agree with you...
I, too am in serious doubts right now - did my flying through both sections of LR (LR2 felt almost too easy) indicate the learnt skills from PTing + adrenaline rush...or did i just gloss over things instead of being critical?
I have this feeling that after the LG fiasco, I abandoned some of my critical methods (e.g. crossing out wrong answers first, etc.). Not sure. Or maybe everything was actually easier because we practiced. What bothers me is that with more time away from the test I doubt my performance even more, haha.