Are old prep tests reliable interpretations of your score?

RLowry23
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:11 pm

Are old prep tests reliable interpretations of your score?

Postby RLowry23 » Mon Aug 05, 2013 12:46 pm

I am retaking from a 163 and am taking a lot of older preptests right now to nail down my core areas to improve on, I have been scoring around 170 on these preptests. Is that a reliable indication of my improvement or is it slightly skewed since they are older and the test has, theoretically, gotten harder?

Thanks.

User avatar
wtrc
Posts: 2057
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 9:37 pm

Re: Are old prep tests reliable interpretations of your score?

Postby wtrc » Mon Aug 05, 2013 12:56 pm

RLowry23 wrote:I am retaking from a 163 and am taking a lot of older preptests right now to nail down my core areas to improve on, I have been scoring around 170 on these preptests. Is that a reliable indication of my improvement or is it slightly skewed since they are older and the test has, theoretically, gotten harder?

Thanks.


How old are the tests- which PTs?

They are accurate representations of what you need to work on IMO, but maybe not as much score. The test hasn't necessarily gotten harder- some LG's are actually easier now, for example- but it has changed. General consensus here is use PT's 1-39 for Cambridge Drilling or sections, and then 40 and on for full PT's.

User avatar
Pneumonia
Posts: 1644
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:05 pm

Re: Are old prep tests reliable interpretations of your score?

Postby Pneumonia » Mon Aug 05, 2013 12:57 pm

In my experience PT's 1-20 are not reliable indicators of the score you'd get on a more recent PT. However, they are reliable indicators of your potential. If you're scoring highly on them it is definitely a win, but keep on studying. Good luck.

RLowry23
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:11 pm

Re: Are old prep tests reliable interpretations of your score?

Postby RLowry23 » Mon Aug 05, 2013 1:08 pm

Oops, meant to include that in the post. The ones I am taking now are from the 30's!
wtrcoins3 wrote:
RLowry23 wrote:I am retaking from a 163 and am taking a lot of older preptests right now to nail down my core areas to improve on, I have been scoring around 170 on these preptests. Is that a reliable indication of my improvement or is it slightly skewed since they are older and the test has, theoretically, gotten harder?

Thanks.


How old are the tests- which PTs?

They are accurate representations of what you need to work on IMO, but maybe not as much score. The test hasn't necessarily gotten harder- some LG's are actually easier now, for example- but it has changed. General consensus here is use PT's 1-39 for Cambridge Drilling or sections, and then 40 and on for full PT's.[/quote

I was wondering if I should do that, just use the early ones as sections and drills.

Thanks for the advice everyone.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DumbHollywoodActor, JOSIEWANG1108 and 3 guests