did anybody else not like their format?

User avatar
walterwhite
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:31 pm

did anybody else not like their format?

Postby walterwhite » Sun Oct 06, 2013 2:30 pm

Was anybody else unhappy with their format? I feel my experimental section came way too early in the test and I was a little worn down by sections 4 and 5. Very unfair.

User avatar
midwest17
Posts: 1686
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby midwest17 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 2:34 pm

walterwhite wrote:Was anybody else unhappy with their format? I feel my experimental section came way too early in the test and I was a little worn down by sections 4 and 5. Very unfair.


I believe experimental is always, or at least almost always, somewhere in sections 1-3, so that doesn't set you apart.

indo
Posts: 288
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:02 am

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby indo » Sun Oct 06, 2013 2:36 pm

midwest17 wrote:
walterwhite wrote:Was anybody else unhappy with their format? I feel my experimental section came way too early in the test and I was a little worn down by sections 4 and 5. Very unfair.


I believe experimental is always, or at least almost always, somewhere in sections 1-3, so that doesn't set you apart.


NOT necessary have to be in section 1-3

laballermvp9
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 3:58 am

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby laballermvp9 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 7:47 pm

My weakest section on timing (LG) came in the first section, so I was caught off-guard. Struggling on the first section really affected the other areas of my exam. I always had LG on one of my last 3 sections during each of my proctored exams, so I did not see this format coming. And the number on my desk was #13! That should pretty much tell you how my day went. But in all seriousness, I'm not superstitious! I just think the format wasn't really beneficial to me. Hopefully I'll get a better format the second time around in December.


*Note: I take full responsibility for my performance, but I think the organization of my particular test hurt me.

User avatar
goldenflash19
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby goldenflash19 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:33 pm

A version of Prep Test 64 had a 4th section LR exp. Almost every version of the test ever has it in the first 3, though.

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

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby Pneumonia » Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:40 pm

goldenflash19 wrote:A version of Prep Test 64 had a 4th section LR exp. Almost every version of the test ever has it in the first 3, though.


if i'm not mistaken some PT 69'ers also had an experimental LR in section 4.

User avatar
drawstring
Posts: 1933
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:52 pm

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby drawstring » Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:42 pm

LR is my strongest section and I've panicked several times with LG/RC sections, so I was very pleased that I started the test with LR and had it as my experimental (LR-RC-LR-LG-LR). Starting with LG/RC and/or having two of them would've thrown me off and caused me to think about it the entire test.

paperrev
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:18 pm

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby paperrev » Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:47 pm

Hey, I had that exact same format (LR-RC-LR-LG-LR)! Let me ask you, in your opinion, which was the experimental - the first section or the third?? I felt that the third section was somewhat easier, so I'm hoping that section 1 was the experimental...

Chriz
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:33 pm

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby Chriz » Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:51 pm

I had LG first and I loved it. Great way to get my brain moving since it is pretty much automatic. There is not a lot of thinking just throwing down rules and applying them.

User avatar
midwest17
Posts: 1686
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby midwest17 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:25 pm

paperrev wrote:Hey, I had that exact same format (LR-RC-LR-LG-LR)! Let me ask you, in your opinion, which was the experimental - the first section or the third?? I felt that the third section was somewhat easier, so I'm hoping that section 1 was the experimental...


Note that you could have the same format but still have the experimental/real ones flipped, as far as I know.

indo wrote:
midwest17 wrote:
walterwhite wrote:Was anybody else unhappy with their format? I feel my experimental section came way too early in the test and I was a little worn down by sections 4 and 5. Very unfair.


I believe experimental is always, or at least almost always, somewhere in sections 1-3, so that doesn't set you apart.


NOT necessary have to be in section 1-3


Maybe not necessary (hence "or at least almost always") but my understanding of the common wisdom is that the experimental is usually before the break. Even if there are exceptions, OP's having the experimental early on and being tired for sections 4/5 is not unusual, and definitely not "unfair."

mx23250
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon May 20, 2013 3:44 pm

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby mx23250 » Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:08 am

I wasn't too thrilled about having 2 RC sections with the last one (5th section) being the scored one.

User avatar
Marshmallow
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:32 pm

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby Marshmallow » Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:28 am

My experimental for 69 was actually my 4th section, so just throwing that out there. I'm not sure how much it threw me off, but it definitely was unexpected. This time around, instead of 3 LRs like last time, I has LR-RC-LG-LG-LR, and I thought it was the perfect order.

User avatar
iamgeorgebush
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:57 pm

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby iamgeorgebush » Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:12 am

midwest17 wrote:
walterwhite wrote:Was anybody else unhappy with their format? I feel my experimental section came way too early in the test and I was a little worn down by sections 4 and 5. Very unfair.


I believe experimental is always, or at least almost always, somewhere in sections 1-3, so that doesn't set you apart.

This has been historically true, but my experimental was in section 4 for 69, as it was for many others in 69.

User avatar
Scotchandsoda
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:09 am

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby Scotchandsoda » Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:30 am

I fucking hated mine. The one thing I dreaded was having three LR sections. I had it in December and It totally threw me for a loop. And what happened this time around? THREE FREAKING LR SECTIONS. -_-

User avatar
Otunga
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:56 pm

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby Otunga » Mon Oct 07, 2013 12:03 pm

One thing that went right was the format for me. Getting LG after the break was awesome as that demands the most mental effort from me. Getting 3 LRs was good as LR demands the least mental effort from me, and as it turns out, getting the third section as exp is a good deal. Even still, I doubt I hit the score I wanted. Formatting can only do so much.

Kimikho
Posts: 3971
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 pm

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby Kimikho » Mon Oct 07, 2013 12:40 pm

my format was like perfect. LR, RC, LR, LG, LR. The only way it COULD be bad is if that second LR (25) was real, because I was pretty shaky coming out of RC.

User avatar
thisiswater
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 1:51 am

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby thisiswater » Mon Oct 07, 2013 12:45 pm

Would have loved double games and been fine with double RC but of course I got triple LR. Not unfair just not lucky this time

User avatar
TheMostDangerousLG
Posts: 1547
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:25 am

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby TheMostDangerousLG » Mon Oct 07, 2013 12:47 pm

You should file a complaint with LSAC.

bp shinners
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby bp shinners » Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:14 pm

Scotchandsoda wrote:I fucking hated mine. The one thing I dreaded was having three LR sections. I had it in December and It totally threw me for a loop. And what happened this time around? THREE FREAKING LR SECTIONS. -_-


Since they have to test more LR sections, it's more likely for you to end up with 3 LR sections than 2 LG or RC sections. It's my feeling that they also have to check the language in LR and RC more than LG, skewing it even more.

User avatar
Otunga
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:56 pm

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby Otunga » Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:26 pm

He/she may mean they had 3 straight LR sections rather than simply 3 scattered LR sections, which is very unusual and something probably nobody prepares for through PTing. In fact, I'm not even sure many PTs have 2 straight LRs (it happens, yeah, just not seemingly a whole lot). Granted, can you prepare for this? Sure. Just have to do tests out of order. All I know is that 3 straight of ANY section would be exhausting on an actual test.

User avatar
walterwhite
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:31 pm

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby walterwhite » Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:56 pm

i just think it's weird people get different versions of a test that's supposed to be standardized. it's an advantage to have 2 LG sections as opposed to 3 LRs or 2 reading sections.

User avatar
JWP1022
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:15 pm

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby JWP1022 » Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:02 pm

I had my worst possible setup: LG-LG-LR-LR-RC

User avatar
Otunga
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:56 pm

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby Otunga » Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:12 pm

walterwhite wrote:i just think it's weird people get different versions of a test that's supposed to be standardized. it's an advantage to have 2 LG sections as opposed to 3 LRs or 2 reading sections.


You say this, but I way rather have 3 LRs or 2 RCs.

jdogg5555
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:02 pm

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby jdogg5555 » Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:19 pm

I had LR, RC, LR, LG, LR. I think my second LR was the experimental. Anyone happen to remember a question about elephants?

User avatar
okaygo
Posts: 726
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 1:23 pm

Re: did anybody else not like their format?

Postby okaygo » Mon Oct 07, 2013 6:03 pm

LG-LR-LR-LR-RC

Pity me.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], BobBoblaw, greatspirit and 3 guests