Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:-16 is the record (right?).
I definitely feel as though the PTs in the 70s are different. The first time around through the tests I noticed a clear drop off in scores. I felt as though a lot of the questions could apply to multiple question types (or at least more of these duel stems appeared on these tests than normal). They just feel less formulaic. Whereas the earlier tests have one clear thing they're testing, on the newer ones it's more subtle. Not harder just more subtle. Thats all for LR. For RC I think they have slightly more dense passages, and for LG I think they're playing around with setups/ trying to throw people off without actually changing the core game.
Yeah, all of this resonates with me.
Perhaps LSAC is dissatisfied with how prepared people these days can be when coming into the test and they want to test more of people's natural abilities? Maybe that could be a reason they revoked Cambridge's licensing for tests (though my friend was able to buy a bunch of games the other day so I'm not sure if that changed). Or perhaps they're going to start releasing their own studying materials and want people to use only their own methodology? It just seems weird to me they would actively start changing the dynamics of the test given the state law schools are in.
Yeah, there was a PT that I had taken as the actual sitting and I was horrible back then at this test. Shouldn't have taken it. Had already reviewed it before, so I went back recently to look at the questions after revamping my study at the beginning of the year in preps for a retake. Like you said, I wouldn't say they are harder, but definitely different. I'm kinda nervous now, tbh. But I mean, it's still logic, and my knowledge now of logic that allows me to go -2 on average per LR section should allow me to do so on these new PT sections right? Still doesn't take away the nervousness and uncertainty. I'm hoping I can get going on the newer PTs this week and beginning of the next and that'll give me enough time to get acclimated to the difference that the newer tests present.
As for this comment you made, it would seem that their plan worked if that was their actual plan, with how much the number of high scorers has gone down. I think the tests have definitely gotten a little more different or "difficult" though - look at the average scale now. Back in the 40s or so, I remember going through and there being so many that were like -9 or -10 for 170. I'd miss like 11 or 12 total and then check and have a 160s score and was like damn!