The Official June 2014 Study Group Forum

[10052014]

.

[bleakchimera2]

I am taking PT 59 tmrw. Will post afterwards. I am feeling a 170.

Btw I had a few questions:

1. Where are the instructions on the lsac website? (gallon ziploc, etc etc )

2. How can I make my test hand scored instead of electronically graded?

3. How can I make my score mailed to me, instead of e-mailed?

I do not want to actually do these things, but I want to know just in case. Thanks

1. http://lsac.org/jd/lsat/day-of-test

2. http://lsac.org/jd/lsat/handscoring

3. http://lsac.org/jd/lsat/your-score
The above seems to indicate it's automatically mailed if you don't have an online account, but I couldn't find anything suggesting a way to get it mailed otherwise.


ETA: re-reading the scoring procedures again just renewed my irritation that we don't get our scores for weeks after we take it. Seems unnecessarily cruel, as well as questionably inefficient. Comon LSAC. Get your shit together.

[bleakchimera2]

Today, preptest B: 173

LR1: -0
LG: -9 <-lol
RC: -2
LR2: -0

Logic games, man. It's legitimately the only thing I've been drilling for weeks, and not only is it not improving, it seems to be getting worse. Beyond frustrating.

Hugs and motivation to all, June is almost upon us.

[10052014]

.

[BillPackets]

Today, preptest B: 173

LR1: -0
LG: -9 <-lol
RC: -2
LR2: -0

Logic games, man. It's legitimately the only thing I've been drilling for weeks, and not only is it not improving, it seems to be getting worse. Beyond frustrating.

Hugs and motivation to all, June is almost upon us.

This happens to me sometimes with LGs.

Usually it helps if I take some time away from the LGs and then come back to them. It helps me see how much I actually did improve during constant drilling.

[BaberhamLincoln]

Today, preptest B: 173

LR1: -0
LG: -9 <-lol
RC: -2
LR2: -0

Logic games, man. It's legitimately the only thing I've been drilling for weeks, and not only is it not improving, it seems to be getting worse. Beyond frustrating.

Hugs and motivation to all, June is almost upon us.

Daaaamn, you're still killing it!!!!!
If your lg does improve, you will seriously rock it (you already are).

[bleakchimera2]

Thanks, guys! And yeah, I may take a break from the stupid things for a bit. I just can't decide if my problem is actually that I'm not working at them hard enough. I usually fall on the side of lazy, so it's difficult for me to justify taking a break. Dat guilty conscience.

[MtnGinger]

Does anyone know when we can purchase the latest 10 official tests from LSAC? It says volume 5 was released today but it isn't listed on their prep shop. Also amazon says it won't ship for another 1-2 months! I will have already took the test by then.

[jk148706]

Thanks, guys! And yeah, I may take a break from the stupid things for a bit. I just can't decide if my problem is actually that I'm not working at them hard enough. I usually fall on the side of lazy, so it's difficult for me to justify taking a break. Dat guilty conscience.

Luckily, lg is the easiest thing to improve. How do u drill/review?

[bleakchimera2]

Thanks, guys! And yeah, I may take a break from the stupid things for a bit. I just can't decide if my problem is actually that I'm not working at them hard enough. I usually fall on the side of lazy, so it's difficult for me to justify taking a break. Dat guilty conscience.

Luckily, lg is the easiest thing to improve. How do u drill/review?

Pithypike method with 7sage videos after every game. Once I do a game once and/or watch the corresponding video, I can replicate it quickly and without errors, even weeks later. But the first time I see any given game? Shit. Every time. Equally bad at every type. I don't know what my problem is, but the frustration is real. When I go back and look at an attempted game (before/without watching the video), I can spot my errors and missed inferences etc pretty easily. But something about the combination of time constraint and being unfamiliar with any given game's nuances just ruins me. Which, of course, is the point of the LG section. Sigh. Any suggestions?

[knowyourself]

Today, preptest B: 173

LR1: -0
LG: -9 <-lol
RC: -2
LR2: -0

Logic games, man. It's legitimately the only thing I've been drilling for weeks, and not only is it not improving, it seems to be getting worse. Beyond frustrating.

Hugs and motivation to all, June is almost upon us.

What's your thought-process like when approaching LR / RC question?

[BaberhamLincoln]

Got an email from Amazon this morning saying they had a ship date for my order of the newest 10 actuals book: MAY 19-JUNE 17!!!!

Ummmm what? Canceled order. Will be buying tests individually. There goes an extra $50

[tfinndogm]

Pithypike method with 7sage videos after every game. Once I do a game once and/or watch the corresponding video, I can replicate it quickly and without errors, even weeks later. But the first time I see any given game? Shit. Every time. Equally bad at every type. I don't know what my problem is, but the frustration is real. When I go back and look at an attempted game (before/without watching the video), I can spot my errors and missed inferences etc pretty easily. But something about the combination of time constraint and being unfamiliar with any given game's nuances just ruins me. Which, of course, is the point of the LG section. Sigh. Any suggestions?

Manhattan's LG board-building methods have really helped me. before I PT I make sure to run through the diff game types and test what board I would use. Don't use 7sage so I'm not sure if its similar, but the shorthand I've learned saves my butt.

[santoki]

I might've mentioned this before, but it seems to me that the amount of questions we can get wrong and still get a 170 is growing in the most recent exams. I'd think that this might be because of RC getting more difficult. It's impossible to predict a curve, but do you guys think it'll be -11 or -12 as it has been recently? A -10 or -9 curve, which may indicate an easier exam, is still daunting.

[WaltGrace83]

I might've mentioned this before, but it seems to me that the amount of questions we can get wrong and still get a 170 is growing in the most recent exams. I'd think that this might be because of RC getting more difficult. It's impossible to predict a curve, but do you guys think it'll be -11 or -12 as it has been recently? A -10 or -9 curve, which may indicate an easier exam, is still daunting.

I'd be shocked at anything less than 10. I would say 10-12. If you look at the link below you'll see what I mean

http://www.cambridgelsat.com/resources/ ... on-charts/

[Louis1127]

These next few days I'll be doing simple sequencing extra hard to try and get it down to five minutes per game. Doing these games at a really high speed is a skill that high scorers have that I do not currently have. I am going to hit those hard over the next few days.

Pleased with my progress on LR. I am getting more hard questions right than when I started first drilling LR (and I am also understanding stimuli better), so I am happy with my improvement now.

Also, I agree w/ you Santooki and Walt that the trend is to larger (aka more generous) curves.

[santoki]

These next few days I'll be doing simple sequencing extra hard to try and get it down to five minutes per game. Doing these games at a really high speed is a skill that high scorers have that I do not currently have. I am going to hit those hard over the next few days.

Pleased with my progress on LR. I am getting more hard questions right than when I started first drilling LR (and I am also understanding stimuli better), so I am happy with my improvement now.

Also, I agree w/ you Santooki and Walt that the trend is to larger (aka more generous) curves.

Right, but while a more "generous" curve might mean a more difficult test, it's just less intimidating.

[10052014]

.

[santoki]

These next few days I'll be doing simple sequencing extra hard to try and get it down to five minutes per game. Doing these games at a really high speed is a skill that high scorers have that I do not currently have. I am going to hit those hard over the next few days.

Pleased with my progress on LR. I am getting more hard questions right than when I started first drilling LR (and I am also understanding stimuli better), so I am happy with my improvement now.

Also, I agree w/ you Santooki and Walt that the trend is to larger (aka more generous) curves.

Right, but while a more "generous" curve might mean a more difficult test, it's just less intimidating.

do you guys think a hard lg will come, like the feb lsat?

i think that sort of speculation is pretty much useless-it's impossible to say!

But don't scare me like that...I'm banking on a -0, -1.

[alexrodriguez]

So I had planned on taking PT41 today...

After taking it out of the folder I had realized I had already taken it.

I checked LSATQA and I scored a 168 on this one.

That's untimed of course. I guess I'll be taking 42 tomorrow then. I want to take every PT before the exam.

Wish me luck.

On todays schedule I'll be drilling Parallel Flaw and In and Out games.

54 Days till Game day!

[WaltGrace83]

These next few days I'll be doing simple sequencing extra hard to try and get it down to five minutes per game. Doing these games at a really high speed is a skill that high scorers have that I do not currently have. I am going to hit those hard over the next few days.

Pleased with my progress on LR. I am getting more hard questions right than when I started first drilling LR (and I am also understanding stimuli better), so I am happy with my improvement now.

Also, I agree w/ you Santooki and Walt that the trend is to larger (aka more generous) curves.

Right, but while a more "generous" curve might mean a more difficult test, it's just less intimidating.

I could be wrong - obviously I am not that experienced - but I find it hard to believe that this could be the case. I feel like the curve is really about luck to some degree. I think that because the curve is predetermined by a group of test takers and their scores (right?). Well what if the test takers were unusually bad or unusually good at this test, resulting in a different curve of course. I think that curves can absolutely mean a harder/easier test but I don't necessarily think a -12 test is harder than a -10 test, maybe the -12 just happens to be a bit more lucky. Someone correct me if my thinking is off but obviously no one REALLY knows.

[santoki]

These next few days I'll be doing simple sequencing extra hard to try and get it down to five minutes per game. Doing these games at a really high speed is a skill that high scorers have that I do not currently have. I am going to hit those hard over the next few days.

Pleased with my progress on LR. I am getting more hard questions right than when I started first drilling LR (and I am also understanding stimuli better), so I am happy with my improvement now.

Also, I agree w/ you Santooki and Walt that the trend is to larger (aka more generous) curves.

Right, but while a more "generous" curve might mean a more difficult test, it's just less intimidating.

I could be wrong - obviously I am not that experienced - but I find it hard to believe that this could be the case. I feel like the curve is really about luck to some degree. I think that because the curve is predetermined by a group of test takers and their scores (right?). Well what if the test takers were unusually bad or unusually good at this test, resulting in a different curve of course. I think that curves can absolutely mean a harder/easier test but I don't necessarily think a -12 test is harder than a -10 test, maybe the -12 just happens to be a bit more lucky. Someone correct me if my thinking is off but obviously no one REALLY knows.

I'd say let's just keep speculating that it's going to be generous- for our sanity's sake.

[jk148706]

I could be wrong - obviously I am not that experienced - but I find it hard to believe that this could be the case. I feel like the curve is really about luck to some degree. I think that because the curve is predetermined by a group of test takers and their scores (right?). Well what if the test takers were unusually bad or unusually good at this test, resulting in a different curve of course. I think that curves can absolutely mean a harder/easier test but I don't necessarily think a -12 test is harder than a -10 test, maybe the -12 just happens to be a bit more lucky. Someone correct me if my thinking is off but obviously no one REALLY knows.

The -12 test vs -10 test isn't a matter of "harder" or "easier." It's simply a matter of what will get the same percentage of test takers to score 175, 170, 165, 160 etc.

LSAC is amazingly good at this. Scores have stayed in relatively the same percentile for a LONG time. There is some minor fluctuation, e.g., 170 has gone from 98th to 97th due to higher number of 170+ scores.

The idea that test takers doing "unusually bad" or "unusually good" could affect the curve is unfounded. LSAC tests these sections thoroughly before they are officially on the LSAT. Sure, a few 170+ers could go -15 on the experimental but ON THE WHOLE, that won't happen. Also, LSAC can adjust for outliers like that.

As far as I can tell there is no luck in the curve. LSAC is incredibly good at what they do. Each test is designed to have a certain percentage of test takers in a score range. Despite the huge drop in applicants, emphasis on LSAT prep, etc, 170 is still the 97th percentile.

[birdlaw624]

It's funny. If I wasn't studying for the LSAT I would be looking forward to June 9th as though it's soooo far away, but since I've been studying since January it feels like June 9th is only few days away.

[rebexness]

I'd say let's just keep speculating that it's going to be generous- for our sanity's sake.

June is NAWT typically a generous test, unfortunately.