Post removed. Forum

[snagglepuss]

This wait shouldn't be so bad with all the holiday excitement approaching fast.

[mellow]

But the February 2009 test was NOT released, correct? That is why they do not disclose the February tests, so they can use them as make-up tests.

In one of the threads from the cancelled/make-up tests from February of this year, I recall that someone said their make-up test had a copyright of 2008.

So it looks like those of us who are taking a make-up this Saturday (Dec. 21) will probably get a test from 2007 or 2010?

ETA: Does anyone know if there were any cancellations for the June and October tests this year? Just wondering if I should look for threads about the copyrights for tests that were given as make-ups then . . . Not that I think knowing the copyright years will help me in any objective sense, but I am just curious.

oh, whoops. i was responding with info from another thread in mind - namely that material from PT 70 was on some people's make up tests. the prions passage, i believe. if you had PT'ed it, or were an October retaker, odds are you'd recognize it immediately and know you didn't have to take that section seriously...that's what i thought was odd. you're right, it makes perfect sense they'd re-use undisclosed stuff - that's the purpose of not disclosing it, of course.

that's ridiculous. I can't believe they took material from the October test or even from a released test in the first place.

[fnma2jd]

But the February 2009 test was NOT released, correct? That is why they do not disclose the February tests, so they can use them as make-up tests.

In one of the threads from the cancelled/make-up tests from February of this year, I recall that someone said their make-up test had a copyright of 2008.

So it looks like those of us who are taking a make-up this Saturday (Dec. 21) will probably get a test from 2007 or 2010?

ETA: Does anyone know if there were any cancellations for the June and October tests this year? Just wondering if I should look for threads about the copyrights for tests that were given as make-ups then . . . Not that I think knowing the copyright years will help me in any objective sense, but I am just curious.

oh, whoops. i was responding with info from another thread in mind - namely that material from PT 70 was on some people's make up tests. the prions passage, i believe. if you had PT'ed it, or were an October retaker, odds are you'd recognize it immediately and know you didn't have to take that section seriously...that's what i thought was odd. you're right, it makes perfect sense they'd re-use undisclosed stuff - that's the purpose of not disclosing it, of course.

that's ridiculous. I can't believe they took material from the October test or even from a released test in the first place.

The experimental was weird it wasn't all October it was an amalgam of different stuff. But you're right I read it and immediately knew it was experimental

[Allegra]

But the February 2009 test was NOT released, correct? That is why they do not disclose the February tests, so they can use them as make-up tests.

In one of the threads from the cancelled/make-up tests from February of this year, I recall that someone said their make-up test had a copyright of 2008.

So it looks like those of us who are taking a make-up this Saturday (Dec. 21) will probably get a test from 2007 or 2010?

ETA: Does anyone know if there were any cancellations for the June and October tests this year? Just wondering if I should look for threads about the copyrights for tests that were given as make-ups then . . . Not that I think knowing the copyright years will help me in any objective sense, but I am just curious.

oh, whoops. i was responding with info from another thread in mind - namely that material from PT 70 was on some people's make up tests. the prions passage, i believe. if you had PT'ed it, or were an October retaker, odds are you'd recognize it immediately and know you didn't have to take that section seriously...that's what i thought was odd. you're right, it makes perfect sense they'd re-use undisclosed stuff - that's the purpose of not disclosing it, of course.

that's ridiculous. I can't believe they took material from the October test or even from a released test in the first place.

The October part was the experimental. The rest was February 2009

Right. They didn't take material for this test from anywhere. They took the experiemtnal section from this test for the October 2013 test.

[mellow]

But the February 2009 test was NOT released, correct? That is why they do not disclose the February tests, so they can use them as make-up tests.

In one of the threads from the cancelled/make-up tests from February of this year, I recall that someone said their make-up test had a copyright of 2008.

So it looks like those of us who are taking a make-up this Saturday (Dec. 21) will probably get a test from 2007 or 2010?

ETA: Does anyone know if there were any cancellations for the June and October tests this year? Just wondering if I should look for threads about the copyrights for tests that were given as make-ups then . . . Not that I think knowing the copyright years will help me in any objective sense, but I am just curious.

oh, whoops. i was responding with info from another thread in mind - namely that material from PT 70 was on some people's make up tests. the prions passage, i believe. if you had PT'ed it, or were an October retaker, odds are you'd recognize it immediately and know you didn't have to take that section seriously...that's what i thought was odd. you're right, it makes perfect sense they'd re-use undisclosed stuff - that's the purpose of not disclosing it, of course.

that's ridiculous. I can't believe they took material from the October test or even from a released test in the first place.

The October part was the experimental. The rest was February 2009

I know. I'm saying even including it as an experimental is ridiculous. Anyone who studied would most likely have looked at PT70 at the very least and knew right away it was the exp section.

[dosto]

.

[fnma2jd]

I know. I'm saying even including it as an experimental is ridiculous. Anyone who studied would most likely have looked at PT70 at the very least and knew right away it was the exp section.

I actually edited my post after I noticed you mentioned it being exp. But yeah basically you are correct I read it and had two thoughts either this is experimental or I have a unfair advantage.

[wealtheow]

I wasn't expecting this wait to be so much harder than October's. This time felt like it went smoothly in comparison, and not being able to pinpoint where you may have messed up makes it SO MUCH WORSE.

I know this is hard to quantify, but how does this camp (felt it went smoothly) tend to fair? I'd consider that to be where I am. Overall, I think the LSAT is a hard test to walk out of feeling relatively confident.

I think people who have spent a lot of time PT'ing, and are therefore fairly good judges of their performances, tend to fare well if they feel it went smoothly. That being said, when you're aiming for a score which only allows you to miss ~7 questions, things could still go "smoothly" but see you fall short. Then there are the cases of takers who tend to lose focus and end up doing much worse than their averages, but don't feel they bombed because they were somewhat out of it; they wouldn't have any real tangible difficulties looking back.

I honestly have tried to put it behind me. I've learned my lesson that obsessing over what little dumb details I can recall is only going to make things more jumbled and stressful.

this was me in december 2011. was definitely very humbling.

[dosto]

.

[barrelofmonkeys]

I know. I'm saying even including it as an experimental is ridiculous. Anyone who studied would most likely have looked at PT70 at the very least and knew right away it was the exp section.

I actually edited my post after I noticed you mentioned it being exp. But yeah basically you are correct I read it and had two thoughts either this is experimental or I have a unfair advantage.

Prions was in the experimental? Of all the RC passages they could have chosen (including one of the 12 or so they had last week) they choose arguably the most memorable passage from the previous (released) official administration. Well done.

dosto,
you have a new tar
sincerely,
captain obvious

(came here to tell bee that tea just sent me boobs/knees and i got it WRONG)

[Allegra]

I know. I'm saying even including it as an experimental is ridiculous. Anyone who studied would most likely have looked at PT70 at the very least and knew right away it was the exp section.

I actually edited my post after I noticed you mentioned it being exp. But yeah basically you are correct I read it and had two thoughts either this is experimental or I have a unfair advantage.

Prions was in the experimental? Of all the RC passages they could have chosen (including one of the 12 or so they had last week) they choose arguably the most memorable passage from the previous (released) official administration. Well done.

Do you think they choose which experimental sections to adminster with a make-up test? My impression, which could well be wrong, is that they just admisnter the test the way it was whenever it was actually given. So when this test was given (February of 2009, the evidence suggests), the prison question was just one of the sections. In other word, for today's test, they didn't add the prison question (or anything else) - they just adminstered the test as it was.

[muzzy]

.

[dosto]

.

[PatriotP74]

Post removed...

[062914123]

.

[rftdd888]

how did you guys feel about the dec 7 test in terms of timing through the sections? one thing i felt in October was that the RC section was kind of a thicket for me: 5 minutes was called when i was completing the last three questions of the last passage. i didn't have a great amount of review time on the LR sections, either.

on dec 7, however, i finished both LR sections in about ~22 minutes and spent the rest of the time recovering, and nailed down the RC in about 27 mins. that is one reason i feel good about improving on Oct, the test just seemed easier in terms of how much time it took me to read, get through, and comprehend all of the test. i also think i focused better.

[NotASpecialSnowflake]

I don't know what to expect from this. It didn't feel great at all, but I thought I did well last time and I did badly. Maybe it'll be the opposite this time? I just want to avoid the 163-166 doldrums. I have a decent gpa and a 167 would get me somewhere in t-14 (I hope).

[thejerseykid]

I've actually had something on my mind for a while now which might be a bit irrelevant at this point but, if someone could give me some answer, it would leave me with some peace of mind.

The first time I prepared for the LSAT I was not familiar with TLS and I had no idea how to go about preparing so I simply bought a ton of practice exams and simply took practice exams for a few weeks leading up to the exam. With this approach I managed to usually score in the mid-160s and I ended up getting a 166 on the actual exam.

The second time around, I had a more organized approach. I had been on TLS and read a few posts about preparing for the exam so I bought the Logic Games Bible as well as the Manhattan LSAT books for the Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension sections and I worked through those in addition to taking practice exams.

The odd thing, however, is that while I felt like I was improving my understanding of the exam, this understanding didn't seem to show in the results. That is, I felt like I was getting significantly better at setting up and drawing inferences in the Logic Games and when approaching Logical Reasoning questions, I felt I could easily identify the question type and apply the proper approach to answering each type. The only section I felt I wasn't getting any better at was Reading Comprehension really. Despite this perceived improvement, however, I continued to score in the mid- to low-160s up until the day of the exam.

Now, I spent about two months preparing for the retake and I was still suffering from some timing issues especially with the Logic Games so I'm wondering: do you think I simply didn't prepare for enough time? Did anyone else have a similar experience when preparing for the retake?

I apologize for the length of this post and, like I said before, the quality of my preparation for this retake is most likely irrelevant at this point but, if someone could provide some insight into where I went wrong, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

[angels2fly]

I apologize for the length of this post and, like I said before, the quality of my preparation for this retake is most likely irrelevant at this point but, if someone could provide some insight into where I went wrong, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

did you drill skills or just do mixed review in the form of PTs?

[thejerseykid]

I apologize for the length of this post and, like I said before, the quality of my preparation for this retake is most likely irrelevant at this point but, if someone could provide some insight into where I went wrong, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

did you drill skills or just do mixed review in the form of PTs?

In terms of Logic Games, I did divided the games from 40 tests (the ones in the books sold by LSAC such as "10 Actual Official LSAT PrepTests" etc) by type and practiced that way although I didn't get through all of them. With the Logical Reasoning the most drilling I did was with the practice sections that came at the end of each chapter. Unfortunately, by then I didn't have much time so after getting through the Manhattan LSAT Logical Reasoning book, I began focusing on taking full timed practice tests. You think my problem may have been a lack of focused drilling?

[boosane]

The first time I prepared for the LSAT I was not familiar with TLS and I had no idea how to go about preparing so I simply bought a ton of practice exams and simply took practice exams for a few weeks leading up to the exam. With this approach I managed to usually score in the mid-160s and I ended up getting a 166 on the actual exam.

Posts like these really make me realize how dumb I am . All that organized studying for 3 months and I'm hoping I'll get a solid 160 range.

[usernotfound]

Is it a good idea to apply to T14 schools that one does not have particular interest in for scholarship negotiation purposes? Do people normally do this? Personally I don't have much interest in NU, Mich, or Berkley, but is it a good idea to apply?

[angels2fly]

I apologize for the length of this post and, like I said before, the quality of my preparation for this retake is most likely irrelevant at this point but, if someone could provide some insight into where I went wrong, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

did you drill skills or just do mixed review in the form of PTs?

In terms of Logic Games, I did divided the games from 40 tests (the ones in the books sold by LSAC such as "10 Actual Official LSAT PrepTests" etc) by type and practiced that way although I didn't get through all of them. With the Logical Reasoning the most drilling I did was with the practice sections that came at the end of each chapter. Unfortunately, by then I didn't have much time so after getting through the Manhattan LSAT Logical Reasoning book, I began focusing on taking full timed practice tests. You think my problem may have been a lack of focused drilling?

i found drilling very useful for lr

[dazedandconfused13]

Is the Lsac.org website down? It's not working on my computer or my roommate's. Have any of you guys been experiencing any problems?

[Hotguy]

So would we get two different LSAT release dates for dec?