What the F**k is LSAC's Deal? Forum

[Gray]

.

[Ramius]

I mean, just because test prep companies have IDed typical games from previous administrations doesn't mean LSAC is restricted to offering only those kinds of games. LSAC can put whatever it pleases on the test, prep companies just bet on what they think will or won't be on the next ones. (See also: the bar exam.)

I agree, but why would they consistently use the same types of games over and over? They obviously intended it to be that way for the years that it has (had) been like that.

History doesn't predict future behavior. They can put new game types in whenever they want. As long as the curve is representative, they're holding up their end of the bargain.

Retake. It's not just for choosing threads anymore.

[malleus discentium]

No idea how much trolling is going on but this thread is hilarious and I can't get enough.

In all seriousness, LSAC throws curveballs all the time. Part of our prep as potential law students has to include being ready for something weird as all fuck.

law school admissions curveballs?

[Gray]

.

[Clyde Frog]

What was your score, trexjake32?

166

You're complaining about a five question game with a generous curve of -13.

[DebtAverse]

At the risk of heightening the controversy here (heh), can someone detail what was especially hard about the RC on this test? I ask this as someone who took the test, typically does well in RC, thought RC went really well, and then learned yesterday that I missed more question than I thought. What makes people say the RC was unusually hard? Is it worth re-taking on the assumption that September or December's RCs may not be as hard?

[Gray]

.

[Louis1127]

OP,

While I honestly understand your frustration, you are getting wrong at the wrong party here.

The test-making devision of LSAC's job is to create a standardized test. They do a really good job at that.

It is the law schools that put so much emphasis on one four-hour test rather than someone's complete background (coming from humble beginnings, having to work two jobs while on college and not having enough time to devote to LSAT prep, etc.).

Oftentimes when we get angry/sad/emotional, it causes us not too see things clearly. I think that is what's going on here.

Cheer up and join us in the Sept 2014 study group. See you there!

[Cal Trask]

esta conversatión contiene muchos disrespectes

[09042014]

They followed my suggestion:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=229324

LSAC are DF fans.

[arturobelano]

a) I got a 179 and there's at least one other Redditor who did as well, which is already improbable given the sample size and the curve. This test was weird, but not that difficult.
b) Assuming 24,000 test takers, a properly standardized test according to historical LSAT percentiles would yield 144 (range probably between 100 and 200) 175+ scores; a sample of ~150 - 200 test takers on the TLS forums, even with an assumption of positive skew due to a self-selection bias, shouldn't produce more than 3-5 175+ scorers. Assuming that it would produce more than 10 is probably vastly overstating the quality of test-takers here, or anywhere outside of a MENSA convention.
c) I don't think drilling methods are as effective as people think they are, and assuming that drilling entitles you to a high score is kind of screwy. From a totally anecdotal perspective, preptests done in conventional studying seem to poorly correlate with eventual score (for reference, my highest prep was a 177.)

[wealtheow]

i love this thread so much i could marry it

[malleus discentium]

No idea how much trolling is going on but this thread is hilarious and I can't get enough.

In all seriousness, LSAC throws curveballs all the time. Part of our prep as potential law students has to include being ready for something weird as all fuck.

law school admissions curveballs?

On second thought, it might be Least Satisfied Applicant Complaints...

this game is fun Lame Scoar Angst Captain.

[jk148706]

i love this thread so much i could marry it

+1

Just read the whole thing, so many lulz

[t-14orbust]

lol at 166 bro being mad about one game on a test with a -13 curve. -13 is very generous

[CarolinaDreamer]

I bombed the test, but LG was by far the easiest section for me and I went -0 on the 4th game. Study harder, especially if LG is your weak point, then retake. End of story.

I'm not blaming LSAC because I didn't study hard enough.

[MistakenGenius]

extraneous games

Stop using words you don't understand.

Sorry for having some ambidexterity in my use of the English language..

this guy has to be a troll

Or maybe he's just being rhetorical. You don't have to act all transcendent up in here.

[arturobelano]

Sorry for having some ambidexterity in my use of the English language..

this guy has to be a troll

Or maybe he's just being rhetorical. You don't have to act all transcendent up in here.

What do clairvoyant rats have to do with any of this?

[MistakenGenius]

this guy has to be a troll

Or maybe he's just being rhetorical. You don't have to act all transcendent up in here.

What do clairvoyant rats have to do with any of this?

Everything.

[anyriotgirl]

MG do you know what the word rhetorical means?

[malleus discentium]

MG do you know what the word rhetorical means?

Extraneous?

[theotherone823]

MG do you know what the word rhetorical means?

*Swoosh*

[anyriotgirl]

MG do you know what the word rhetorical means?

*Swoosh*

Meh this sounds like a regular mg post I stand by my snark

[golden44]

Yes the game may not have been traditional, but I didn't think it was bad at all. Similar to a few others that posted, RC was much more of a challenge for me than LG. I also did better on this test than most of my practice tests so from personal experience definitely not agreeing that this was significantly harder than other LSATs.
For reference, -4 RC, -3 LR, -0 LG for 175

[rpupkin]

OP: Check out old TLS threads. After, like, every LSAT administration ever, there are posters who find some section of the test unusually difficult or novel and therefore conclude that the test was unfair. And since this is the internet, these posters usually have no problem finding several others to confirm their biases.

There's no conspiracy; you just had a bad day. Good luck breaking 170 on your retake.