Top Law Schools

I'm curious what you all think were the hardest of your preptests.
Helps if other people agree the test you bombed was a really hard test.

Take, for instance, a situation in which you've gotten a 170 on 15 tests in a row and then suddenly you get a 162

Im pretty sure this happened to all of us, but I'm curious to see if this is something that happens for everyone on 'one of those days' or if there are certain lsats that were just that much harder than the other ones.
I'll create a list from consistent suggestions.

I propose 49, having completed it yesterday and discovering section II LR for some reason really sucked.

LSATs that suck:
49
57
59

edited to add tests

September 2009 and December 2009

Practice testing for 3 months in the 162-167 range

Scored 158 both times on the real LSAT (-11 and -14 curves, respectively)

Should have taken the June 2009 test (yes, even with dinosaurs)...

The LSAT you're doing at the moment is always the most difficult.

PT 7 was my lowest score, but that probably had more to do with it being among the first ones I took.

s0ph1e2007 wrote:LSATs that suck: 49

PT 49 was a couple points (though not a significant drop) below my average, FWIW, so you may be on to something with that one.

Dec. '09 was evil (LR was very very very hard), but I still did well enough that I'm confident for February. There is also some test with a -13 curve in the 30's that has a horrible LG section, but I don't remember which test that is (took it for my original studying).

gatorlion wrote:September 2009 and December 2009

Practice testing for 3 months in the 162-167 range

Scored 158 both times on the real LSAT (-11 and -14 curves, respectively)

Should have taken the June 2009 test (yes, even with dinosaurs)...

+1 I could not agree more.

Haha, I totally disagree! June 2009 LSAT was terrible. Everyone I know who took it scored way lower than their PT scores. I went up 11 points in the September LSAT from June, and I other people did as well.

ps494 wrote:

gatorlion wrote:September 2009 and December 2009

Practice testing for 3 months in the 162-167 range

Scored 158 both times on the real LSAT (-11 and -14 curves, respectively)

Should have taken the June 2009 test (yes, even with dinosaurs)...

+1 I could not agree more.

ps494 wrote:

gatorlion wrote:September 2009 and December 2009

Practice testing for 3 months in the 162-167 range

Scored 158 both times on the real LSAT (-11 and -14 curves, respectively)

Should have taken the June 2009 test (yes, even with dinosaurs)...

+1 I could not agree more.

June 2009.

Canceled my score.

A lot of people crapped themselves before they could get to the bathroom during break. Damn LSAT makers put the dino section in section 2.

And to the person who wanted the dinosaur logic game- guessing on 10+ questions in a lg section is no way to take an lsat.

Was totally defeated.

chicoalto0649 wrote:

ps494 wrote:

gatorlion wrote:September 2009 and December 2009

Practice testing for 3 months in the 162-167 range

Scored 158 both times on the real LSAT (-11 and -14 curves, respectively)

Should have taken the June 2009 test (yes, even with dinosaurs)...

+1 I could not agree more.

June 2009.

Canceled my score.

A lot of people crapped themselves before they could get to the bathroom during break. Damn LSAT makers put the dino section in section 2.

And to the person who wanted the dinosaur logic game- guessing on 10+ questions in a lg section is no way to take an lsat.

Was totally defeated.

It seems like the last three LSATs were unusually difficult. I don't know if it's because more people are taking the test and this has influenced the curve.

the ones in the early 2000s have brutal LGs; those were the hardest for me.

ps494 wrote:

chicoalto0649 wrote:

ps494 wrote:

gatorlion wrote:September 2009 and December 2009

Practice testing for 3 months in the 162-167 range

Scored 158 both times on the real LSAT (-11 and -14 curves, respectively)

Should have taken the June 2009 test (yes, even with dinosaurs)...

+1 I could not agree more.

June 2009.

Canceled my score.

A lot of people crapped themselves before they could get to the bathroom during break. Damn LSAT makers put the dino section in section 2.

And to the person who wanted the dinosaur logic game- guessing on 10+ questions in a lg section is no way to take an lsat.

Was totally defeated.

It seems like the last three LSATs were unusually difficult. I don't know if it's because more people are taking the test and this has influenced the curve.

I thought september was considerably less difficult and scored my highest PT (163) . If I didnt mess up the games i would have scored much higher

I hit a 166 on June '09 as a PT, which was my 2nd highest score pre-September. The LR section was easy and dinos didn't really bug me (I saved it until last and got a few good guesses).

I kind of wish I had September lying around so I could re-do it, but I think it's probably still too fresh. I did some of the LR from that test and I remembered way too many questions (I did finally figure out the bear question), whereas on most of my other re-dos, I only remembered one or so.

keg411 wrote:I hit a 166 on June '09 as a PT, which was my 2nd highest score pre-September. The LR section was easy and dinos didn't really bug me (I saved it until last and got a few good guesses).

I kind of wish I had September lying around so I could re-do it, but I think it's probably still too fresh. I did some of the LR from that test and I remembered way too many questions (I did finally figure out the bear question), whereas on most of my other re-dos, I only remembered one or so.

I totally guessed after 1:25 secs of going over and over again. I was like fuck it and put "e". ended up the difference btwn a 163 and a 162....sometimes i kick myself for the stuff I missed but never congratulate myself on getting some of the harder lr/rc passages right.

chicoalto0649 wrote:

keg411 wrote:I hit a 166 on June '09 as a PT, which was my 2nd highest score pre-September. The LR section was easy and dinos didn't really bug me (I saved it until last and got a few good guesses).

I kind of wish I had September lying around so I could re-do it, but I think it's probably still too fresh. I did some of the LR from that test and I remembered way too many questions (I did finally figure out the bear question), whereas on most of my other re-dos, I only remembered one or so.

I totally guessed after 1:25 secs of going over and over again. I was like fuck it and put "e". ended up the difference btwn a 163 and a 162....sometimes i kick myself for the stuff I missed but never congratulate myself on getting some of the harder lr/rc passages right.

I did the same thing on the Bears in Sept, but guessed wrong. Still, I was more upset with my -7 in LG which should have never happened (even pre Sept, I'd go -4 at most, usually -2). My fail and 162 on September was totally do to RC/LG since I pretty much did the same on LR as I always did during my PT's and it was fairly good.

But I've owned my one LG weakness since and should be fine on Saturday even with a curveball like the dinos.

June 2009

FreeGuy wrote:The LSAT you're doing at the moment is always the most difficult.

you think this statement is consistent with a pattern of say ten 170s and one random 160 in the middle?

for example, say I got a 170 on 38-48 then on 49 got a 160 then on 50-56 got a 170 again, you would say that because i was doing 56 presently that 56 would be the most difficult despite receiving a better score?

June-93 & Oct-96
Tied for my worst PT score
5 pts below PT average
7 pts below Sep-09 actual

I thought 57 was pretty rough, though when I took it at home I did pretty well. I'll let you know what I think of 58 and 59 when I take them this week.

s0ph1e2007 wrote:

FreeGuy wrote:The LSAT you're doing at the moment is always the most difficult.

you think this statement is consistent with a pattern of say ten 170s and one random 160 in the middle?

for example, say I got a 170 on 38-48 then on 49 got a 160 then on 50-56 got a 170 again, you would say that because i was doing 56 presently that 56 would be the most difficult despite receiving a better score?

I think that the response was to the person who said the two hardest exams they took were the ones officially administered.

I'm still going to say Sep/Dec 2009. I was practicing with -2 or -0 on reading comp on PTs before the exams. On both exams I scored -8 on reading comp, by far my best section.

Also, dinosaurs was hard, but not as troubling as getting to the 4th game on Dec 2009 with 5 minutes left and realizing it has 7 questions. FML

gatorlion wrote:I'm still going to say Sep/Dec 2009. I was practicing with -2 or -0 on reading comp on PTs before the exams. On both exams I scored -8 on reading comp, by far my best section.

Also, dinosaurs was hard, but not as troubling as getting to the 4th game on Dec 2009 with 5 minutes left and realizing it has 7 questions. FML

I epic failed the FIRST game on Sept09. The one I thought was super easy and took less than 5 minutes. I really really dislike myself for messing up a not-difficult games section on that test (in fact, I'd probably say that Dec09 >>>>>>> Sept09 in terms of difficulty).

However, the LR was the only hard part of Dec09, as games and RC were much simpler than either Sept09 or June09.

I did much worse on Sept. 2009 than on Dec 2009, though mainly because my mind was not fully awake for the Sept test.

Talk-story in PT 55, RC is an absolute killer, but other sections of that test were fairly simple. PT 40 and 41 kicked my butt last week. The LGs in the 30s are fairly wicked, though the LRs and especially RCs aren't as bad as they are now.

keg411 wrote:

gatorlion wrote:I'm still going to say Sep/Dec 2009. I was practicing with -2 or -0 on reading comp on PTs before the exams. On both exams I scored -8 on reading comp, by far my best section.

Also, dinosaurs was hard, but not as troubling as getting to the 4th game on Dec 2009 with 5 minutes left and realizing it has 7 questions. FML

I epic failed the FIRST game on Sept09. The one I thought was super easy and took less than 5 minutes. I really really dislike myself for messing up a not-difficult games section on that test (in fact, I'd probably say that Dec09 >>>>>>> Sept09 in terms of difficulty).

However, the LR was the only hard part of Dec09, as games and RC were much simpler than either Sept09 or June09.

The first LR (I think it was the first) was the hardest LR I've ever done.

It is all relative, even though the Dec. 2009 had a -14 curve, it was the test I did best on and by a fair amount. I think there are so many factors involved beyond just the questions asked. Also, the order of the sections effects me a ton, I got reading comp last which helped a ton because I always feel burnt out after it. Getting an extra games as the exp section also helped because I feel like time flies and I never feel worn out after that section as compared to RC or LR. It all depends on you and your testing likes and dislikes and style.

Onion wrote:It is all relative, even though the Dec. 2009 had a -14 curve, it was the test I did best on and by a fair amount. I think there are so many factors involved beyond just the questions asked. Also, the order of the sections effects me a ton, I got reading comp last which helped a ton because I always feel burnt out after it. Getting an extra games as the exp section also helped because I feel like time flies and I never feel worn out after that section as compared to RC or LR. It all depends on you and your testing likes and dislikes and style.

I think getting LR for the experimental absolutely sucks.