Top Law Schools

I've gone through the first three "actual LSAT" prep books and am consistently scoring high 160s through mid-170s. Are these early tests that much easier than the recent ones, as I've heard a couple people say? Should I grab a couple of the more recent ones or am I good to go? I'm taking the makeup test for February LSAT either one or two weeks from today.

Thanks.

Sorry, fucked up the thread title. Scratch the "most."

You would be wise to do this, yes.

Those early LSATs are worthless. Take the new ones.

kinch wrote:Those early LSATs are worthless. Take the new ones.

Yikes, that bad? I've literally taken like 30 of these.

GentlemanJim wrote:

kinch wrote:Those early LSATs are worthless. Take the new ones.

Yikes, that bad? I've literally taken like 30 of these.

Well, I was exaggerating a bit, but I find the new LG and RC to be quite different. Either way, you don't want to take the real test without taking the new PTs.

Those early 30 exams are not worthless (they are very similar to current exams), but just not as good as the most recent exams (which are even more similar). Take the most recent exams available, definitely.
It is true that a few of the games from the first book of ten PT's are not used anymore (pattern), and given the low probability that they will come up again, it might not be a wise way to spend precious time. Still though, the reading comp. and reasoning sections from those early exams are very similar to today's exams, and many of the logic games are too.

I did a ton of practice on the old games and found them very useful for the modern exams. A lot of people freaked out about the dinos game, for instance, but there are a number of games (especially in the most recent of the three books you used) that contain similar inferences and are even more difficult. There was a relatively strange game on the Feb LSAT that was also similar to the game in the late 30s with musical pieces and instruments (PT 38?, with "Tailwind" etc.)There are very few exceptions to this and they are relatively minor.

The LR and RC change slightly but I found it helpful to have all my basics down, and my timing down, before tackling the bulk of the most recent tests. The only real difference I found in these sections is a difference in wording/language use, a difference in the distribution of kinds of questions, and a change in the difficulty for RC (there are more tempting trap answers and the right answers are often harder to spot). So you might be slightly less comfortable than usual with the language of the exam.

The only caveat is not to get too caught up in your earlier scores. My scores barely increased as I hit the newer exams, but I was a better test taker--the tests just got harder with less forgiving curves. So try to take a couple recent exams and they'll give you a more accurate assessment of your score on modern tests. They'll also help acclimate you to the modern exams. If you only have time to take a couple, I'd suggest 57 and 59.

although the early exams are the same types of questions, the makers of the test have slightly increased its difficulty over the years in my opinion. i was scoring about 5 points higher on old exams than on recent ones. try out PT 45+

having said that, taking enough of the old test will still help you improve on your lsat taking abilities tremendously.

Something that should also be added here is that the curve from the earlier tests tends to be more lenient than more recent curves. If you're scoring in the high 160s to mid-170s, this will likely equate to mid-160s to 170 on the most recent tests. This should prevent any unwanted surprises come test day.