so i know that the lsat changed quite a bit after about test 46 and on, but i'm just want to ask you all if it is effective to still practice on old tests (prior to 46)?
thanks
new tests vs. old tests Forum
-
Scallywaggums
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:52 pm
Re: new tests vs. old tests
Yes definitely. Might wanna take them chronologically so you've done the most recent one as your last prep before test day.
-
1991
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:29 pm
Re: new tests vs. old tests
I would say go ahead and do the questions for practice, but don't take the scores too seriously because the curve is different. It's hard to get plenty of practice with real exam questions if you're only working with the newer tests.
-
mst
- Posts: 925
- Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:01 am
Re: new tests vs. old tests
Yes. It hasn't changed that much. Some trends that have been identified:
*The tests are gradually more competitive/harder. By this, I mean that in order to get within certain score ranges, you can miss less questions. This is probably due to more people prepping for the test seriously.
*Some people think Logic Games have gotten easier, a smaller minority think they've gotten harder. One thing is pretty agreeable: they've gotten a lot less weird. Games from the early 90's and such had really odd question types.
*LR has been generally the same, others might be able to point out trends, but nothing really is SUPER important.
*RC has gotten a bit harder. Additionally, they've introduced one comparative passage for each RC (compare 2 passages) since 2007
My tip is that you do a mix of practice tests from various areas. I personally did even numbers backwards, and then when I was getting closer to the test date, started doing the odd ones forward, but whatever works for you is great. Just save some of the more recent ones (in the 50's) for when you get closer to the test, and just do as many as you can. Don't rush through them, and take the time to really figure out what areas you struggle with and why you're struggling with them, before you move onto the next one. The more recent tests will do a MUCH better job of predicting performance and giving you an idea of how you'll perform than the older ones, but all will generally give you an idea of where you are at.
*The tests are gradually more competitive/harder. By this, I mean that in order to get within certain score ranges, you can miss less questions. This is probably due to more people prepping for the test seriously.
*Some people think Logic Games have gotten easier, a smaller minority think they've gotten harder. One thing is pretty agreeable: they've gotten a lot less weird. Games from the early 90's and such had really odd question types.
*LR has been generally the same, others might be able to point out trends, but nothing really is SUPER important.
*RC has gotten a bit harder. Additionally, they've introduced one comparative passage for each RC (compare 2 passages) since 2007
My tip is that you do a mix of practice tests from various areas. I personally did even numbers backwards, and then when I was getting closer to the test date, started doing the odd ones forward, but whatever works for you is great. Just save some of the more recent ones (in the 50's) for when you get closer to the test, and just do as many as you can. Don't rush through them, and take the time to really figure out what areas you struggle with and why you're struggling with them, before you move onto the next one. The more recent tests will do a MUCH better job of predicting performance and giving you an idea of how you'll perform than the older ones, but all will generally give you an idea of where you are at.
-
WestOfTheRest
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:10 pm
Re: new tests vs. old tests
Logic games have gotten easier. A lot more linear and sequencing games, the two easiest types. RC has become much harder, but has become less so over the past few tests.mst wrote:Yes. It hasn't changed that much. Some trends that have been identified:
*The tests are gradually more competitive/harder. By this, I mean that in order to get within certain score ranges, you can miss less questions. This is probably due to more people prepping for the test seriously.
*Some people think Logic Games have gotten easier, a smaller minority think they've gotten harder. One thing is pretty agreeable: they've gotten a lot less weird. Games from the early 90's and such had really odd question types.
*LR has been generally the same, others might be able to point out trends, but nothing really is SUPER important.
*RC has gotten a bit harder. Additionally, they've introduced one comparative passage for each RC (compare 2 passages) since 2007
My tip is that you do a mix of practice tests from various areas. I personally did even numbers backwards, and then when I was getting closer to the test date, started doing the odd ones forward, but whatever works for you is great. Just save some of the more recent ones (in the 50's) for when you get closer to the test, and just do as many as you can. Don't rush through them, and take the time to really figure out what areas you struggle with and why you're struggling with them, before you move onto the next one. The more recent tests will do a MUCH better job of predicting performance and giving you an idea of how you'll perform than the older ones, but all will generally give you an idea of where you are at.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
1991
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:29 pm
Re: new tests vs. old tests
On LR, the not SUPER important but minor switch in trends would be the lack of paired questions (one short paragraph for two questions) which, I guess, saved you some time. So the older tests tend to be easier to score better on overall (the curve and all). Sadness.
-
goawaybee
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 11:20 pm
Re: new tests vs. old tests
I got stuck on this entire concept earlier today while working outside in the yard.
It was triggered when pondering the idea of sustainability then of course due to how much we can become consumed by the LSAT it morphed into an LSAT issue. I am not all that up on the entire equating thing but it seems that as technology advances the baseline (I feel like I read somewhere that they base it all off of the first Modern LSAT or something in the 90's could be wrong but it is irrelevant for the most part) for scoring will be forced to shift along with question types etc...
Simple reality as each generation becomes more tech savvy they will become more aware of the resources available to them. Over the past few decades I am sure there has always been a large enough percentage of people that do not jump on the internet as their first plan of attack....That will change. I know I am showing my age here but this is reality. After the norm becomes to study all the older tests/question types paired with all the resources and study guides etc...available they will be forced to alter the test. We may not notice it now but I am certain this will have to change dramatically over the next few years along with everything else in existence.
Just really got hung up on the concept. The test did shift from the earlier PT's I did to the ones in the 50's I took. Sure if you have the skill set you may not notice the shift as much due to your ability to destroy the test as is but in my situation I was getting accustomed to the patterns on the tests in the 30's(completed 5 full PT's and a few sections) and then to jump straight into the 50's, cutting out roughly 20 tests in between it is much more noticeable.
I am interested to see what changes are ahead...I say that now but will probably be so wrapped up in the ," my life, oh it is so hectic, I am so busy and concerned with all things self" that I may not take the time to observe it.
It is indeed irrelevant, in a PM someone was explaining their method to approaching LG's and the word HOLISTIC crept off the screen and into my head. That is what I failed to do. I could notice patterns and then once I could finally peel myself off of "each question" 1-6 approach often times the answers are there screaming at you. Just get so far down the rabbit hole and routine in it all you miss them. forest, trees...clear cutting is okay at times.
linear-sequencing kind of thing, test questions written after test questions and practiced in that manner you may not notice...jump to tests 5 years apart and you can notice certain things.
Welcome to the rabbit hole.
It was triggered when pondering the idea of sustainability then of course due to how much we can become consumed by the LSAT it morphed into an LSAT issue. I am not all that up on the entire equating thing but it seems that as technology advances the baseline (I feel like I read somewhere that they base it all off of the first Modern LSAT or something in the 90's could be wrong but it is irrelevant for the most part) for scoring will be forced to shift along with question types etc...
Simple reality as each generation becomes more tech savvy they will become more aware of the resources available to them. Over the past few decades I am sure there has always been a large enough percentage of people that do not jump on the internet as their first plan of attack....That will change. I know I am showing my age here but this is reality. After the norm becomes to study all the older tests/question types paired with all the resources and study guides etc...available they will be forced to alter the test. We may not notice it now but I am certain this will have to change dramatically over the next few years along with everything else in existence.
Just really got hung up on the concept. The test did shift from the earlier PT's I did to the ones in the 50's I took. Sure if you have the skill set you may not notice the shift as much due to your ability to destroy the test as is but in my situation I was getting accustomed to the patterns on the tests in the 30's(completed 5 full PT's and a few sections) and then to jump straight into the 50's, cutting out roughly 20 tests in between it is much more noticeable.
I am interested to see what changes are ahead...I say that now but will probably be so wrapped up in the ," my life, oh it is so hectic, I am so busy and concerned with all things self" that I may not take the time to observe it.
It is indeed irrelevant, in a PM someone was explaining their method to approaching LG's and the word HOLISTIC crept off the screen and into my head. That is what I failed to do. I could notice patterns and then once I could finally peel myself off of "each question" 1-6 approach often times the answers are there screaming at you. Just get so far down the rabbit hole and routine in it all you miss them. forest, trees...clear cutting is okay at times.
linear-sequencing kind of thing, test questions written after test questions and practiced in that manner you may not notice...jump to tests 5 years apart and you can notice certain things.
Welcome to the rabbit hole.
