Page 1 of 3
Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:47 pm
by lieg
I apologize if any part of this is redundant. but I keep getting conflicting answers from a lot of the posts. Maybe this will help?
My exam:
1 - LR: Very difficult with some strange questions stems. Very different feel from most PT's. Not sure I remember any q's.
2- LR: Definitely much easier
3- RC: (real) - African American/ historical writing, animal communication, UN human rights, etc.
4- LR: Easier again
5- LG: (real) - artifacts, van +drivers, running a race, etc.
The most confusion I have seen has been figuring out which LR is experimental. People have been claiming that sections containing Kofka, alcohol drinking, soaking beans have been real. I had three LR's and did not have any of these questions. I am fairly certain on that. Someone did raise a point that it is possible that 2 different experimentals existed, and further, that even tests with the same layout had the experimental at a different time. I tend to this this is possible, and would certainly explain the difficulty in figuring this out.
I do remember these LR questions, more than likely from the last 2 sections: Antibiotics/Chef analogy, College presidents, car theft, earthworms, spotted fish, time devoted to recreation/psychologist, liberty/freedom/goodlife, etc.
I assume that the 4th LR was real, and I believe it had 25 ques. and I also believe my second LR had 26. It appears that the test ended up with a 26 and 25 LR, so if I am not incorrect by this logic (which i am hoping!) if you had the same sequence as me the first LR was experimental.
PLEASE SHARE THOUGHTS/INPUT!
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:51 pm
by DearCan
My experimental section was LG.
I did not have a question about soaking beans or Kafka.
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:51 pm
by minnbills
I had:
RC (real)
LR (25) easy
LR (25) super hard... every stimulus seemed really long. Lots of complex questions.
LG
LR easy
Unfortunately I don't remember where any specific questions were for LR.
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:58 pm
by sidhesadie
I had the same as minnbills, but I don't remember which questions were in which sections. I thought the first LR was SUPER easy. I actually had time to go to the bathroom when I was done. the second and third were harder, but I still thought they were really easy. I have no idea which was experimental.
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:59 pm
by Patriot1208
DearCan wrote:My experimental section was LG.
I did not have a question about soaking beans or Kafka.
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:25 pm
by txadv11
I had:
LR
*LG
RC
LR
LG
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:28 pm
by cowgirl_bebop
Kafka was definitely experimental. I had an experimental RC section so both of my LRs were real, and there was definitely no Kafka question on my test. I would remember that, because I like him so much
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:46 pm
by lieg
Cowgirl, did you have a question about technicians vs. writers salaries in terms of seniority?
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:47 pm
by Patriot1208
lieg wrote:Cowgirl, did you have a question about technicians vs. writers salaries in terms of seniority?
I did and I only had two LR's
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:47 pm
by cowgirl_bebop
lieg wrote:Cowgirl, did you have a question about technicians vs. writers salaries in terms of seniority?
Yes, that one was real as well
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:51 pm
by lieg
Was the section that contained the salary question included in the "weird" one that everyone is freaking out about, or in an easier section?
PS I really appreciate the input guys, thanks so much!
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:52 pm
by raspberry
lieg wrote:
The most confusion I have seen has been figuring out which LR is experimental. People have been claiming that sections containing Kofka, alcohol drinking, soaking beans have been real. I had three LR's and did not have any of these questions. I am fairly certain on that. Someone did raise a point that it is possible that 2 different experimentals existed, and further, that even tests with the same layout had the experimental at a different time. I tend to this this is possible, and would certainly explain the difficulty in figuring this out.
I saw the thread where they were talking about those questions, but the first post is actually from 2006. That could explain things! I remember those questions from PTs.
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:55 pm
by 5823
.
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:15 pm
by LSU Undergrad
I was thinking LR1 was experimental towards the end because it had a couple of question structures that I had not seen often. I believe one was what role something played in an analogy. I don't remember that one too often from practice. I only had 2 LRs so it was a real one.
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:16 pm
by lieg
Great info guys, that's so funny about the one thread being a few years old.
Still can't get a handle on which LR was experimental, wish I could remember what questions were from which sections. Anyone with only 2 LR's remember one just seeming a bit odd? I know that's really vague, but honestly its the best way I can describe my first LR, I found it a bit difficult and after the first few I was just thinking, "Wow, these are just really unlike the last 6 or so PT's"
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:17 pm
by minnbills
LSU Undergrad wrote:I was thinking LR1 was experimental towards the end because it had a couple of question structures that I had not seen often. I believe one was what role something played in an analogy. I don't remember that one too often from practice. I only had 2 LRs so it was a real one.
Hmm well 2 of my LR were very typical, with another being very weird. I think we may have our answer here folks.
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:18 pm
by fatduck
Don't think my post was against the rules but editing just to be safe...
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:18 pm
by ArghItsBlarg
lieg wrote:Was the section that contained the salary question included in the "weird" one that everyone is freaking out about, or in an easier section?
PS I really appreciate the input guys, thanks so much!
I had two LG sections, and I had the salary question, so I'd imagine that it's in a real section.
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:18 pm
by Patriot1208
fatduck, you better edit out that question or you will get banned. But yes that was real.
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:21 pm
by lieg
ITSBLARG, do you remember if that section you had it in was the "unusualy LR" or one that seemed fairly normal?
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:37 am
by jonillson
minnbills wrote:I had:
RC (real)
LR (25) easy
LR (25) super hard... every stimulus seemed really long. Lots of complex questions.
LG
LR easy
Unfortunately I don't remember where any specific questions were for LR.
i had the same layout. however, i definitely did not have two 25 LRs in sections 2 and 3 (25, 26, but not sure in which order). i felt the same way about the two sections, but in reverse order:
RC (real)
LR (?) very difficult, very long, complex stimuli
LR (?) felt like a normal LR, ended with university president elections, a question that appears to have been on the scored section. i think this section also contained the sandstone worm question
LG (real)
LR (real)
i've concluded that there were two RC LR LR LG LR layouts, and that for some, section 2 was exp., for others, section 3.
can anyone corroborate?
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:02 am
by Sandro
I had the same one I think, i'm assuiming LR 1 (sec2) was experimental because it was a lottt harder....
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:10 am
by Hedwig
My experimental LR identified itself by being SUPER DUPER EASY and I loved every question and rocked my way through it and then found another LR and then another and was sad
.
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:17 am
by Sandro
actually i'm not even so sure anymore if LR1 or LR2 was easier for me. I know I finished LR2 with more time left but went back to a question or two. I hate not being able to remember much.
Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?
Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 8:25 am
by minnbills
jonillson wrote:minnbills wrote:I had:
RC (real)
LR (25) easy
LR (25) super hard... every stimulus seemed really long. Lots of complex questions.
LG
LR easy
Unfortunately I don't remember where any specific questions were for LR.
i had the same layout. however, i definitely did not have two 25 LRs in sections 2 and 3 (25, 26, but not sure in which order). i felt the same way about the two sections, but in reverse order:
RC (real)
LR (?) very difficult, very long, complex stimuli
LR (?) felt like a normal LR, ended with university president elections, a question that appears to have been on the scored section. i think this section also contained the sandstone worm question
LG (real)
LR (real)
i've concluded that there were two RC LR LR LG LR layouts, and that for some, section 2 was exp., for others, section 3.
can anyone corroborate?
I think this is the case. unfortunately I don't remember where any questions were in particular.