studying with older tests Forum

[senorhosh]

I've been studying with tests from around '97-'99.
Will my scores accurately reflect what I would get with recent tests?
If not, how different are these tests than more recent ones? Thanks

[birdlaw117]

The older tests are, in my opinion, quite a bit easier than the recent ones. However, they are a good place to start your studying if you plan on doing a LOT of PTs (which I suggest). For me (I took 30ish PTs), starting with the old ones and then moving to the newer ones showed me how much harder the test has gotten. However, by doing this you are gradually increasing the difficulty of the tests you are taking. My scores went up marginally from the first 10 PTs I took (Avg of 168-169) to the last 10 PTs I took (Avg of 173, which ended up being my actual score). My raw LSAT skills probably improved significantly more than the 4-5 points than that increase would suggest, however.

Basically, the newer tests are harder, particularly the LG section is much tougher now than it was 10+ years ago. Your scores on old tests will be slightly artificially increased. Another thing to take note of is the curve has gone down over the last 10 years as well. It used to be common (ish) for a -15 curve, now that would be a miracle and single digit curves are not unheard of.

TL;DR: New PTs > Old PTs, but old PTs can be useful for studying (particularly to break up and use for drills, although I never did that).

[well-hello-there]

I think that reading comp. sections have gotten harder since then. Preptest 24 was the easiest one for me out of those years so if you fared exceptionally well on that one, don't get too excited.

[birdlaw117]

I think that reading comp. sections have gotten harder since then. Preptest 24 was the easiest one for me out of those years so if you fared exceptionally well on that one, don't get too excited.

Yeah, RC has gotten quite a bit tougher the last 3-4 years. Really, each section has gotten tougher. I just mentioned LG because I think practicing on the old ones isn't very helpful because they types of games have changed significantly. RC and LR still use the same question/passage types, they just seem to have more hard ones. LG has a lot more hybrid games lately, the old PTs didn't do that hardly ever, or at least not complicated hybrids that required tons of hypos.

[well-hello-there]

I think that reading comp. sections have gotten harder since then. Preptest 24 was the easiest one for me out of those years so if you fared exceptionally well on that one, don't get too excited.

Yeah, RC has gotten quite a bit tougher the last 3-4 years. Really, each section has gotten tougher. I just mentioned LG because I think practicing on the old ones isn't very helpful because they types of games have changed significantly. RC and LR still use the same question/passage types, they just seem to have more hard ones. LG has a lot more hybrid games lately, the old PTs didn't do that hardly ever, or at least not complicated hybrids that required tons of hypos.

You need to have done all the games from the past 5 years for sure but I think that those older games can help you learn some necessary LG skills that are applicable to almost every game.

[senorhosh]

Where can I get newer versions of these tests?
I know there's one on the LSAC site, but any more?
The most recent "actual LSAT test" book on Amazon seems to be 2007.

[vissidarte27]

You'll have to order all of the newest ones individually. The last group of collected PTs stops at #38 and we're currently approaching test #63.

[well-hello-there]

I know there's one on the LSAC site, but any more?

For me, that was the easiest LSAT out of them all.

[well-hello-there]

You'll have to order all of the newest ones individually. The last group of collected PTs stops at #38 and we're currently approaching test #63.

I took a Kaplan class and they gave me PDF's of every prep test.

[vissidarte27]

You'll have to order all of the newest ones individually. The last group of collected PTs stops at #38 and we're currently approaching test #63.

I took a Kaplan class and they gave me PDF's of every prep test.

Hi, my name is JEALOUS.

[senorhosh]

I know there's one on the LSAC site, but any more?

For me, that was the easiest LSAT out of them all.

Darn it. I was hoping on using that test as benchmark to see where I'm at.
Anyone else agree with this?

On older tests, I've been getting ~167. What do you think I would get on newer ones?.. Which brings me to my next question: since the tests are harder and are on a different curve, wouldn't scores be roughly the same? If not, how much of a difference do you guys think there is?

Thanks

[2Serious4Numbers]

They are beneficial, just not as much as the most recent pts because of the slight variations in question types

[Sandro]

Also the older tests seem easier because the prep companies have based their materials on previous lsats - so while some older tests might have had a generous curve for those taking it in 97, rest assured they did not have the powerscore bibles and thus their curve isnt indicative of todays takers.

Atleast older LG you could find inferences, albeit much harder. Todays LG asks you to restart the problem each question. f that.

[kkklick]

LR has changed significantly IMO. I remember a week before the December test I took PT 57 (which had 2 tough LR sections) and an experimental LR from the late 30's. I got a 175 on the PT with -4 LR, but got -9 on the experimental LR. Up to that point I had only been doing PT's 40+, and while going through the section I noticed that it felt different.

My advice is go from old tests to new tests, while trying to notice the different ways that they try to trick you. LR's now are loaded with justify the principal, assumption and flaw questions compared to 10 years ago when strength/weaken and conclusion questions were dominant.