Top Law Schools

I just completed the June 1991 PT (PT 1), and scored uncharacteristically well. Is that curve known to be easy because it was the first test administered in that form?

Curve was -14, which is nice. Check it: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/ls ... rsion.html

May I ask why you took PT 1?

I know the curve, it's not that. It's that I scored a 178, and my previous high was 172 (just yesterday). So I'm really not sure what to think.

I took PT 1 because I had it and I'm going through all of them. Why do you ask? Is it uncommon to take PT 1?

cogitoergosum wrote:Is it uncommon to take PT 1?

very.

I'm just trying to see if there is another reason for the crazy jump. I have been hitting the LSAT HARD this summer, and believe me, I am really happy to think about the prospect of a 178 on test day. But I'm also chasing the alternative hypothesis that it was a fluke/generous curve/something else.

It's definitely none of the common score boosters - timed with LSAT proctor app as always, no familiar sections, except for the occasional vague feeling that I had seen some of it before, but that's pretty common for me and I have still never scored close to 178.

I would say just stick with the current PTs in order to accurately assess your performance. Having a 178 on PT 1 though is a nice confidence boost.

I definitely consider my scores on more recent tests more indicative of my potential for October, but I'm doing lots of PT's, so I kind of need to use all of them. I'm just spacing it out so that I pace myself on the newer ones, and still have some left in Sept.

cogitoergosum wrote:I definitely consider my scores on more recent tests more indicative of my potential for October, but I'm doing lots of PT's, so I kind of need to use all of them. I'm just spacing it out so that I pace myself on the newer ones, and still have some left in Sept.

Just don't burnout.

Also, maybe you could take slightly fewer PTs and use sections of the older ones for experimental sections(?).

SchopenhauerFTW wrote:

cogitoergosum wrote:I definitely consider my scores on more recent tests more indicative of my potential for October, but I'm doing lots of PT's, so I kind of need to use all of them. I'm just spacing it out so that I pace myself on the newer ones, and still have some left in Sept.

Just don't burnout.

Also, maybe you could take slightly fewer PTs and use sections of the older ones for experimental sections(?).

+1

Just focus on your section score, don't worry about the scaled score until maybe a couple weeks before you're taking the real LSAT. Focusing on section scores is appealing, but not really helpful. 99.9th percentile on one of those old tests is not really the same as doing that today; back in 1991 LSAT prep was in the stone age. I think Robin Singh hadn't even gotten his first 180 back then.

Congrats on hitting such a high score, that is obviously a good thing.

However, using scaled scores from old tests as an indicator of how you might score on a modern test is not very precise when it comes down to 3-6 scaled points ranges within the overall scale. They are good indicators of where in general you are capable of scoring though (in the 140's, in the 150's, in the 160's, scratching at the 170's).

Even though the LSAT is a standardized test designed so that a 170 from one administration means the same thing as a 170 from a different administration, that comparability of scores from different tests has limits across time. A scaled score is supposed to be comparable to all other scores achieved within a 3-5 year time window, not to every score achieved since 1991. The quality of the test taker pool and applicant pool changes over the years, the LSAT has evolved over the years, etc.

The difficulty ratings assigned to each problem during development and when pre-tested are in turn used to assemble tests of close to equivalent overall difficulty and used to determine the scoring scale for each test. The difficulty ratings assigned to each problem during the development and pre-testing phases are largely determined by how current test takers perform on them when doing the experimental section. That means that the quality, skill levels, distributions of achieved scores, etc. of the overall group of test takers from the last 5 years or so has an effect on the data used to rate the difficulty of each test for equating purposes and to determine its scoring scale.

I got a 174 on PT 1. Of course, that was 20 years ago....

Having done the earlier PTs I can say that they are easier. My average for them is about 3 or 4 points higher than my average for recent tests.

I think PT 1 will be of minimal help to you. If you're going to take a lot of PTs, try and max out with the most recent ones. No reason to take every PT, and such a strategy might actually be detrimental.

Interesting... Why do you say that?

I took the Testmasters class last year and took the test Dec 2010. I did that because I didn't think I was going to have this summer free, but as it turns out, I am free this summer. So I figure, what better way to spend the summer than killing the LSAT? The thing is, if I limit myself to only the recent LSAT's, I'm going to be pretty short on material for the next 3 months. I've already done the Testmasters thing, and am continuing to work on RC and LG with Manhattan and Powerscore, but that's not enough material to keep me progressing for 3 months.

Do you still think it could be detrimental to take the earlier tests, given my situation? If so, why? thanks.

suspicious android wrote:I think Robin Singh hadn't even gotten his first 180 back then.

Let's hope he didn't take the June 2011 exam. He's way too good.

http://www.testmasters.net/lsat/whywear ... ction.aspx

cogitoergosum wrote:Interesting... Why do you say that?

I took the Testmasters class last year and took the test Dec 2010. I did that because I didn't think I was going to have this summer free, but as it turns out, I am free this summer. So I figure, what better way to spend the summer than killing the LSAT? The thing is, if I limit myself to only the recent LSAT's, I'm going to be pretty short on material for the next 3 months. I've already done the Testmasters thing, and am continuing to work on RC and LG with Manhattan and Powerscore, but that's not enough material to keep me progressing for 3 months.

Do you still think it could be detrimental to take the earlier tests, given my situation? If so, why? thanks.

The older tests are great for practicing concepts in the beginning or later if you start running out of fresh PTs (they can be a pretty good confidence booster). With that said, you should remember that the scores you get on them is probably not a great indication of what you'll get on these recent tests. Like I said, my average score for the older PTs are about 3-4 pts higher than my average for the more recent PTs. Also, make sure you're taking days off every 2 or 3 days, so you don't burn out. Good Luck