Top Law Schools

I planned my study schedule so that up to the month before the LSAT, I would be taking tests and reviewing materials prior to practice test 40.
The final month (now) I would be doing all of the tests after that.

My average from the many many pt's I took before 40 was 174, with a low of 170. I reviewed extensively all of those tests and improved quite a bit as time progressed.

Now, I took two tests in the past two days from the "modern" , more recent tests , and got 165 and 167 respectively.

Are the more recent tests REALLY that much different to where my previous studying was worthless, or did I just somehow mess up big time two days in a row?

lsatprepguy wrote:I planned my study schedule so that up to the month before the LSAT, I would be taking tests and reviewing materials prior to practice test 40.
The final month (now) I would be doing all of the tests after that.

My average from the many many pt's I took before 40 was 174, with a low of 170. I reviewed extensively all of those tests and improved quite a bit as time progressed.

Now, I took two tests in the past two days from the "modern" , more recent tests , and got 165 and 167 respectively.

Are the more recent tests REALLY that much different to where my previous studying was worthless, or did I just somehow mess up big time two days in a row?

The score scales change dramatically between the earlier tests and newer tests. You could get the same raw score on an early test and a newer one, and your scaled score would almost always be higher on an early test. You didn't mess up at all, and your studying wasn't worthless. You just didn't realize that score scales on early tests are misleading.

dakatz wrote:

lsatprepguy wrote:I planned my study schedule so that up to the month before the LSAT, I would be taking tests and reviewing materials prior to practice test 40.
The final month (now) I would be doing all of the tests after that.

My average from the many many pt's I took before 40 was 174, with a low of 170. I reviewed extensively all of those tests and improved quite a bit as time progressed.

Now, I took two tests in the past two days from the "modern" , more recent tests , and got 165 and 167 respectively.

Are the more recent tests REALLY that much different to where my previous studying was worthless, or did I just somehow mess up big time two days in a row?

The score scales change dramatically between the earlier tests and newer tests. You could get the same raw score on an early test and a newer one, and your scaled score would almost always be higher on an early test. You didn't mess up at all, and your studying wasn't worthless. You just didn't realize that score scales on early tests are misleading.

I don't think the difference really was the score scales though. I got 6 or 7 more questions wrong than usual.

lsatprepguy wrote:

dakatz wrote:

lsatprepguy wrote:I planned my study schedule so that up to the month before the LSAT, I would be taking tests and reviewing materials prior to practice test 40.
The final month (now) I would be doing all of the tests after that.

My average from the many many pt's I took before 40 was 174, with a low of 170. I reviewed extensively all of those tests and improved quite a bit as time progressed.

Now, I took two tests in the past two days from the "modern" , more recent tests , and got 165 and 167 respectively.

Are the more recent tests REALLY that much different to where my previous studying was worthless, or did I just somehow mess up big time two days in a row?

The score scales change dramatically between the earlier tests and newer tests. You could get the same raw score on an early test and a newer one, and your scaled score would almost always be higher on an early test. You didn't mess up at all, and your studying wasn't worthless. You just didn't realize that score scales on early tests are misleading.

I don't think the difference really was the score scales though. I got 6 or 7 more questions wrong than usual.

Well then yeah, you have to learn to adjust to the new tests. The overall format is obviously the same, but there are subtle differences. For example, most people would say that reading comp got a bit harder, while logic games got easier and typically more standardized. LR is pretty consistent, but the phrasing of some answer choices is a bit new. Its subtle differences, but they take some adjusting to.