Old versus new PTs Forum

[Ohiobumpkin]

I wanted to check with you all if this is true about older versus newer prep tests. I heard older prep tests can be easier than newer ones. I practiced with almost exclusively older PTs, and scored roughly 7 points lower on the LSAT than my PT average score. I just ordered the newest bunch of PTs (54-63 I think), because I have essentially took most of the 19-38 PTs already. The only other time I scored on a PT as low as I did on the October LSAT was when I was over studying so much my PT scores went down. So I'm trying to figure out if it was the PTs, or a over studying mental meltdown that explains my score. Thanks for any advice.

[iamrobk]

I did pretty much all older PT's and scored a point better on the real LSAT than my best PT score was. I did do individual sections from newer LSAT's though, and found I was doing better on those than on sections from older PT's. My brain must be wired weird.

[ThreeRivers]

Older Rc's are easier
Older LG's are A LOT harder than recent

That being said the October test was a reverse of these trends imo: The RC was pretty easy / LG was hard as hell

[Mr.Binks]

Older Rc's are easier
Older LG's are A LOT harder than recent

That being said the October test was a reverse of these trends imo: The RC was pretty easy / LG was hard as hell

+1

[anewaphorist]

If I made a mistake during my LSAT prep, it was waiting too late to start doing newer (50+) PTs. I thought I'd wait until the final month to crack them open and complete old PTs first. My old PT average was around a 175, giving me a slight sense of false confidence, and my newer PT average was around a 171-172. Unfortunately, I didn't start the new PTs until September, so my LSAT score came out to be a 170, which I felt was on the low side of my range. All this to say, take at least one or two diagnostic PTs of the new variety so you can better tailor your prep to your weaknesses that will be tested. I spent a month improving my 2-question prompt scores, only to find in September that LSAC jettisoned them on the post-2007 tests. Then a new set of weaknesses demanded attention, and my LG prep suffered slightly as a consequence. Get the new ones in your blood early on!

[ThreeRivers]

If I made a mistake during my LSAT prep, it was waiting too late to start doing newer (50+) PTs. I thought I'd wait until the final month to crack them open and complete old PTs first. My old PT average was around a 175, giving me a slight sense of false confidence, and my newer PT average was around a 171-172. Unfortunately, I didn't start the new PTs until September, so my LSAT score came out to be a 170, which I felt was on the low side of my range. All this to say, take at least one or two diagnostic PTs of the new variety so you can better tailor your prep to your weaknesses that will be tested. I spent a month improving my 2-question prompt scores, only to find in September that LSAC jettisoned them on the post-2007 tests. Then a new set of weaknesses demanded attention, and my LG prep suffered slightly as a consequence. Get the new ones in your blood early on!

I LOVED the 2 questions / that was always my make up any lost time questions. Wish they still existed

[KevinP]

FWIW I found myself scoring in the upper 170s pretty regularly on the older tests. Even scoring in the 170s became a challenge for me on these newer tests.

RC: Older RC was easier, newer RC has a comparative passage and has gotten noticeably harder. More LR-type questions.
LG: Older LGs, especially those in the 30s, were much harder and sometimes unpredictable. The newer LGs are easier in comparison but LG has been making a comeback the last couple of tests (dinos, stained glass/conferences, bikes, among others).
LR: Stimulus is shorter on newer pretests. No more 2-question stimulus on newer tests. The newer LR has gotten more tricky with very subtle shifts.

[iamrobk]

FWIW I found myself scoring in the upper 170s pretty regularly on the older tests. Even scoring in the 170s became a challenge for me on these newer tests.

RC: Older RC was easier, newer RC has a comparative passage and has gotten noticeably harder. More LR-type questions.
LG: Older LGs, especially those in the 30s, were much harder and sometimes unpredictable. The newer LGs are easier in comparison but LG has been making a comeback the last couple of tests (dinos, stained glass/conferences, bikes, among others).
LR: Stimulus is shorter on newer pretests. No more 2-question stimulus on newer tests. The newer LR has gotten more tricky with very subtle shifts.

I think doing mostly older PT's helped me in a way with LR since I became so used to longer stimulus's, so I was able to work quicker on the actual test, and have more time to review answers.