Top Law Schools

hi all,

so as I have looked over some forums a common question is the quality of old vs. new tests. and it seems that the newer ones are more indicative of one's abilities (naturally this makes sense).

But my general question becomes this, if I do older LSATs (like as early as they are available) and then get a particular score, is this score totally non-indicative of my abilities, or can I do some older ones and take my score with the knowledge that it might be somewhat non-indicative.

I guess my question is basically: to what degree are old tests non-indicative?

thanks guys (and sorry, I wouldn't be surprised if this has been asked).

if you're scoring poorly on old tests then it is completely indicative that you'd do poorly on newer tests. However, if you're scoring well then it shows you have a basic mastery of the material, but you're still going to need to spend time with the newer tests to score at the same level because the newer tests feature some different approaches/wording.

The newer tests are still testing the same skills, but they'll seem a little unfamiliar if you've been focusing entirely on older tests.

In general though, I wouldn't be PT'ing anything before #40 and instead would be using that material for drilling. I understand the impulse, but 40-69 is plenty of PT's if you put in the time drilling all the material from 1-39. That way these sorts of questions won't be an issue.

thanks!!

since originally asking that question i've read some other threads and have realized that the general consensus seems to be what you said (i.e. use pt 1-38 for drilling, as organized by cambridge bundles) and do pts 39 and above for full pts, so it's good to see you reafirm this.

Thanks again!!