Top Law Schools

Was anybody else unhappy with their format? I feel my experimental section came way too early in the test and I was a little worn down by sections 4 and 5. Very unfair.

walterwhite wrote:Was anybody else unhappy with their format? I feel my experimental section came way too early in the test and I was a little worn down by sections 4 and 5. Very unfair.

I believe experimental is always, or at least almost always, somewhere in sections 1-3, so that doesn't set you apart.

midwest17 wrote:

walterwhite wrote:Was anybody else unhappy with their format? I feel my experimental section came way too early in the test and I was a little worn down by sections 4 and 5. Very unfair.

I believe experimental is always, or at least almost always, somewhere in sections 1-3, so that doesn't set you apart.

NOT necessary have to be in section 1-3

My weakest section on timing (LG) came in the first section, so I was caught off-guard. Struggling on the first section really affected the other areas of my exam. I always had LG on one of my last 3 sections during each of my proctored exams, so I did not see this format coming. And the number on my desk was #13! That should pretty much tell you how my day went. But in all seriousness, I'm not superstitious! I just think the format wasn't really beneficial to me. Hopefully I'll get a better format the second time around in December.


*Note: I take full responsibility for my performance, but I think the organization of my particular test hurt me.

A version of Prep Test 64 had a 4th section LR exp. Almost every version of the test ever has it in the first 3, though.

goldenflash19 wrote:A version of Prep Test 64 had a 4th section LR exp. Almost every version of the test ever has it in the first 3, though.

if i'm not mistaken some PT 69'ers also had an experimental LR in section 4.

LR is my strongest section and I've panicked several times with LG/RC sections, so I was very pleased that I started the test with LR and had it as my experimental (LR-RC-LR-LG-LR). Starting with LG/RC and/or having two of them would've thrown me off and caused me to think about it the entire test.

Hey, I had that exact same format (LR-RC-LR-LG-LR)! Let me ask you, in your opinion, which was the experimental - the first section or the third?? I felt that the third section was somewhat easier, so I'm hoping that section 1 was the experimental...

I had LG first and I loved it. Great way to get my brain moving since it is pretty much automatic. There is not a lot of thinking just throwing down rules and applying them.

paperrev wrote:Hey, I had that exact same format (LR-RC-LR-LG-LR)! Let me ask you, in your opinion, which was the experimental - the first section or the third?? I felt that the third section was somewhat easier, so I'm hoping that section 1 was the experimental...

Note that you could have the same format but still have the experimental/real ones flipped, as far as I know.

indo wrote:

midwest17 wrote:

walterwhite wrote:Was anybody else unhappy with their format? I feel my experimental section came way too early in the test and I was a little worn down by sections 4 and 5. Very unfair.

I believe experimental is always, or at least almost always, somewhere in sections 1-3, so that doesn't set you apart.

NOT necessary have to be in section 1-3

Maybe not necessary (hence "or at least almost always") but my understanding of the common wisdom is that the experimental is usually before the break. Even if there are exceptions, OP's having the experimental early on and being tired for sections 4/5 is not unusual, and definitely not "unfair."

I wasn't too thrilled about having 2 RC sections with the last one (5th section) being the scored one.

My experimental for 69 was actually my 4th section, so just throwing that out there. I'm not sure how much it threw me off, but it definitely was unexpected. This time around, instead of 3 LRs like last time, I has LR-RC-LG-LG-LR, and I thought it was the perfect order.

midwest17 wrote:

walterwhite wrote:Was anybody else unhappy with their format? I feel my experimental section came way too early in the test and I was a little worn down by sections 4 and 5. Very unfair.

I believe experimental is always, or at least almost always, somewhere in sections 1-3, so that doesn't set you apart.

This has been historically true, but my experimental was in section 4 for 69, as it was for many others in 69.

I fucking hated mine. The one thing I dreaded was having three LR sections. I had it in December and It totally threw me for a loop. And what happened this time around? THREE FREAKING LR SECTIONS. -_-

One thing that went right was the format for me. Getting LG after the break was awesome as that demands the most mental effort from me. Getting 3 LRs was good as LR demands the least mental effort from me, and as it turns out, getting the third section as exp is a good deal. Even still, I doubt I hit the score I wanted. Formatting can only do so much.

my format was like perfect. LR, RC, LR, LG, LR. The only way it COULD be bad is if that second LR (25) was real, because I was pretty shaky coming out of RC.

Would have loved double games and been fine with double RC but of course I got triple LR. Not unfair just not lucky this time

You should file a complaint with LSAC.

Scotchandsoda wrote:I fucking hated mine. The one thing I dreaded was having three LR sections. I had it in December and It totally threw me for a loop. And what happened this time around? THREE FREAKING LR SECTIONS. -_-

Since they have to test more LR sections, it's more likely for you to end up with 3 LR sections than 2 LG or RC sections. It's my feeling that they also have to check the language in LR and RC more than LG, skewing it even more.

He/she may mean they had 3 straight LR sections rather than simply 3 scattered LR sections, which is very unusual and something probably nobody prepares for through PTing. In fact, I'm not even sure many PTs have 2 straight LRs (it happens, yeah, just not seemingly a whole lot). Granted, can you prepare for this? Sure. Just have to do tests out of order. All I know is that 3 straight of ANY section would be exhausting on an actual test.

i just think it's weird people get different versions of a test that's supposed to be standardized. it's an advantage to have 2 LG sections as opposed to 3 LRs or 2 reading sections.

I had my worst possible setup: LG-LG-LR-LR-RC

walterwhite wrote:i just think it's weird people get different versions of a test that's supposed to be standardized. it's an advantage to have 2 LG sections as opposed to 3 LRs or 2 reading sections.

You say this, but I way rather have 3 LRs or 2 RCs.

I had LR, RC, LR, LG, LR. I think my second LR was the experimental. Anyone happen to remember a question about elephants?

LG-LR-LR-LR-RC

Pity me.