Anyone else take the LSAT today? (12/21) Forum

[gma221]

Based on some quick research, today's LSAT was from February 2010. My section breakdown was LR-LG-LR-RC-LR. I had the advantage of knowing that my first LR section was experimental because I had seen it before (on the June '13 test). Overall, the test seemed easier than normal. I finished every section except LG with enough time to spare to review the more challenging questions that I had circled. LG, however... ugh. Seven of my answers were straight guesses, and I felt unsure about a few others. I'm still hoping for a score in the high 160s (I was PTing around 170), but we'll see. As a third-timer, at least I know I'll never have to sit for this test again.

What did everyone else think?

[Allegra]

Me! My experimental section was LG, which turned out to be horrible and just goes to show be careful what you wish for Both LG sections were more difficult than I had expected. The only saving grace is that I am pretty sure (fingers and toes crossed) that the really, really bad LG (as opposed to the really bad LG section) was the one that does not count - gma, did you have a class schedules LG?

Other than LG being more difficult than I had expected, LR seemed okay and RC maybe just a bit more difficult. I ran out of time and had to super-guess about three questions and did not have time to go back to my guesses.

[gma221]

Yep, the first game was about classes in two terms, the second was about hiking trails, and the third involved a grinder and a rotisserie, among other things, haha. I hardly remember the fourth one at all because I was in full-blown panic mode by then. Was this the easier of your two LG sections? If so, I would hate to see the other one!

[d cooper]

It's odd that LSAC would straight repeat a section from a previous administration.

[Kimikho]

how did you figure out it was the February 2010 test?

[gma221]

how did you figure out it was the February 2010 test?

I found this:
http://blueprintprep.com/lsatblog/lsat- ... sat-recap/

The LG and RC descriptions match my test. I also had the dinosaur/flower LR question that is mentioned in the "Section 5" paragraph.

[Jeffort]

It's odd that LSAC would straight repeat a section from a previous administration.

That sometimes happens with make-up tests since LSAC doesn't have time to print new test books and instead uses surplus copies of the test leftover from when it was originally administered that they had stored in their warehouse. The experimental sections printed in the test books back in 2010 (assuming it is the Feb 2010 test) that made the pre-testing cut end up being scored sections on later administrations, so it's not surprising that an LR experimental section pre-tested in 2010 ended up being a scored section on the June 2013 test. It's simply because they had to pull old test books printed a few years ago out of a warehouse and couldn't change the experimental sections to have a test ready to use for an emergency re-scheduled administration.

[pinkfireworks24]

Me! My experimental section was LG, which turned out to be horrible and just goes to show be careful what you wish for Both LG sections were more difficult than I had expected. The only saving grace is that I am pretty sure (fingers and toes crossed) that the really, really bad LG (as opposed to the really bad LG section) was the one that does not count - gma, did you have a class schedules LG?

Other than LG being more difficult than I had expected, LR seemed okay and RC maybe just a bit more difficult. I ran out of time and had to super-guess about three questions and did not have time to go back to my guesses.

I had 2 LG sections too! I also thought one of them seemed very difficult. I 'm hoping that was the experimental

[Allegra]

Was this the easier of your two LG sections? If so, I would hate to see the other one!

Yes, that was the less ridiculously hard one. The other one was not just difficult but strange - it seemed structurally not in line with al of the many practice LG sections I have taken.

I had 2 LG sections too! I also thought one of them seemed very difficult. I 'm hoping that was the experimental

I am now pretty close to certain that my first LG section was the experimental one.

[gma221]

It's odd that LSAC would straight repeat a section from a previous administration.

It turns out I was mistaken about my experimental LR being part of the official June '13 test. I just looked at the LR sections from June and October, and it wasn't a match for either of them. However, I'm 100% sure I saw those questions (not just a handful, but all or nearly all of them) before today's test. I had experimental LR in June, so maybe it was that section?? It's kind of driving me nuts now. The first question was about "hotspots" and endangered species, if that rings a bell for anyone.

[pinkfireworks24]

Was this the easier of your two LG sections? If so, I would hate to see the other one!

Yes, that was the less ridiculously hard one. The other one was not just difficult but strange - it seemed structurally not in line with al of the many practice LG sections I have taken.

I had 2 LG sections too! I also thought one of them seemed very difficult. I 'm hoping that was the experimental

I am now pretty close to certain that my first LG section was the experimental one.

Was your first one the harder one? Because mine definitely was.

[Gravitas]

I took the LSAT today. Copyright 2010, so I'm assuming it was the Feb 10 test. I had a LG-LR-LG-LR-RC set up. I was really hoping this would be the case - careful what you wish for I guess. The first LG (which was real: had games about classes, trails, appliances, and defense attorney clients) was harder than usual. I usually go -0 on games, but I had to guess on two questions because I ran out of time. They were just really tedious. The last game especially just had a lot of brute force Qs. As I started my second LG I was really hoping that my first LG was experimental. God almighty, I'm glad it's not. My experimental games were just unbelievably brutal. Something about students and faculty members, lead actors in plays, and matching people to work shifts. I just gave up during the last game. I could not make any inferences. Left like 5 blank. Was definitely going to cancel if that turned out to be real.

LR seemed pretty easy, nothing too unusual there.

I had Darwin and West African hieroglyphs if that helps anyone who had experimental RC.

[d cooper]

It's odd that LSAC would straight repeat a section from a previous administration.

That sometimes happens with make-up tests since LSAC doesn't have time to print new test books and instead uses surplus copies of the test leftover from when it was originally administered that they had stored in their warehouse. The experimental sections printed in the test books back in 2010 (assuming it is the Feb 2010 test) that made the pre-testing cut end up being scored sections on later administrations, so it's not surprising that an LR experimental section pre-tested in 2010 ended up being a scored section on the June 2013 test. It's simply because they had to pull old test books printed a few years ago out of a warehouse and couldn't change the experimental sections to have a test ready to use for an emergency re-scheduled administration.

I guess there's no harm in it considering it wasn't ever released. If by some fluke you happened to take both the February 2010 LSAT and this delayed December 2013 LSAT, you'd gain no advantage since they were separated by nearly four years. I'm just surprised they would use a recent released test section as the experimental.

[Allegra]

An additional tidbit of info for anyone still trying to figure out which section was experimental. Since this was a February 2010 exam, the experimental section was definitely one of the first three sections. After June 2010, LSAC changed the rules so the experimental could be any section, but before then, it was definitely one of the first three sections.

[pinkfireworks24]

Has anyone gotten their scores back yet from the postponed lsat?

[mhaas]

Has anyone gotten their scores back yet from the postponed lsat?

Nope, still nothing

[Gravitas]

I called LSAC this morning and they said we'd have our scores hopefully either today or tomorrow.

[mhaas]

I called LSAC this morning and they said we'd have our scores hopefully either today or tomorrow.

Excellent! Thanks for the heads up

[gma221]

I called LSAC this morning and they said we'd have our scores hopefully either today or tomorrow.

GAHHH. I also called LSAC and they told me we'd get them today. No mention of tomorrow! Well, the feeling of relief I experienced during the past 15 minutes was nice... now it's back to being an uncertain mess.

[Gravitas]

I called LSAC this morning and they said we'd have our scores hopefully either today or tomorrow.

GAHHH. I also called LSAC and they told me we'd get them today. No mention of tomorrow! Well, the feeling of relief I experienced during the past 15 minutes was nice... now it's back to being an uncertain mess.

I'm not sure the woman I talked to knew of the exact time. Perhaps she was just covering her bases by including tomorrow. Maybe you talked to someone more in the know? *Hopefully*

[gma221]

I'm not sure the woman I talked to knew of the exact time. Perhaps she was just covering her bases by including tomorrow. Maybe you talked to someone more in the know? *Hopefully*

Knowing LSAC, we probably talked to the exact same person.

[jackieh]

Thanks for the info on the release! I have pretty much been a nutcase since Thursday. When I called on Friday after stressing ALL NIGHT while at work, I received a recording that they were "closed for inclement weather". I keep TRYING to tell myself that, either way, I am retaking it in February, but I WANT TO KNOW!!!!

[pinkfireworks24]

Me too! I wish they'd just release them already!

[Clearly]

It's odd that LSAC would straight repeat a section from a previous administration.

It turns out I was mistaken about my experimental LR being part of the official June '13 test. I just looked at the LR sections from June and October, and it wasn't a match for either of them. However, I'm 100% sure I saw those questions (not just a handful, but all or nearly all of them) before today's test. I had experimental LR in June, so maybe it was that section?? It's kind of driving me nuts now. The first question was about "hotspots" and endangered species, if that rings a bell for anyone.

Take a peek at pt 63+64, I believe hotspots was first question on one of those off the top of my head

[gma221]

It's odd that LSAC would straight repeat a section from a previous administration.

It turns out I was mistaken about my experimental LR being part of the official June '13 test. I just looked at the LR sections from June and October, and it wasn't a match for either of them. However, I'm 100% sure I saw those questions (not just a handful, but all or nearly all of them) before today's test. I had experimental LR in June, so maybe it was that section?? It's kind of driving me nuts now. The first question was about "hotspots" and endangered species, if that rings a bell for anyone.

Take a peek at pt 63+64, I believe hotspots was first question on one of those off the top of my head

Ah, thank you! It was indeed from PT 64. I'm amazed by your encyclopedic knowledge of the LSAT!