Awesome at older LSATS but terrible at recent LSATs Forum

[adozendoughnuts]

I picked up the LSAT SuperPrep book and did PrepTest A and got a 169 on this diagnostic. I was really happy with that score and thus my preparation was to not worry too much and just do some review. I did PrepTest B and got a 170. I kept the same approach. The three most recent tests: 73, 74, and 75, came to my home last week. I did 75 and 73 and got a 162 and 159 respectively. I was stunned on how much my score plummeted with the new tests and felt that I really had to re-evaluate my strategy. So I withdrew from the October test and signed up for the December test (I am in no rush to apply early).

I guess my question is that what changed so much from the early to mid 2000s tests in the SuperPrep compared to the newer versions? What areas should I focus on or how should I study differently? I plan on doing a more regimented study approach (treat it like a part time job), but I also want to work smarter as well as harder.

Any advice on how to formulate my study strategy would be appreciated!

[rpupkin]

I picked up the LSAT SuperPrep book and did PrepTest A and got a 169 on this diagnostic. I was really happy with that score and thus my preparation was to not worry too much and just do some review. I did PrepTest B and got a 170. I kept the same approach. The three most recent tests: 73, 74, and 75, came to my home last week. I did 75 and 73 and got a 162 and 159 respectively. I was stunned on how much my score plummeted with the new tests and felt that I really had to re-evaluate my strategy. So I withdrew from the October test and signed up for the December test (I am in no rush to apply early).

I guess my question is that what changed so much from the early to mid 2000s tests in the SuperPrep compared to the newer versions? What areas should I focus on or how should I study differently? I plan on doing a more regimented study approach (treat it like a part time job), but I also want to work smarter as well as harder.

Any advice on how to formulate my study strategy would be appreciated!

I doubt the discrepancy has much to do with changes in the test. The most likely explanation is small sample size. Just do more prep and take more tests.

[PrayFor170]

You only did 2 older LSATs and 3 recent LSATs. The sample size is too small, so your conclusion is based on unrepresentative samples.
I do find PT70s a bit harder than the 60s. I totally messed up with the PT72 game.

[splitterfromhell]

Post removed.

[Bildungsroman]

I didn't do the old prep tests, but when I was LSAT studying five years ago people were consistent in saying that the old LSATs (especially SuperPrep ones) were not a good predictor of performance on the modern exam because they were too easy.

[ihenry]

Upper 170's in old tests and lower 170's in new ones for me.

[Cocoron]

.

[splitterfromhell]

Post removed.

[ihenry]

I didn't take any PT beyond 70 and am now kicking myself. This is not what I wanted to hear roughly 36 hours out.

I only attempted two or three recent PTs right before the test (only worked on PTs up to 40 prior to them). They have been the most valuable ones for me however, because it effectively reduced my expectations and prevented me from jumping off the building when I get my score back

Drill more and you will be better prepared

[Emilia_law]

I was stunned on how much my score plummeted with the new tests and felt that I really had to re-evaluate my strategy.

yea the older ones are easier -- better overall I think to at least try the older ones, as opposed to retaking new ones though, imo.

[Clearly]

I disagree with nearly everything in this thread. I'll follow up later, consider this a tag

[adozendoughnuts]

First of all I want to thank those who responded to my original post. It certainly seems that the LSAT has changed. However, I feel saying that it is "easier" or "harder" doesn't really quite capture what I was looking for. This is a standardized test after all and it has a curve. I suppose what I was looking for is whether or not other people have had the same experiences and for what reasons these people believe it got harder. Any minor tweaks to the test are bound to benefit some test takers and hurt others. In an effort to work smarter, I suppose I was looking for what specifically. So far I have: rule replacement questions in LG and ambiguity in RC and LR stems and questions. Are there any ways to specifically study and coach yourself on these issues?

So far my weekly gameplan for the next two months is this:

Sunday-Wednesday: work on segments of LG, RC, and LR that has given me most trouble
Thursday: A recent practice test (ordered the latest set of ten 10 as well as 72)
Friday: Rest
Saturday: Test review on what I missed and insight on what areas to focus on next Sunday-Wednesday on each section

I will use the LSAT Trainer as my base prep book and my PowerScore books and LSAT SuperPrep as my supplemental materials.

Seem like a solid two month plan? Any advice on how to use my time in a more efficient fashion would be very appreciated.

Thanks y'all!

[appind]

i found RC in modern PTs (60s and esp 70s) to be much harder than older RC. i miss about 6 pts more on modern RC than the older.

[cooleygrad]

Arguably they make it harder over time, but remember its curved on test day too.

[lurkin_hard]

Others may have different opinions on this, but here's mine:

The newer LSATs are WAY more difficult than the older ones. When I say newer LSATs, I'm talking around the 60s to present but PARTICULARLY 72 and beyond. I think people have gotten more and more prepared to take the test over the years and LSAC is only just now starting to catch up with them and make it more difficult to get a 170+. You see things in newer tests like LR question stems that don't reveal the question type, more ambiguous RC questions, rare games, rule replacement questions on LG, etc. The LSAT is still a very coachable test, but I truly believe LSAC has done a good job of making it much LESS coachable than it used to be.

I retook my 169 in June. I studied so hard for the first one that I had almost run out of prep tests for my retake. My last two weeks of studying, the only completely fresh prep tests I still had were A, B and C, which are all very old. I scored a 173, 179 and 179 on those three respectively and I was very serious about taking my prep tests under the most realistic conditions possible (accurate timing, quiet-but-still-somewhat-distracting atmosphere, using an answer sheet, 15-minute break period w/ snack, etc.) When I took June 2015, I scored a 166. Maybe you can chalk part of that up to a "test day penalty," but I think it was mainly me having used much easier tests to prepare.

Other than the trend of including one novel game on each test, I don't really think that the test is getting that much harder. LR and RC are pretty much the same as they have always been, and most of the logic games are still pretty straightforward. Tougher scales and the one difficult logic game can make a bit of a difference, but I don't think that it should be the ~10 points that you and OP are suggesting. June 2015, in particular, was a very straightforward test, albeit with a rough scale.

[appind]

Others may have different opinions on this, but here's mine:

The newer LSATs are WAY more difficult than the older ones. When I say newer LSATs, I'm talking around the 60s to present but PARTICULARLY 72 and beyond. I think people have gotten more and more prepared to take the test over the years and LSAC is only just now starting to catch up with them and make it more difficult to get a 170+. You see things in newer tests like LR question stems that don't reveal the question type, more ambiguous RC questions, rare games, rule replacement questions on LG, etc. The LSAT is still a very coachable test, but I truly believe LSAC has done a good job of making it much LESS coachable than it used to be.

I retook my 169 in June. I studied so hard for the first one that I had almost run out of prep tests for my retake. My last two weeks of studying, the only completely fresh prep tests I still had were A, B and C, which are all very old. I scored a 173, 179 and 179 on those three respectively and I was very serious about taking my prep tests under the most realistic conditions possible (accurate timing, quiet-but-still-somewhat-distracting atmosphere, using an answer sheet, 15-minute break period w/ snack, etc.) When I took June 2015, I scored a 166. Maybe you can chalk part of that up to a "test day penalty," but I think it was mainly me having used much easier tests to prepare.

Other than the trend of including one novel game on each test, I don't really think that the test is getting that much harder. LR and RC are pretty much the same as they have always been, and most of the logic games are still pretty straightforward. Tougher scales and the one difficult logic game can make a bit of a difference, but I don't think that it should be the ~10 points that you and OP are suggesting. June 2015, in particular, was a very straightforward test, albeit with a rough scale.

RC is definitely much harder in the recent tests. what are your scores in old rc and new rc?

many test takers see their scores drop a lot when they move from old RC to the modern RC.

[somethingElse]

Post removed...

[candidlatke]

maybe i'm just seeing things but I feel that there's comparatively fewer "find the conclusion" type questions and the principle questions have shifted from "identify the principle" to "find the passage that uses the same principle" in the newer tests and stuff along those lines