Subscription pricing
Which study method is better if you have enough time to take and BR 60 LSAT PTs... Take the 20 most recent PTs 3x's (56-75) or 60 PTs (16-75) once... Please explain your decision... I actually am on pace to accomplish 20 x 3...
0
36 comments
@alexandergreene93842 , I know! That's why we need to do so many PTs! :)
@974, you are right. I have test day anxiety issues too even though I got good grades in college now. But LSAT is a whole different thing!
For some people, doing well on timed PTs to the point that you're consistently 170+ can breed complacency, so then they walk in on test day expecting a 170+ and forgetting that they still have to apply all those logic/reasoning skills in order to be successful. Then those people don't understand when they walk away with a score that didn't meet their expectations. I think that this accounts for a decent portion of underperformers, with the other most significant groups being people who burned out on prep right before, and people who get test day anxiety issues.
The October exam is PT 76. That's all. There is nothing different about it. Yes, the wording is different, but the exam tests the same skills and concepts.
@jyang72422
Timed PTs are indicative of performance under timed constraints.
@974, why does timed PT give people false sense of security? Isn't it true that it shows how well you can do under timed pressure?
Sweet! Just add me on Skype -- nikkers625 . We're on at 8pm ET!
@2543.hopkins where do you guys hold your BR meetings? I will be available today for 59
People don't take retakes for the confidence boost of a high score, they do it to reinforce their reasoning/logic skills. Anyone who thinks their retake score is viable is pretty universally shot down immediately. I think timed scores actually give people a false sense of security because if someone does well on the three PTs prior to their administration then they are more likely to think they're good to go, when the reality is you still have to go in and do the work on test day to get a high score.
And the reason I discourage re-rakes is because I feel that they inflate your score and provide a false sense of security. I would only use them if it was my only option. I am not just saying these things to be rude.
Relax. Personally, I do not think the practice is useful, and the community benefits from different perspectives (yours and mine). For example, people on prep timelines under a year, such as I was, may understand that retakes are not necessary for scoring 170+ if PTs and BRs are done correctly.
Hear, hear @974 ... The Dude has spoken.
I never understood the allure of studying for anything, but that doesn't mean it's not helpful and often needed in many cases. I don't prep for the LSAT because I'm seduced by the curriculum or other prep materials, I just need to accomplish a goal and use different tools to get myself there. If you did PTs for less than six months at a slow pace then obviously you wouldn't ever need to retake, but for some it is eventually the only option out there. Retaking a PT is still better than taking one of those stupid, fake Princeton Review ones.
For those of us who have been prepping over a year (or PT'ing for a good long time), it's necessary to repeat some materials in order to fine tune our habits and keep our skills fresh. It's far from an uncommon practice, and it has nothing to do with "allure." And, sometimes we miss questions for different reasons on a retake. That means we have more opportunities to learn.
I see utterly no benefit to the community or to individuals in dismissing such a practice.
I never understood the allure of a re-take. A proper BR should be enough in my opinion. Once you've practiced/learned what you needed from a PT, move on to the next one.
Let me know what you think following 72 :)
@2543.hopkins I'm taking PT 70 tomorrow. I'll post my evaluation on here after BR.
@2543.hopkins
I guess we shall see.
It will be interesting to see if you maintain this position after taking 65-75!
While there have been subtle changes in the exam, I have found the exams very similar. I am not someone who completed 36+ and took two exams in the 20s. Rather, I have completed 1-62 and A,B and C (plus 3 Indian LSATs). Other than the introduction of the comparative reading passage in RC, which is not more difficult (it's easier if anything) than conventional passages, the exam tests the same concepts and skills. The LR on recent exams is a lot "cleaner" and easier to read, but I typically get the same amount of questions wrong on each exam, which leads me to believe that older exams are reliable indicators of LSAT performance on recent exams. I know there are people out there with much different experiences, but I am a firm believer that all of these "drastic changes" are simply propagated myths.
Then you should join us tomorrow at 8pm ET for BR group on this very PT!
There is an incremental shift from 1-75 that has changed many things about the test. The mid to late 30s are the general consensus across most prep companies and test takers as to where that shift is pronounced enough to abandon using the earlier ones for PTs. Some think the tests got harder, others think it got easier, but that is all relative to one's particular skill level and section preference. Personally I think comparative passages are easier than regular ones so I like the more recent RC. I find the early tests use much more convoluted language than the newer ones, which is what makes the early tests difficult, while the newer ones it seems to be the actual logic that is more difficult. Every other early PT has an off the wall game in a way that most post 35 PTs don't, though there is some indication of an occasional return to this phenomenon. And since there are only 75 PTs and a handful of others, ultimately you have to learn the test using some, and practice it using others. 1-35 are similar enough to learn the test, and 36+ are close enough to today's test in most respects that it just makes sense to do it that way.
As an aside, if you want to see some nonsense that used to happen on the LSAT, take a look here: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED469242.pdf
Just be glad you didn't have to take those tests.
@974, I'm just curious why pre-36 tests aren't that valuable to take as full PTs. Is it just that they don't have comparative reading in RC? or is there something else that is a more significant difference?
I'm closer to @2543.hopkins study method at this point, I just have retaken the most recent tests more and taken less 30's tests
Yeah ... I will have basically done 36-75, with about half of those being retakes, and about a quarter—third of them being triple-takes. I'm seeing diminishing returns and have had to put the brakes on (per @terencetheus896.janson35 and others' advice, I'm planning a 2 week LSAT cold turkey break before the final stretch, starting August 15th). I'm just glad I figured out what I need to do NOW as opposed to, you know, 2 weeks before the test when it's no longer possible to properly heal the burnout.