Subscription pricing
I've often contemplated and discussed this with many on this forum and others like it.
We now are going to have over 85 PTs available to prep from and drill from. But at what point are we going to have to just say, "only PTs 52-81" are worth doing?" Will there ever come a time? It is unsustainable to keep just starting from tests from the 90s and going working towards the most recent tests.
I've studied a bit for the GMAT/GRE and it seems that the idea of going through 80 tests is insane. When you have more and more tests, it seems we get less and less out of each test because subconsciously we know that there are 79 more left.
There's also the idea of diminishing returns. So many of the games, logical reasoning questions, and RC passages follow such a similar format that doing so many tests may hurt us by not giving us the time to focus on and get every last drop of juice out of newer PTs.
Sometimes I wonder if I'd be better just focusing on PTs 52-61, 62-71, and 72-81 (when released)?
I get the argument that fool proofing and drilling older games is what will help with the newer stuff. However, I'm just playing devil's advocate by asking if this might not be the best approach going forward. Those who oppose this mentality will claim the logic hasn't changed, and that's true, but the newer tests have a different voice and style and perhaps our time may be better spent spending an increased amount of time on newer exams?
Edit: Again, just paying devil's advocate and I don't actually 100% believe this to be a valid solution to the over abundance of tests. Just starting a discussion.
4
41 comments
@gregoryalexanderdevine723 said:
My opinion is that there are so many factors to consider that I'm not sure!
Like I said in my OP, I don't actually believe there is one answer, but I think it's a conversation worth having.
In regards to your particular situation, I think it really comes down to where you are starting from and where you're aiming to be. I personally am of the belief that you should spend way more time drilling and doing timed sections until you're pretty close to your target score, because I don't think taking tons of PTs are a very efficient way to improve. I think we often know of several weaknesses that could be improved on before beginning to dive into just taking PTs. For example, if you're aiming for a 170+ and are constantly missing -8 on RC, well, I think you're way better off focusing on RC before you begin PT'ing only to find out you need to work on RC...
So, my point is where to begin PT'ing is a function of some of the things I've mentioned above. I think if you have the time and resources, you may want to begin by taking an older tests like PT36 and just seeing how close you are to your goal score.
If you're way off, you should consider going back to the CC, books, and drilling before taking another PT. If you're close but still need a good amount of work (say 5-8 points away) then you should probably give yourself at least 20 PTs.
In sum, I think everyone's situation is different and thus where they should begin will be different too. It's also worth noting that the older tests are still probably 85-90% similar to the newer tests. The difference isn't really all that big imo and their still super valuable. But the difference isn't necessarily what concerns me. My fear of having so many tests available is one based on the idea that I may not be getting the most out of the PTs I take simply knowing that I have 50 more left at my disposal. I often think we don't get all we can from the PTs we take. When I take a PT, I like to do my best to ensure that if I were to go back an take it again, I would get a 180. If I haven't, then there's clearly more to learn from it.
I see where you're going. I feel like for me at least, I want to slowly start with PT'ing; take one, drill a lot/sections and slowly increase the amount of PT's I take over time as I get better. I have such little data on taken PT's though and some of it is skewed from tests I took two years ago during my initial start up.
I appreciate your input.
@aaronkeegan92975 said:
@gregoryalexanderdevine723 Where do you think people about to start up PT'ing should begin at then? I'm reviewing a lot of LR material and FP'ing and will begin soon. I have had this thought in my mind since I'm targeting June. I feel like the 40's would be better saved as sectional drilling and therefore just start at 50.
My opinion is that there are so many factors to consider that I'm not sure!
Like I said in my OP, I don't actually believe there is one answer, but I think it's a conversation worth having.
In regards to your particular situation, I think it really comes down to where you are starting from and where you're aiming to be. I personally am of the belief that you should spend way more time drilling and doing timed sections until you're pretty close to your target score, because I don't think taking tons of PTs are a very efficient way to improve. I think we often know of several weaknesses that could be improved on before beginning to dive into just taking PTs. For example, if you're aiming for a 170+ and are constantly missing -8 on RC, well, I think you're way better off focusing on RC before you begin PT'ing only to find out you need to work on RC...
So, my point is where to begin PT'ing is a function of some of the things I've mentioned above. I think if you have the time and resources, you may want to begin by taking an older tests like PT36 and just seeing how close you are to your goal score.
If you're way off, you should consider going back to the CC, books, and drilling before taking another PT. If you're close but still need a good amount of work (say 5-8 points away) then you should probably give yourself at least 20 PTs.
In sum, I think everyone's situation is different and thus where they should begin will be different too. It's also worth noting that the older tests are still probably 85-90% similar to the newer tests. The difference isn't really all that big imo and their still super valuable. But the difference isn't necessarily what concerns me. My fear of having so many tests available is one based on the idea that I may not be getting the most out of the PTs I take simply knowing that I have 50 more left at my disposal. I often think we don't get all we can from the PTs we take. When I take a PT, I like to do my best to ensure that if I were to go back an take it again, I would get a 180. If I haven't, then there's clearly more to learn from it.
tl;dr follow 7Sage's study schedule and start at PT36 and then evaluate where to go from there.
@gregoryalexanderdevine723 Where do you think people about to start up PT'ing should begin at then? I'm reviewing a lot of LR material and FP'ing and will begin soon. I have had this thought in my mind since I'm targeting June. I feel like the 40's would be better saved as sectional drilling and therefore just start at 50.
@gregoryalexanderdevine723 said:
I'm sure it's likely there will ever be too many. I PTd using 79 unique tests and wouldn't change a thing. I'd say that if we get to 200 it will definitely be too many. I think the yest format will be changed before then.
Fewer than 50 and it seems to me like you start to constrict the full range of potential PT experiences.
Even aside from their teaching value, it is hard to know if you have made an improvement without taking PTs in large volumes. If the standard deviation is plus or minus 3, you have to take several to get an average with a fairly small standard deviation. That means each time you want to see if you have improved you really need to take about 5 PTs. If not, how can you detect a two to three point increase well enough to know you are making progress? If you take just one, maybe you are just getting lucky with the test's natural variance or maybe you are getting better.
Its hard to take groups of 5 or 6 PTs for diagnostic purposes very many times if you start with something like 20 tests available.
Eventually the test format may change before there are definitely too many PTs. That's certainly something I didn't consider. Good points!
I'm sure it's likely there will ever be too many. I PTd using 79 unique tests and wouldn't change a thing. I'd say that if we get to 200 it will definitely be too many. I think the yest format will be changed before then.
Fewer than 50 and it seems to me like you start to constrict the full range of potential PT experiences.
Even aside from their teaching value, it is hard to know if you have made an improvement without taking PTs in large volumes. If the standard deviation is plus or minus 3, you have to take several to get an average with a fairly small standard deviation. That means each time you want to see if you have improved you really need to take about 5 PTs. If not, how can you detect a two to three point increase well enough to know you are making progress? If you take just one, maybe you are just getting lucky with the test's natural variance or maybe you are getting better.
Its hard to take groups of 5 or 6 PTs for diagnostic purposes very many times if you start with something like 20 tests available.
more isn't necessarily better. Better is better. In my opinion and from my strategy, I simply started from around exam 20 and just started taking the timed tests, BR and repeat, all the way until I get to the new exams. I took the exams sequentially and I've noticed the changes of the exam, where they add questions, the strategies the test employs. Basically I set a 6 month count down where every week I take a determined number of exams and correct them. I have 6 more exams to go which are the most recent. However a month ago I took exam 81 just to see how I stacked up a month out. Turns out that how I scored on the old exams falls pretty close to how I scored on the new exams. I think taking the tests like this is grueling, but it gives your studying a natural progressive rhythm and you get A TON of data for the analytics which really helps you see where your weaknesses are. Taking 50 exams is not for everyone. If you are poor natural test taker, I highly recommend the repetition because timing becomes automatic, you immediately know when you should skip a question just out of sheer experience, and you have lots of practice actually playing with the questions and noticing the subtleties. I think it's also a good thing to do to prepare yourself for what law school will require from you. Many hours or monotonous work. I think there is definitely an easier way to study for the LSAT, but honestly I no longer have test anxiety simply because I know I will have taken and reviewed every possible question, and for me at least, that brings peace of mind. I also have taken so many exams that I know even on a terrible day, and I have had many, my scores are still well above the median for my top pick school. Having the sheer numbers and data to put me at ease helps me stay calm and gives me confidence. Also, after literally doing everything, I know I won't have any regrets come exam day!
@mewydman445 said:
i loved reading this whole chain + conversation - as someone slightly overwhelmed by where to start with full length PT (I only have the trainer) and is considering purchasing more, this helped narrow in that it would be helpful to leverage the newer tests for full length timed tests and the ones accessible to me now. thank you!
Right on!
I know The Trainer well. I think Mike Kim uses PTs 52-71 along with the his study schedules. He seems to believe it's better to focus on the newer tests. While I tend to agree, I think it's important to make sure you don't burn through all of the new tests just learning the fundamentals. I know The Trainer has 200+ practice problems so you'll get some practice from older tests as well.
Make sure to drill the older games though. I think they still have lots to teach us. Especially the old logic games!
i loved reading this whole chain + conversation - as someone slightly overwhelmed by where to start with full length PT (I only have the trainer) and is considering purchasing more, this helped narrow in that it would be helpful to leverage the newer tests for full length timed tests and the ones accessible to me now. thank you!
@paulwpederson403 said:
@vanessadfisher628 said:
At this point, I am mostly doing timed sections, and I'll probably do most of the 70s in timed sections as well.
I'm also finding that full timed PTs are a waste if you're at a certain point in your studies (like if you're well below your target score) but maybe it's a better idea to save PTs 70+ and use older tests for timed section practice.
That's certainly one way to think about it. However, I don't think they are ever a waste, but it certainly can be quite inefficient. I think depending on where you are in your prep, what you're working on skill wise, that those criteria should determine what tests you are using and whether they are full timed exams.
I have just done a lot of personal research and find that doing a lot of tests have massive diminishing returns. It's not like you'll get more out of necessarily doing PT78 full timed tests than you will to split some of them into timed section, so long as you blind review your work.
There's no doubt that it's important to stimulate test day conditions many times. Because there is obviously a big difference between taking a 4 hour tests with a 15 min break, then there is doing 35 minute sections.
@vanessadfisher628 said:
At this point, I am mostly doing timed sections, and I'll probably do most of the 70s in timed sections as well.
I'm also finding that full timed PTs are a waste if you're at a certain point in your studies (like if you're well below your target score) but maybe it's a better idea to save PTs 70+ and use older tests for timed section practice.
@vanessadfisher628 said:
@gregoryalexanderdevine723
Yeah that makes sense re: essay. I think I'll probably do 4 or 5 at least, just to feel confident with knowing the kind of questions they give and the structure they like. Agree it isn't a major concern, but for those high end schools I imagine they will sometimes use anything for a curve breaker between two top student applicants :)
Regarding tests and how many. I think also that some of this is individual. Stats are good, but we are also all unique and won't fit the stats perfectly. I've already done 14 tests, but still feel I'd benefit from doing around 20 full-length (the rest in the 70s and 80s test range). Agree though that timed sections is mostly the way to go at this point.
Thanks for the kind words :)
Absolutely! 100%
Actually, that said, maybe only doing 3 or 4 more full-length practice tests would be totally enough. And focus the rest on timed sections. Probably a good idea
@gregoryalexanderdevine723
Yeah that makes sense re: essay. I think I'll probably do 4 or 5 at least, just to feel confident with knowing the kind of questions they give and the structure they like. Agree it isn't a major concern, but for those high end schools I imagine they will sometimes use anything for a curve breaker between two top student applicants :)
Regarding tests and how many. I think also that some of this is individual. Stats are good, but we are also all unique and won't fit the stats perfectly. I've already done 14 tests, but still feel I'd benefit from doing around 20 full-length (the rest in the 70s and 80s test range). Agree though that timed sections is mostly the way to go at this point.
Thanks for the kind words :)
Great discussion though!
@vanessadfisher628 said:
@gregoryalexanderdevine723
Totally agree with you on this. I actually think this was one of my mistakes in the beginning. I was obsessed with doing full time tests and improving at least a point each time and it took a while to realize that this was a stupid way to see how my skills were improving. It also put my confidence on an unnecessary yo-yo.
At this point, I am mostly doing timed sections, and I'll probably do most of the 70s in timed sections as well. I do think getting used to the length is a good idea for stamina, but at the same time I think on test day I'll probably have plenty stamina.
One other question I haven't heard many people talk about is the written essay section. I know J.Y says not to worry about this section because it isn't scored, but I think there can be some value in drilling a few of them before the test and really getting your writing in top shape for this section can be of value. I heard that Yale, for instance, does look at the written essay. No idea how much they weigh it, but my sense is that if they really want to know how you reason on the spot, this is the best way to tell. Your Personal statement and other written sections of your application are not really the best indicator because you have time to write it and lots of people get editors. Anyways, just to say that starting next month I think I'll do 5 or 6 of those sections
Agree with everything you say, kinda as always .... You're my new fav 7Sager! Kind and funny lol
Yeah, they look at the essays, so they say. I've heard just do a decent job and don't write something like "I know you're not going to read this anyway....." I've heard some horror stories written in Anna Ivey's books about this type of thing. I say do a few to get the feel if you've been out of school for a while. Otherwise, I wouldn't sweat it. I think even 1-2 essay sections would be sufficient. Though, if it puts your mind at ease, do 7, lol. They seem to me like an essay I would write in an English class in 7th grade where you can argue any point. LOL
@gregoryalexanderdevine723
Totally agree with you on this. I actually think this was one of my mistakes in the beginning. I was obsessed with doing full time tests and improving at least a point each time and it took a while to realize that this was a stupid way to see how my skills were improving. It also put my confidence on an unnecessary yo-yo.
At this point, I am mostly doing timed sections, and I'll probably do most of the 70s in timed sections as well. I do think getting used to the length is a good idea for stamina, but at the same time I think on test day I'll probably have plenty stamina.
One other question I haven't heard many people talk about is the written essay section. I know J.Y says not to worry about this section because it isn't scored, but I think there can be some value in drilling a few of them before the test and really getting your writing in top shape for this section can be of value. I heard that Yale, for instance, does look at the written essay. No idea how much they weigh it, but my sense is that if they really want to know how you reason on the spot, this is the best way to tell. Your Personal statement and other written sections of your application are not really the best indicator because you have time to write it and lots of people get editors. Anyways, just to say that starting next month I think I'll do 5 or 6 of those sections
@vanessadfisher628 said:
Thanks @gregoryalexanderdevine723
I hope you are right! I'm definitely getting more nervous as the day approaches ;)
Studies actually show the sweet spot for number of actual PTs is between 6 and 14 full timed tests. So as long as you do a ton of timed section practice with timed review, I think you will do just fine. I'll be here to help and support in any way.
I definitely think 7Sagers and many preppers in general take too many full tests. The more I study the more I realize that it's all about exposure via timed sections. Diagnostics or full tests are great like weighing yourself on a diet. However, the more you weight yourself has no bearing on your weight. I also think doing timed section and drilling helps because you can go in with a more particular objective to improve on. When you just take PT and PT it's kind of hard to say, "Ok I want to improve on my pacing, SA/NA questions, and authors VP questions" all in the same test....Targeted drilling I think is the best way. I also think our egos want to complete more tests to feel vindicated and have a number that's either validating or life shattering. Sometimes people just feel the need to know.....
all that to say, I think you are on the right path!
Thanks @gregoryalexanderdevine723
I hope you are right! I'm definitely getting more nervous as the day approaches ;)
@vanessadfisher628 said:
@gregoryalexanderdevine723
Great discussion.
I'll also just add that I'm really glad I decided to shift from the earlier tests to now focusing on 60s and 70s (60s for timed sections and 70s and 80s for full practice tests). I do think the material is presented differently and that this is the most important to have a full grasp on. I missed one LR question in the 70s because they used "presupposition" instead of "assumption" and it just threw me cause I'd never seen it before and freaked. These are simple questions that are not a problem as long as you know the new twists of language and phrasing used. Otherwise it can cost you some dear points, imo.
I agree about exposing to as many LG as possible. I don't know if doing every single game and fool proofing all of them is over-kill but I tend to sort of think it is. I am committed to doing all the earlier ones, and I did full length prep tests from 37-50 already, so for me, if I do all the ones from 60 onward from here I think that's all I need as newer games are more representative anyways
I have a feeling your LSAT is going to be as amazing as you! Keep killing it and I will be your biggest cheerleader :)
@gregoryalexanderdevine723
Great discussion.
I'll also just add that I'm really glad I decided to shift from the earlier tests to now focusing on 60s and 70s (60s for timed sections and 70s and 80s for full practice tests). I do think the material is presented differently and that this is the most important to have a full grasp on. I missed one LR question in the 70s because they used "presupposition" instead of "assumption" and it just threw me cause I'd never seen it before and freaked. These are simple questions that are not a problem as long as you know the new twists of language and phrasing used. Otherwise it can cost you some dear points, imo.
I agree about exposing to as many LG as possible. I don't know if doing every single game and fool proofing all of them is over-kill but I tend to sort of think it is. I am committed to doing all the earlier ones, and I did full length prep tests from 37-50 already, so for me, if I do all the ones from 60 onward from here I think that's all I need as newer games are more representative anyways
Bump***
@mewydman445 I'd love to know your opinion on this! You're my LSAT god so I would take your word as gospel in this case!
Has anyone on here used just PTs 52-61 and 62-71 and scored above a 170? If so, what was your study plan and diagnostic? I'm just curious how many people actually do this. My only issue would be not exposing yourself to enough logic games....
@gregoryalexanderdevine723 I see your point. I agree. Thx!
@96453 said:
@gregoryalexanderdevine723 I see your point. Students may become complacent and delay truly understanding a concept because they feel there'll be more opportunities to get it right. That's a valid point and one I did not consider.
Still, you raise another point as well. Since there are more RRE questions on the newer tests and some odd LR questions that are not on the old tests, how do we use the older tests to prepare for these question types???
I guess you really can't for the most part. There are def some RRE on older tests but there are some newer odd LR questions I've never come across that we'd just call miscellaneous LR questions. You can still use the older tests to just build up your inference and deductive making skills much like you do for LG. For example, you might get an LG of a type you've never seen, but hopefully your exposure to tons that use similar strategies will help.