Actually, I'll say one more thing. Many people are surprised when they score 4 or 5 points lower on one test to another. This comes from a misunderstanding of LSAC's score band. The score band that they provide, which is roughly three points in either direction is based on a single standard deviation. That just means that around 68% of the time, you can expect your score to be 3 points in either direction of your "true" score (whatever that means, but that's another story). But that means that 32% of the time (not unlikely by any stretch), you can expect your score to deviate by more than 3 points in either direction! Of course, LSAC won't give a score band that represents two standard deviations (even though that's what's usually required for something that claims scientific rigor), because that would make the LSAT score pretty meaningless, since the score band would cover a range of around 12 points.
Thank for the interesting information. Kinda crazy how law schools are willing to put such a big emphasis on a score that is flexible.
What's even crazier, is that LSAC strongly recommends that law schools look at the score band, not the score itself, but I guaranteed you that they don't, because all they report to ABA (and thus, all that counts for US News ranking) is the actual score. It's a pretty scandalous situation, but c'est la vie, and we have to operate within this imperfect system.
Actually, I'll say one more thing. Many people are surprised when they score 4 or 5 points lower on one test to another. This comes from a misunderstanding of LSAC's score band. The score band that they provide, which is roughly three points in either direction is based on a single standard deviation. That just means that around 68% of the time, you can expect your score to be 3 points in either direction of your "true" score (whatever that means, but that's another story). But that means that 32% of the time (not unlikely by any stretch), you can expect your score to deviate by more than 3 points in either direction! Of course, LSAC won't give a score band that represents two standard deviations (even though that's what's usually required for something that claims scientific rigor), because that would make the LSAT score pretty meaningless, since the score band would cover a range of around 12 points.
Thank for the interesting information. Kinda crazy how law schools are willing to put such a big emphasis on a score that is flexible.
Actually, I'll say one more thing. Many people are surprised when they score 4 or 5 points lower on one test to another. This comes from a misunderstanding of LSAC's score band. The score band that they provide, which is roughly three points in either direction is based on a single standard deviation. That just means that around 68% of the time, you can expect your score to be 3 points in either direction of your "true" score (whatever that means, but that's another story). But that means that 32% of the time (not unlikely by any stretch), you can expect your score to deviate by more than 3 points in either direction! Of course, LSAC won't give a score band that represents two standard deviations (even though that's what's usually required for something that claims scientific rigor), because that would make the LSAT score pretty meaningless, since the score band would cover a range of around 12 points.
The curve should be an accurate reflection, if you trust the psychometricians at LSAC, although I wish they were more transparent about their methodologies.
The only thing I'll say is that the fact that the nature of the difficulty varies so much from administration to administration, I'd venture to say that the group of test takers that score in the 90th percentile for one test is significantly different than those who score in the 90th percentile for another test.
I haven't taken a PT since 11/03. I was planning on taking one today, but after looking at my analytics I noticed my high priority LR questions (PF, SA, NA, Para) are all categories that I have skipped in the syllabus.
I really don't want to go much longer without taking another PT (for the sake of timing practice), but I think I'll take a day or two covering those sections and relevant problem sets.
@jennybains774 thanks for the tip. Do you watch the full video for each game you FP? My concern is that if I do all the games and watch each video (in full) that it'll be a huge time sink.
No worries!
I try to watch only the diagramming/key inferences and do the questions on my own. If I had trouble with the game overall or specific questions, then I will watch the entire video.
@jennybains774 thanks for the tip. Do you watch the full video for each game you FP? My concern is that if I do all the games and watch each video (in full) that it'll be a huge time sink.
Thanks for the feedback. Fping games was next to do on my list for February, but now that I'm so short on time I'm not sure if I can afford to FP the earlier games.
FP the games in the CC. They have tremendously helped me!
I don't use the FP method outlined by 7Sage, but a more modified method which is completely doable within this month.
Only re-do the game until you have gotten it within the target time, this usually takes me 1-3 copies as a opposed to 10.
Once you got the games down, I think you can totally hit a 168 by December.
PT52 LG was horrific for me. I got nervous, and blew through a lot of time. I definitely need to practice LGs more, but on my next exam I'm going to relax and just try to hit 3 games like I did in PT 36.
I was a bit anxious that my RC would drop with the comparative passage, but it didn't hurt. Is the 60s/70s/80s RC more difficult? I hope not!
Thanks for the feedback. Fping games was next to do on my list for February, but now that I'm so short on time I'm not sure if I can afford to FP the earlier games.
Judging by your LG scores, I don't think you can afford not to. Your goal score is right there if you can nail games down!
Thanks for the feedback. Fping games was next to do on my list for February, but now that I'm so short on time I'm not sure if I can afford to FP the earlier games.
Seems like a possibility if you can get LG nailed down and LR more consistent.
You might be better served if you spend time fool proofing games BEFORE doing another PT. Simply doing PT after PT isn't a great way to improve. Your last two PTs make it abundantly clear LG is a weakness for you. Spend time on that before burning another PT. Both of your previous PTs would have been a 169 or close if your LG misses were lowered.
Make sure all the PTs you take are timed. Blind Review is when you take them untimed (after you've already completed it timed!)
My original plan was to use tests before 36 as untimed exams. Something I could work on throughout the day when I had bits of spare time. I don't think I'll get around to those tests anymore.
Make sure all the PTs you take are timed. Blind Review is when you take them untimed (after you've already completed it timed!)
2
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
20 comments
@gregoryalexanderdevine723 said:
@uhinberg359 congrats on the 168, that is something to be proud of.
Thanks! Also 168 was actually my goal not 169. I just wanted to be in the 75th percentile for a certain school.
@uhinberg359 congrats on the 168, that is something to be proud of.
Got my score today.
168 (LR1: -2, LR2: -2, RC: -3, LG -8). Disappointed with how LG went, but overall content.
@uhinberg359 said:
@uhinberg359 said:
Actually, I'll say one more thing. Many people are surprised when they score 4 or 5 points lower on one test to another. This comes from a misunderstanding of LSAC's score band. The score band that they provide, which is roughly three points in either direction is based on a single standard deviation. That just means that around 68% of the time, you can expect your score to be 3 points in either direction of your "true" score (whatever that means, but that's another story). But that means that 32% of the time (not unlikely by any stretch), you can expect your score to deviate by more than 3 points in either direction! Of course, LSAC won't give a score band that represents two standard deviations (even though that's what's usually required for something that claims scientific rigor), because that would make the LSAT score pretty meaningless, since the score band would cover a range of around 12 points.
Thank for the interesting information. Kinda crazy how law schools are willing to put such a big emphasis on a score that is flexible.
What's even crazier, is that LSAC strongly recommends that law schools look at the score band, not the score itself, but I guaranteed you that they don't, because all they report to ABA (and thus, all that counts for US News ranking) is the actual score. It's a pretty scandalous situation, but c'est la vie, and we have to operate within this imperfect system.
@uhinberg359 said:
Actually, I'll say one more thing. Many people are surprised when they score 4 or 5 points lower on one test to another. This comes from a misunderstanding of LSAC's score band. The score band that they provide, which is roughly three points in either direction is based on a single standard deviation. That just means that around 68% of the time, you can expect your score to be 3 points in either direction of your "true" score (whatever that means, but that's another story). But that means that 32% of the time (not unlikely by any stretch), you can expect your score to deviate by more than 3 points in either direction! Of course, LSAC won't give a score band that represents two standard deviations (even though that's what's usually required for something that claims scientific rigor), because that would make the LSAT score pretty meaningless, since the score band would cover a range of around 12 points.
Thank for the interesting information. Kinda crazy how law schools are willing to put such a big emphasis on a score that is flexible.
Actually, I'll say one more thing. Many people are surprised when they score 4 or 5 points lower on one test to another. This comes from a misunderstanding of LSAC's score band. The score band that they provide, which is roughly three points in either direction is based on a single standard deviation. That just means that around 68% of the time, you can expect your score to be 3 points in either direction of your "true" score (whatever that means, but that's another story). But that means that 32% of the time (not unlikely by any stretch), you can expect your score to deviate by more than 3 points in either direction! Of course, LSAC won't give a score band that represents two standard deviations (even though that's what's usually required for something that claims scientific rigor), because that would make the LSAT score pretty meaningless, since the score band would cover a range of around 12 points.
The curve should be an accurate reflection, if you trust the psychometricians at LSAC, although I wish they were more transparent about their methodologies.
The only thing I'll say is that the fact that the nature of the difficulty varies so much from administration to administration, I'd venture to say that the group of test takers that score in the 90th percentile for one test is significantly different than those who score in the 90th percentile for another test.
Question for those who have taken many PTs...
Do you find that the curve accurately reflects the difficulty of the exam?
I'm not sure whether my PT 71 score is an accurate reflection of my likely score since it had such a huge curve.
I've attempted games 2-40. And I'm in the middle of doing games 40-50. I recently took a timed PT, and my LG score was a solid improvement.
Hopefully I can keep that up
Took my first test from the 60's. LGs got me again. Back to more sets!
I haven't taken a PT since 11/03. I was planning on taking one today, but after looking at my analytics I noticed my high priority LR questions (PF, SA, NA, Para) are all categories that I have skipped in the syllabus.
I really don't want to go much longer without taking another PT (for the sake of timing practice), but I think I'll take a day or two covering those sections and relevant problem sets.
@uhinberg359 said:
@jennybains774 thanks for the tip. Do you watch the full video for each game you FP? My concern is that if I do all the games and watch each video (in full) that it'll be a huge time sink.
No worries!
I try to watch only the diagramming/key inferences and do the questions on my own. If I had trouble with the game overall or specific questions, then I will watch the entire video.
@jennybains774 thanks for the tip. Do you watch the full video for each game you FP? My concern is that if I do all the games and watch each video (in full) that it'll be a huge time sink.
@uhinberg359 said:
Thanks for the feedback. Fping games was next to do on my list for February, but now that I'm so short on time I'm not sure if I can afford to FP the earlier games.
FP the games in the CC. They have tremendously helped me!
I don't use the FP method outlined by 7Sage, but a more modified method which is completely doable within this month.
Only re-do the game until you have gotten it within the target time, this usually takes me 1-3 copies as a opposed to 10.
Once you got the games down, I think you can totally hit a 168 by December.
Good luck!
PT52 LG was horrific for me. I got nervous, and blew through a lot of time. I definitely need to practice LGs more, but on my next exam I'm going to relax and just try to hit 3 games like I did in PT 36.
I was a bit anxious that my RC would drop with the comparative passage, but it didn't hurt. Is the 60s/70s/80s RC more difficult? I hope not!
@uhinberg359 said:
Thanks for the feedback. Fping games was next to do on my list for February, but now that I'm so short on time I'm not sure if I can afford to FP the earlier games.
Judging by your LG scores, I don't think you can afford not to. Your goal score is right there if you can nail games down!
Thanks for the feedback. Fping games was next to do on my list for February, but now that I'm so short on time I'm not sure if I can afford to FP the earlier games.
Seems like a possibility if you can get LG nailed down and LR more consistent.
You might be better served if you spend time fool proofing games BEFORE doing another PT. Simply doing PT after PT isn't a great way to improve. Your last two PTs make it abundantly clear LG is a weakness for you. Spend time on that before burning another PT. Both of your previous PTs would have been a 169 or close if your LG misses were lowered.
Good luck!
@7sagestudentservices said:
Make sure all the PTs you take are timed. Blind Review is when you take them untimed (after you've already completed it timed!)
My original plan was to use tests before 36 as untimed exams. Something I could work on throughout the day when I had bits of spare time. I don't think I'll get around to those tests anymore.
Make sure all the PTs you take are timed. Blind Review is when you take them untimed (after you've already completed it timed!)