Grape job distributing pilot centers across the nation. /sarcasm font

I would love a digital test. The LG section is make or break for so many people, and it often comes down to who has the most time and financial resources to devote to prep. If a digital test cripples the prep industry, even for a just a few years, that is a great thing for equality of access.

That content was horribly heavy. I finished all 4 LG. I know I killed the Real Estate game but it seems everybody thought it was difficult.

Different strokes. I had the same content and order, and felt like experimental RC, while noticeably more difficult than the real one, was a 3/3.5.

I never got a handle on LG4 until they called "time" though. Then a belated bolt of insight.

The test is the same. Just make sure you replicate any reasonable scenario in the PT's. If you require absolute silence to hit your score, you probably will see some bit of a drop off.

However, if you can still hit your target in less than ideal noise conditions, you should be able to do it on test day. Hitting a target score in a crowded coffee shop, or even the main floor of a library rather than a quiet study room can give you quite a confidence boost. "If I can do it here, imagine what I can do on test day!"

If you encounter anything you deem unreasonable on test day, email LSAC. If they offer a retest, take it.

@ @ Ralph Nader It seems like a good number of test takers felt that way, here and on other forums.

How would each of you rate the other sections and games?

One downside of this new approach is there will be much wider variability in the "new" LGs. With LSAC consistently coming up with something "new", they are also coming up with things that have a less established track record.

I practiced with both the new and the older LG's before the December test. Some of them are 2* games slid into the Game 4 slot simply because they are nontraditional, and some are legitimate, top-of-the-line 5* challenges.

I am happy to see the change, and agree with the philosophy behind it. Anything that can even the playing field between those who spend 1000's of dollars and 100's of hours and those with less of either resource (or both) is a good thing.

I just hope that the conversion score of each test accurately reflects the relative difficulty. If it does, you could see more -13/14 administrations in the years ahead. They even had -15's on some of the older tests, but the frequency of -0's on plug and play LGs killed those.

FWIW, I would be happy with -12 for December. I think the last two LG's were very difficult, but it seemed to me as if the rest of the test more than balanced that out. Obviously, I will not be disappointed to be wrong.

@ I appreciate it, but I have used two other takes. I rushed through Dec-Feb last year without any prep. Basically didn't know what I was getting into.

Considering two schools, and I'm sitting on an admission and very small offer from one, and admission with no offer from the other. So the choice is trade a December test where I felt very confident about 3 of 4 sections I generally judge well, and 3 of 4 subsections I sometimes misjudge for the February Mystery Box.

It could be anything! It could even be a boat!

If there is a way to post photos in the forum, I returned to take some of the writing space offered. Could not get into the room used, but I found the same desk styles in a nearby open classroom.

@ Where was your testing site so that we can all avoid in the future?

University of South Carolina. Definitely do not test there. The LSAC resolution is pending, but about 10-15% of December test takers got a raw deal. I found a model of the smaller desk online - the writing surface had a width of less than 12 inches.

The rationale on withholding your score is questionable, but not surprising. If I determine that something I am ultimately, though not directly, responsible for led to a situation that would make it difficult for a student to perform to their best, I would certainly let that student know what grade they are standing on before asking if they want to go through the preparation process again.

I'll probably keep whatever I get, but it pisses me off even more at every other person who did not care enough to speak up.

Thank you both. I will email them. I want to make sure no one else has to go through that at that facility. I don't suppose there is anyway to know my score before I decide? Despite the problem, I really want to be done with this.

On 75% of the test, it simply a frustration for me.

How can I negotiate in-state tuition or a scholarship from a neighboring state?

Detailed situation below:

I deferred admissions last fall at the in-state flagship where I currently work in secondary education. I received a small scholarship to a school that is ranked around 90, but the dominant network in the state I am 75-80% likely to practice. My December score only improved 3 points, but I am now nine points higher than their 75th, though below their 50th in GPA. However, I have a good story since undergrad and the ability to tell it well. I do not know if they will offer more with the marginal improvement.

I was accepted early admissions last month to a neighboring flagship ranked around 35. They are the second strongest school in the state where I reside, physically closer to the city where I would most like to live than the in-state school, and obviously stronger in 49 other states. Due to a childhood move from current state, I lived there for public middle and high school, college (at a small religious school), and even my first job. None of my family currently lives there.

My score is 2-3 points higher than their 75th, but GPA is right at their 25th. They claim "holistic admissions", and GPA minus one semester jumps substantially, plus I have heard it's much easier to find high GPA than high test admits.

The better rated school's in-state tuition rate is actually a decent amount lower than the school which offered money last spring, so just getting to in-state in Year 1 would be a big help.

I took it Dec-Feb last year without prep. I didn't even know the three test rule until I'd registered for February.

Fwiw, 7Sage prepared me fine. I would have been happy with literally any of the final fifteen simulations, or even finishing within 3 of my average. Three of the four sections were above target, but the fourth destroyed it. Missed double my allowance there.

@ Did anyone else have the survey over how comfortable they would be writing an essay on a touch screen? I chose that I was 100% uncomfortable with technology. I don't want to take it again on a tablet.

I think most test takers could write much quicker on a laptop or desktop than with a pencil, but I cannot imagine being asked to write an essay on a tablet. I assume you would be provided with pencil and paper to help with the LG, but, from the experience of taking LG in this manner during prep, it still slows you down.

@ was game 4 truly a killer? i never got to it :( lol. i selected "B" for the last 5 questions, so i'm hoping i got something there.

Don't feel bad. I turned the page to get there at the 5 minute mark, and you still might outscore me on that game.

Wear whatever you are comfortable with. I wore something exactly like what I wore in practice tests. I was one of the few people in a button up shirt and khakis, but anything you can do to make test day seem familiar is a benefit.

If you are testing nearby, ask around to find out which rooms are used and try to get in there for practice tests after you have reached a point where your results are in your acceptable range. There's nothing like associating the success of a "YAY!" score with the room in which you will eventually test.

@ SAME, same, same. I actually just woke up from a nap, since I figured that might calm me. Honestly - you are not alone. After reading all of the other posts, people are in the exact same boat as us. So try not to worry. I felt ok after the break going back in, but after that horrendous LG, I totally lost my cool for my last section and guessed for FAR more than usual. I had to keep re-reading the same sentence to comprehend, and was getting stuck on early q's. BAD

Man, I'm sorry. I was very lucky to have that as my final section. It would have carried over into my next session too.

@ I agree the trading games was much easier than the computer virus. I feel like my score improved from September because the RC was so easy.

Not at all, man.

That virus game was a six piece sequencing with two open spots and four possible outcomes. The only thing that any different about is that the answers were separated with arrows rather than commas, and it followed three fairly standard games.

This one followed a Game 3 with an unusual, though not unprecedented design, presented a new game framework that required decent math fluency, then played the particularly nasty trick of reversing values, so that the lower the number assigned, the greater the number you had to use in translating worth. It would be equivalent to designing a game in which one had to constantly remember, "When I say 'Left', you turn right, but if I want you to go left, I'll say 'Right!'"

I'm glad for you that you were comfortable with the game, but there is no comparison in difficulty between this one and the virus. When people occasionally say that the LSAT test designers are sadistic, they are talking about things like this game.

As others have mentioned, one of the LG was unreal difficult. The much ballyhooed virus game was a walk in the park in comparison.

I've never gone 0'fer on a LG in my life, including when I took the 2007 cold, but there's about a 50-50 chance for went 0 for 5 on that one. I'm so grateful it was the final part of my fifth section, or it could have really shaken my confidence. Still have a shot at my target, but that game likely single-handedly ended the otherwise decent chance of our performing my goal.

I would rate the LC's as average, but they always seem about the same to me.

LR seemed easy, but I have a theory that they were designed to be unusually humanities-heavy to offset the unusual mathematical basis of the final LG. Someone who was at ease with that LG may have been farther from their comfort zone than normal with the Reading passages, while someone like me (who did a Chevy Chase "I was under the impression there would be no math this morning?!?"), may be flummoxed by the final LG, but breeze through the passages.

Is average of your last three +/- 3 a good rule of thumb?