If the score percentile shifts downward relative to earlier versions of the Flex exam (not saying that it does, but just in the hypothetical), how does LSAC expect law schools to fairly assess students who took the Flex in June 2021 against students who took the non-Flex in August 2021? Presumably they'll be applying in the same cycle, but shouldn't their scores be considered with this context in mind?

ZoomZoom- I'm really sorry to hear that you've encountered a similar situation. I agree that it's mystifying, frustrating, and disheartening. This is one of the many times that I wish the LSAC were more transparent with testakers about the administration.

Earlier this week, I listened to an LSAT podcast, and noted a few interesting things about this particular administration. First, A LOT of people took this exam. I think it was on the order of around 23,000 people in one weekend/week of administration.

Second, the exam most definitely used material from the October 2020 administration on the August 2021 exam. Supposedly, there are mechanisms in place to prevent those who took the Oct 2020 exam from second exposure, but this seems like an extremely short timeframe for turning around reuse of materials, and potentially like an unfair advantage if the mechanisms in place do not work properly. (How would we know?)

Third, and not sure if anyone else has observed this, but when the podcast hosts described the sections from Saturday, I was like "yep that was my LG section exactly," and then "yep that was my RC passage exactly," and then "yep that was my experimental RC exactly." But then they got to the LRs, and only some of the questions matched from my section. And as they started describing LR questions from across the weekend, I realized that my questions varied across exam formats. And since I only had one LR section, I know it has to be experimental.

So, in my opinion, there were some interesting factors at play in the August administration and I wonder if any or all of them impacted the curve we witnessed today.

I'm sorry to hear about your situation, but I wanted you to know that you are not alone in this outcome. I just received my score and it was about 10 pts lower than my last 20 practice tests. This was my first time taking the LSAT and I have to be honest, I'm disappointed in my score. I've studied for a year, used 7Sage as well as the LSAT Trainer and The Loophole, and I felt pretty confident with my consistent PTs going into the exam. Nothing especially unusual happened on test day, and while my last RC passage was difficult, I thought the easier LG section balanced out overall. It's frustrating to see such a discrepancy in outcomes between preparation and exam, and this is doubling discouraging since the exam is undisclosed. I share your disappointment and frustration, and hope you find ways to practice self-care in the days ahead.

Just registered after several "405 Not Allowed" messages. I was using my password, which was definitely the right one, and it didn't recognize it. Requesting a password reset, and refreshing often, seemed to work for me. Also, definitely don't call...it's just a voice message system. Lols, I hope they enjoy my angsty but stern voicemail about their system crashing. :)

Thanks so much, Tennysoj! I really appreciate the tips, especially regarding Proctor U. I downloaded the software and realized that my RAM was almost at max capacity, so that was really helpful to know ahead of time. Thanks again, and best wishes!

I had difficulty with this question. I'm all on board with the "international measures" part of AC A, however, the part that seems problematic is "should not adversely affect countries that are not part of the problem." Clearly Zimbabwe thinks the ban would adversely impact the country, which is why they oppose the total ban. However, I don't think it's at all clear that Zimbabwe isn't part of the problem. They've eliminated poaching (i.e. illegal killing of elephants), but they still perform controlled culling, and quite possibly they're using the ivory from those elephants to participate in the ivory trade. This all seems plausible under the circumstances outlined. Zimbabwe bans poaching - illegal killing of animals for ivory, etc.- but they openly permit and engage in legalized culling. So, who says that Zimbabwe isn't part of the problem?

From my reading, eliminating poaching is distinctly different from not participating in the ivory trade.