Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.5K All Categories
- 28.2K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 192 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 36 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 646 Technical Problems
- 288 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Better to spend more time on later tests?
vanessa fisher
Alum Member
Hey all,
So I'm starting to feel convinced that at a certain point in prep, it's better to focus on later tests. That is, if you aren't going to prep test every test out there (who has time for that, not me), then I think you have to somewhat chose your best use of time. I've raised the question here before about taking a stab at a later test (I had done all tests from 37-50 diligently in a row), and I was mostly advised not to jump ahead to a later test.
I decided on my own to try a later test (I know, sorry 
, mainly just because I really wanted to see how much more "difficult" or "different" the test was down the road than the ones I was doing. I saw a significant drop in my score when I took Prep Test 79. I gave myself some leeway for the fact that it was a big jump, but I'm also more convinced than ever that at this point I'm best focusing my last 2 months before I take the test on the late 60s and 70s tests. I say that because they seem more representative of what the test I take will actually look like, and I think it's essential I get used to the more subtle wording of phrases, convoluted referential phrasing, and weird logic games that are more common on the later tests.
I'm still open to any thoughts on this though. I just kind of don't see the point of working through every test in the 50s and using up the time I have left on tests that aren't as representative of the test I'll be facing. Does anyone have any good arguments to the contrary?
Comments
Well, why do you have to take the test in 2 months? You just want to or is there a reason?
Honestly, the answer depends on where you're scoring at now and where you want to be. I would, however, make sure to, at the very least, do every logic game from PT 1-40.
I mean if the time you have left is self imposed, then I would probably suggest postponing and doing more tests, including the 50s.
If you are pretty close to your goal score, I guess I don't see any harm is just focusing on the last 20 recent tests. Still 20 tests with only a couple of months left still seem like a lot. Your goal isn't just to do a bunch as you aren't going to learn through osmosis. Take your time and take tests and blind review your weaknesses after. I would rather walk into the test only having done the last 10 with a thorough BR, then to try to knock out 20 or even 30 at a quick pace.
Also, don't underestimate using the 50s series and earlier tests for timed sections.
My argument is pretty much in line with yours. I think the fact that there are now like 84 released tests it might be time to start focusing on the "newer stuff." the problem is the LSAC games have recently made a return that seem quite similar to some older games in the first 20 or 30 PTs. My plan is to probably do all the games from every PT. And just do 52-81 for full timed exams. Or something of that nature. I just always ask myself: At what point is enough enough? Are we going to be up to PT 170 and still trying to do every PT. For some odd reason the GRE and GMAT hasn't changed in years and people would think you were insane for doing 80 practice GMAT tests. Most do around 8-10, if that. It's an odd subject and one I've been deeply interested in.
Sometimes I wonder if I would just be fine focusing on 62-71 and 72-81 and be just fine. Who knows? I'm not going to chance it though. There's still very useful material that is great for learning in the older tests. So I'm not knocking them completely.
Again, it's just going to come down to where you're scoring at. If you want a 172 and you're at a 168, sure focus on the last 20 tests. If you're at like a 154 and need a 172, probably best to work your way up. Lastly, don't self impose test dates on yourself. If you're not ready by Sept, give yourself until December. Hell, give yourself another 2 years if thats what it takes.
Get that score you're after!
@"Alex Divine"
Thanks for the thoughts!
You pose a lot of good questions.
First off, I totally agree with you on Logic Games. My aim is to do every logic game (or near to) before test day. But it was more the rest of the test I was contemplating.
I agree about not forcing too many tests at once. I'm doing this full-time right now so I can probably safely do one a week from now till test day and not be cramming.
Regarding my score vs. ideal score. I'm not quite where I want to be. I'm scoring most consistently in the low to mid-160s under timed conditions, while my goal is at least 170 (ideally 180
). I honestly don't know if it is feasible to get to 170 in 2 months, but I'm aiming to try. It's definitely not an easy test for me and I've put a lot into it. If my score just isn't happening by September, I'll definitely switch to December. I'd really like to get to law school soon, which is partly why I don't want to postpone another year, but I agree at the end of the day it's better to go in fully prepared and getting the grade you want.
Btw, do you know how cancellations work for LSAT? That is, if I don't feel ready in September, do I lose the money I paid for registration if I cancel?
you have time to cancel upto 1 day before the test day so that nothing will show up in your record as if you never even registered for the test(which is a good thing to do if you know you won't do well).
On the other hand, if u cancel AFTER taking the test or during test day, it will show up as 'canceled' in ur record.
The former is obviously better than latter but either way you can't get your money back as far as I know.
@asdf1234
Thanks for the info.
Part of me thinks that I should just take it in September either way because I've already paid for it, and it will give me experience actually being in the test room. And since we have infinite tries, why not?
If I didn't do well, I'd of course not do it again until I know I can kill it, but it might be good experience just to do it for real
Sounds like you have a good head on your shoulders! I think you will be just fine. No, you don't get all of your money back, but it's worth the loss to have a bad score on your record. I think you very well may be able to hit the 170 mark by September, but can't ever say with virtually certainty.
@"Alex Divine"
cool thanks. I'll work my ass off and see how close I can get to 170 by September
I'll be here to help in any way and I believe in you! sending positive thoughts your way
thanks!
You can get to 170 from mid-160s in two months.
Also, to answer your question, yes I think it is better to spend time on later tests, especially because of how LR has seemed to change over time. LG is a bit different, as well.
Good luck in your prep.
So I'm at PT 39. What do you think I should do? Skip to PT50 so I can be closer to the "recent" tests once I sit for September?
Yeah. I did sections from PT 50-70 in the two months leading up to my test, both timed and untimed (approximately 70/30 split). I didn't touch 75 or above.
Sorry. Sections or full PTs?
Sections. I rarely did full PTs, honestly. I did one PT approximately one week before my test and scored fairly low relative to my highest PT score (163 v. a high of 170). I then took a break from the LSAT for the five days before my test, except for a light review the night before and the morning of my exam.
I left 76-80 untouched because I figured I may need them for September preparation. Luckily I don't, though.
If your set on taking in September just focus on 62-81 and use 52-61 for timed section. That's what I would do anyway. And don't feel like you need to do all of them either. More PTs won't necessarily to a better score.
Timed sections are your friend, and, blind review, of course.
Side note: If you know by Aug 22 that you won't be ready for September, you also have the option to change the test date. I believe you have to pay an additional $100 to postpone the test date, but it's still better than having to pay for another $180 for the December test. I hope you won't have to postpone though! Good luck!
Good point! Better to take in December with extra time to prep and lose a bit, but gain tons in points. A couple of months can make a big difference towards the end of your prep.
This is a good question and I don't know if you got an adequate answer. I recently took one of the newer PTs and, at least to me, there are significant differences. Presently I'm inclined to just focus on the last 15 PTs or so. I'm sure PTs 36+ provide useful material, but why can't I just cut to the chase and focus on completely understanding the most up to date version of the test? I'm sure there'll be plenty of material to fill up months of study just with these, so why delay it any further.
I tend to agree with this mentality quite a bit. Again, though, it depends on where you are in your prep. If you have a long ways to go, don't burn all the newest stuff, but if you have ~5-10 points to improve in order to reach your goal, then I think focusing on newer tests seems like the better idea. You can always return to the older tests for drilling, timed practice, and review.
I've debated with some top LSAT "pros" who refuse to accept there are fundamental differences between the earlier and later tests... I just think they are wrong. The logic never changes, true. However, the assumptions they require us to make and the difficulty of the newer RC makes it almost unquestionable the LSAT has changed. It it only makes sense it would because it is a test of skills and not knowledge per say. If it was strictly knowledge then they couldn't really alter facts to change the test. However, because the LSAT is a test that requires you to use skills to do well on, it needs to constantly evolve. And with tons of courses and books that didn't exist a decade ago, the LSAC needed to adapt. Back in like 2009 it seemed too easy to get a 170 with the right prep material. Especially when the games were more or less on par with what you'd expect.
@goingfor99th @apublicdisplay @"Alex Divine"
Thanks for your thoughts on this.
I tend to agree that the later tests are different. If not objectively "harder", which I realize is hard to measure, to me their is no question they are different than the earlier tests. Especially LR for me. The one weird LG also throws me cause LG already isn't my strong suit.
I think doing the earlier tests is totally useful, but I also think there is a danger in only doing those ones, or focusing more on those ones and only doing a couple newer ones. I don't think the earlier ones will necessarily give you an accurate reading of what you'll score on test day.
I sense there are new kinds of "tricks" they are utilizing in the later tests, and that it is best to be familiar with them as possible. I still use older tests for timed sections, but I'm convinced I want to work mostly with later tests now in order to get familiar with the "tricks" and format that will be more like the one I see on test day.
@dml277
Thanks for the heads up!
I agree with pretty much everyone in this thread. While you should make an effort to do every LG the LSAT has released and you have access to, I almost completely ignored anything before PT50 when it came to LR and RC. Not only do newer LSAT tests have the comparative RC section, but the LSAC has started using a lot of new tricks in LR on newer tests, too. They do a much better job of hiding the overall conclusion and using intermediary conclusions to trip you up on identify questions, for example. And finally and most obviously, they almost always throw in a miscellaneous game at the end of LG sections now (for those, the old PTs 1-35 are actually very helpful).
Agreed.
No problem! I think your strategy is going to lead you right to the 170
I'll be here rooting for ya!
Glad to hear my sense of this confirmed. Sort of wish I'd started with the later tests a month ago, but oh well. Still two months left!
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, I'd do PT 62 this week, foolproof LG (PT 1-35), and use 52-61 as timed sections? (Forgive my ignorance here, but how would one incorporate timed sections in one's study?).
@missions I guess depends where you are in your prep. At this point I'm using 60-69 for timed sections and 70-81 for full tests
Ok, so in your situation here is what I would do.
1.Fool proof every game from 1-40 and every game on every PT/Section I take. Exposure to LG is key.
2.I would use (most, don't feel compelled to do every PT) 52-61 as timed sections that I blind review after. That's where you make improvements. Companies like Blueprint and Testmasters generally focus on sections and not full tests. All doing full tests do, at least for the most part, is strengthen endurance. And I honestly think most people smart enough to do well on this test don't ned more than 10 full PTs to get that aspect down.
3.) Use the most recent, so 62-81 (again, maybe not all, to do as timed full tests)
The important thing we often forget that it isn't about just getting through a shear number of PTs. Learning generally occurs through tons of timed sections and review.
Hypothetically, if I only had access to 20 tests, I'd probably drill 15 by breaking them down into timed sections and maybe take only 5 full length tests.
ETA: To incorporate timed sections into your study, depending on where you're at, just do a section a day and BR it. something of that nature. Assuming you have finished the CC and have your fundamentals down.
@"Alex Divine" hey so im currently not sure if i am taking September or December yet . I know my fundementals are solid bc i am BRing in the mid to upper 170s. Up until now i have neglected thepower of timed sections. I just started really focusing on them. I started with PT 19 doing 1RC 1LR and redoing the LG sections. But i m wondering if i should skip until the mid 40s or PT50 and start using those as timed sections, leaving 62-81 for full timed tests? I dont mind pushing till december if i am not rdy but seeing how everyone seems to agree that the test has changed slightly i want to get as much exposure to it as possible so as to make an informed decision on whether to push off or not. What do u guys think?
P.S. I do an intensive BR on everything im not 100% sure of
Yeah, I would focus more on 40s, 50s, and do 62-81 timed. Maybe something like doing the evens for timed tests and the odds for breaking up into timed sections. I think doing around 10-15 full length PTs is a good amount to aim for, then, if you need more, you'll have them.
I am starting to adopt a belief that we rely on doing too many PTs and not enough timed sections where we can deliberately work on specific issues and get better. For instance, I was really big into skateboarding in my teens. And when I went to the skatepark and wanted to "get better" some days I would practice every trick I knew. But when I realized I was having trouble with say my kickflip backlips, then I would practice those. You get the picture.
I think you get better with primarily focused prep. Doing 36-81 as PTs will help you get better, especially if you blind review. But after talking with some professionals, and looking at some new data, I think we aim to do too many PTs and not enough drilling and timed section.