Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.1K All Categories
- 27.1K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 72 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.4K Specific LSAT Dates
- 2 June 2024 LSAT
- 1 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 41 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 1 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 3.9K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 9 Forum Rules
- 573 Technical Problems
- 280 Off-topic
Related Discussions
When will the "old" tests not be *AS* worth doing?
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.
Comments
I tend to agree, I'm about to start PTing for Dec and plan on starting with PT 50.
Hey, @"Alex Divine" !
Thank you for posting an inquiry about this...I just happened to be wondering this today. As I am presently steadily approaching the end of CC, to enter into the PT phase, it sounds absurd to start from 1...but also pretty crazy to do 60! As you stated, about diminishing returns, it may be a beneficial route to focus on milking the newer PT's. My goal is to do tests 40-80 but even, still, wonder if that is too many?
IMHO, a factor to consider is where your diagnostic score is at. The lower the diagnostic, I find, that there's a correlation with one's ability to simply get used to the format of the test, such as simply reading the stimulus, requires some familiarization with test format. Doing a couple PT's fully untimed, perhaps. This was the case for me...before beginning to study, I hadn't done too much multiple choice, and am a slow reader. My undergrad major worked to my detriment in some ways...good for RC, but attempting to read the LR stimuli for details, my mind wandering and an inability to focus and have lasting stamina throughout a whole, timed PT. Not used to multiple choice formats. etc. It's good to have some 'throw aways' at the beginning of the PT phase, or to just use as timed sections if you don't have a full four hours to sit and take a PT.
@"Alex Divine" @achen013 I think it pays to use the older tests (1-40...possibly up to 50) for establishing fundamental concepts in the CC and practice drills. It does help to have a plethora of questions to choose from and know within yourself that you still have a bundle of questions for PT's. That being said, I agree with you that PT 50-85 is a lot to go through; however, it depends on how much prep you need and how long you'll be prepping for. The CC and PT's for Ultimate+ has sufficient material for a year's worth of prep and you wouldn't necessarily be repeating questions from your PT's even though you may see a question more than once in the CC. That's pretty amazing in my estimation. I think it's great that the program
is designed for students who need to move from a 145 to a 170 as well as students who need to go from a 160/165 - 170/175. Pretty cool!
Totally see what you're saying. Perhaps PTs 1-40 could be used for drilling and fool proofing and 42-52 for fool proofing and more timed sections and such. I just think 30 PTs from 52-81 should be sufficient if you blind review correctly. My argument, which you seemed to have understood quite well, is that there are diminishing returns to doing 50 or so PTs.
I think it's worth it to fool proof every game, but at the same time, I am starting to doubt if doing every single older tests, be it drilling or full timed, is worth it. I'd rather master the most recent 20 or 30 tests. Still, there's a great argument that the older tests still have value. So it becomes this complicated debate where there are legitimate arguments on both sides.
Then again, you bring up and important point. It depends on where you are at regarding your prep. If you're diagnostic is a 138 you may need all the material out thereto get to where you want to be. Though, for those who are scoring in the 150s would it be that detrimental to focus on mastering the newer tests (PTs 52-81)?
For some reason I'm obsessed with this debate. Mike Kim and I had a lengthy discussion about it a few months back where he essentially said that 52-61 and 62-71 are enough to do well on the test. Still though, I think you may miss out on some important logic games from the earlier tests.... So it's hard to come up with a panacea for when it comes to this question.
I'm just wonder at what point, be it in 10 years, when we are just going to disregard older prep tests. Arguably the PT's before what we now call PT #1 have some value; but it doesn't mean it is worth spending time on them since the test has changed and there are plenty more relevant tests to work on.
I mean, I would just make sure you're scoring at a comfortable level and have fool proofed most of the games from the early tests. I used the Cambridge Packets and drilled those for LR/RC/LG before I moved on and those were from PTs 1-38. So they undoubtably have value.
Interesting!
I also should add that I don't think the more PTs you do the better you're going to get. I think doing 15-20 full timed PTs maybe enough with proper BR and plenty of fool proofing and timed section to address weaknesses. Still, the best argument against this idea is that it all depends where you are and where you are starting from. It's definitely something to consider. However, part of me feels that if you need more than 80+ PTs to improve you're doing something wrong... Who knows!?
I also just want to reiterate that the older questions are great for learning the fundamentals, the question bank, and problem sets included in the CC. I just am seriously wondering when in the future, as I've said, we will have so many tests that it's not even worth it to use test before Pre-50 or something of the sort. Also, that's not to say that these older tests cannot be used to timed section if need be or extra practice. I just truly feel the test has changed substantially enough that, for instance, if one only studied from PT 1-35 they would not do as well as if they had prepped using only 52-82....
@"Alex Divine" From a teaching standpoint, you never get rid of the old tests. They establish the foundation of the exam and shows continuity over time.
@"JYP JYP" That being said, JY and other members of the 7Sage team may be able to direct students in determing how many tests they'll use in their prep and which tests are appropriate for their preparation. So far, the syllabus suggests PT's based on the students' membership level and time period for studying (2 months, 3 months, etc.).
I agree that your major concern is a real issue. The increasing number of tests available for prep is affecting us now though we may feel its impact more when we get to the PT's in the 90's.
Therefore, one thing JY and the team may do as the test numbers continue to increase, 86 and so on, is direct students as to how best to utilize older exams in their preparation.
I've seen this being done in past webinars. Matching newer test questions to their older predecessors help students see how the concept being tested has evolved over time and it helps them tackle the questions on the newer exams.
I'm sure there are so many strategies that will evolve from this process. Can't wait to see the outcome -:)
I use the old PTs to drill at work, and plan on using only PTs 50 and above for full length timed test.
However, this is the second time I'm going through the CC, so I agree with the idea of using the older tests for learning the fundamentals.
From a teaching standpoint, you do kind of get rid of the old tests. For instance, we don't use PTs from the 80s because they've changed so significantly. And while the older PTs may establish the fundamentals, do they really establish them anymore than say the PTs from the 40 series?
I don't believe they'll ever be a set amount of tests to reach your goal because obviously everyone is different. But, even so, my point is that by doing too many tests we may be hurting ourselves. First, the test has changed enough to warrant focusing on newer tests over older tests. Second, because it isn't practical to always do every test and question ever, one has to make a decision and take in consideration how the LSAT has changed.
I still believe older tests have their value for beginners and learning the basics. My question is really once you are beyond this (for example, I used the Cambridge packets PTs 1-38) is it worth doing all the PTs from 36 to 81? The answer is maybe it is and that depends on where you're personally at score wise. But if you have a solid base of fundamentals does it make sense to to 36-81? I'm wondering if it is simply better to focus on the newer tests and blind review and use timed sections from other tests to improve on.
In sum, I think we put way too much importance on doing tons of tests rather than doing less and learning more in between. There are two ways to skin a cat. You an do 36-81 and probably get just as good but take longer than someone who just focused on the most recent tests and focused more intently on blind review.
For learning and drilling the older tests seem fine.
That makes sense. The tests haven't changed so much to render the older tests obsolete. So using them like that is actually exactly what I am doing. I am more curious about the "singularity" to speak, where time spent is better on newer tests regardless of where you're at in your prep. There's always going to be something to lean from older tests. But that doesn't necessarily mean that's where a good amount of time should be spent. Specifically for full timed PTs.
There's pros and cons, but not everyone needs to or wants to spend 2 years prepping for a test so they can fit in 26 tests between 36 and 62 when the newer tests are clearly different. Yes, they test the same logic. But Mozart played a lot of the same notes & keys as Elton John. It doesn't mean that because they use the same concepts that practicing one at the expense of another is helpful. To me it is all about opportunity costs and diminishing returns.
For instance, there are just too many people who utilized The Trainer's schedule which uses 52-61 and 62-71 and have done excellent. It just doesn't seem to be about quantity as much anymore. I think exposure to 30 tests, at least, for most people, seem to be enough. Granted, that might not be for everyone. And I still recommend fool proofing or at least going through the early PT's LG sections. But beyond that, a lot of the LR and RC concepts remain the same, even if they get more challenging. And doing more of the ones that aren't challenging doesn't seem to be the answer to me.
There's got to be a reason by Mike Kim's LSAT Trainer, which JY has endorsed, has prep schedules only uses the latest 10 or 20 PTs. The reviews on Amazon seem favorable as well. I think it because the recent tests themselves are similar enough that doing too much can be detrimental. Again, I'd feel more confident going into my administration having mastered 20 tests then 50. Especially knowing the LSAC is going to be using the same ol' traps and tricks.
@"Alex Divine" @"Paul Pederson" I see your point, Alex. It's possible we feel that we need the older tests for the fundamentals when in fact the newer tests can establish fundamentals as well. I think we'll have to do the study to see which is the better way.
I started with the LSAT Trainer and I was overwhelmed because I didn't have the fundamentals. I never considered that I could learn the fundamentals from newer tests.
Now that I am working through the CC at 7Sage, I can see myself going back to the LSAT Trainer after I've mastered the fundamentals. So, I wouldn't want to use PT 65 - 85 unless I am also looking at LSAT Trainer as well.
Finally, everything depends on where you are when you enter the prep process and I haven't seen enough of the newer tests yet to determine whether focusing on 50-85 makes more sense for a full prep process. What are your thoughts? Do you think we can use 50-60 to establish fundamentals? Is there such a thing as the newer fundamentals based on the changes in the test?
Yeah, I see what you're saying. I mean It's not like you can't learn the fundamentals from the newer tests, especially when there are plenty. But again, it does depend on where you are and where you start and want to finish. Some people may need all tests... who knows.
My thoughts are that, yes, at this point one could probably focus on the last 30 tests use 10 for drilling and what not and take 15-20 full exams and do well. There are no real new fundamentals though there do seem to be more RRE questions and some odd LR questions I've yet to come across in the old tests. Still, like you noticed, it totally is dependent on where you're starting from.
My real question at the end of the day is when there are like 150 PTs when are we going to draw the line? Haha. Again, I still think the older tests have value, but that's a lot of material to go through and I think sometimes there can be dangers in doing that with the mentality that you have 70+ more tests to learn from. I think it may subconsciously prevent people from getting all they can out of tests.
@"Alex Divine" 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.
@"Alex Divine" I see your point. I agree. Thx!
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....
@"Jonathan Wang" 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!
Bump***
@"Alex Divine"
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
Thanks @"Alex Divine"
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!
@"Alex Divine"
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
Great discussion though!
@"Alex Divine"
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
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
Absolutely! 100%
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.
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!
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!
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!
@"Alex Divine" 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.
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.