Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.6K 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
- 647 Technical Problems
- 288 Off-topic
70 series and newer tests - not more difficult
Hey everyone,
Whether you are going into September LSAT or have heard about how difficult the newer tests are I want to actually say please do not worry. I know I did for a while but I want to share my experience with you and I hope that dispels a lot of the fears for the upcoming tests.
Throughout my preparation for LSAT I know I kept worrying that I hadn't ventured into taking the newer tests and as test day kept approaching my fears would increase that maybe I was missing out on something that the newer tests wold test me on and I would therefore end up scoring lower. My tutor was firm in making sure that I use all my old prep materials first and I got into the score range that I wanted to be in before giving me any of the newest test.
A month ago, my tutor had me take a test without knowing what PT it came out of. It's essentially a blind test and I did not feel the difference. It turned out it was a higher 70 series test and I ended up scoring in the same range that I usually do. Since then I have done a blind test on lower 70's and higher 70 PT series and I always end up scoring in my score range. This is true despite some PT's having weird games and I actually did not do well on some of those weird games. Despite that, I still managed to score in my average range.
I agree that the newer tests are different from 1-40 PT series. I also see that we now have comparative passages in RC and weird games in LG. But comparing the logic and even the language from 50-70 series I didn't see a difference. At least the difference wasn't enough to take me out of my average score range.
I really hope this helps people who fear the newer tests. If the tests were significantly different or harder then when I did the higher 70 series without knowing what PT number it was I should have still scored lower. But that did not happen. Obviously what I did is not a robust study and it did not involve a lot of participants. But its enough for me to know to not worry and my hope is that it helps other people not worry that the test on this coming Saturday will be significantly harder than what we have faced.
True some RC's or LG's are tougher but the curve compensates for that. When you do start scoring in your range that you want, I would say you are ready to take the LSAT real time whether you have taken many 70 series or not. So please don't freak out about the series in your prep or as you go into the test if you have not done a lot of newer test. Just do what you have been doing to score high and you will do just fine.
Good luck 
.
Comments
Well said, Sami
I totally agree. The newer PT's are a bit different, but they're not harder because of that, just different.
Good to know!!
I appreciate what you are saying but actually somewhat disagree. I went down 10 points in score the first time I jumped from the 40s into doing PT 79. From then on I switched to focusing on later tests (60s and 70s) and I'm glad I did.
Not saying this to diminish your experience at all, just that we all may have a different experience with this. I agree that the underlying logic is the same, but I found it took me time to adjust to the more convoluted sentence structures and subtle new tricks in the higher tests (as well as the substitution questions in LG).
Thanks for posting Sami. Are you writing the exam this weekend?
I also agree with Vanessa that the newer tests are harder and I have seen my scores drop -5/-7 points. For one, what makes the LR section harder (for me personally) is that LSAT now sprinkles in harder questions in the first half of the section, as opposed to before, when you could have been confident that the first 8 questions were easy. This throws me off my game and I feel like I lose overall confidence and control. I know that you are supposed to skip questions that you see are hard, but I don't know a question is hard until I get down to the answer choices - so this eats up a lot of time. I have also noticed that many of my predictions that I make after reading the stimulus, are not one of the answer choices - this suggests to me that LSAT test makers are getting a little more savvy in creating the correct answer choice.
So while you can say from your personal experiences that the new tests are not harder, there is definitely a good percentage of us struggling with these tests.
But that being said, I've realized that confidence plays a big role. After taking several newer prep tests these past two weeks, I have become very frustrated with myself from the significant drops in my score, despite my BR score remaining consistent. At this point, I just need to have faith in myself and know that I'll do great on test day!
@"vanessa fisher" and @swatowski0
I definitely think its possible they are harder and I think it would be interesting to do a blind test on a group of people and see if their score drops. But in a way it was different with you guys because you didn't do a blind test -and I think that's an important difference. The whole point of having the tests given to me without me knowing what PT they were from was to make sure that I didn't psych myself out. The psychological portion was taken out for me because I did not know what series the tests were from. Most of the PT's that I took right before the blind tests were actually from 40 series because I had used most of my 60 series so I should have faced a considerable difference when I was given lets say PT 77, but I actually scored within my range - in fact I scored pretty well in 170s.
I think with what @swatowski0 is saying about skipping, my strategy doesn't change whether I see an easy question early or later, I treat all the questions the same way. So the moment I don't have a handle on a particular question I move on. So in that way the 70 series having difficult questions early on did not have an effect on my the way I take the test and the way I skip.
I do think the weird games impact my score negatively but its usually by 2-3 point drop and only because I am still learning to read those rule without any assumptions and not treat them like I am used to with other game types that repeat. My most recent test actually was bad according to my standards and I dropped to a high 160's. I do want to be honest that I do still have bad tests and it happened because of the weird games. But we have had weird games in earlier PT series. And on older tests sometimes I had similar scores if I didn't have a handle on something - so it didn't seem out of the norm for me.
I am not saying the PT's in newer tests arn't harder - they are a bit different and certainly have their own challenges. But it was interesting that when given the test to me without knowledge what PT they were from it didn't make my score drop on average. I think that's interesting and worth investigating because I don't think I am that different from the rest of the people and I would not do better on LSAT if the test were to indeed suddenly become harder. I actually had a pretty bad diagnostic and had to learn everything about LSAT from scratch and through hard work and blind review.
Yes I am
. Hopefully it goes well. lol
Are you taking it this weekend as well?
Yes!!! I am taking it as well. Let's rock the test this weekend!!!!!! Good luck
@Sami
It is possible there is a psychological component knowing which test is which. At the same time, I think the fact that you did all the 60s makes a huge difference in why you didn't see a score drop when you did the 70s. The 60s I find quite similar to the style of the 70s. It was when I jumped from the 40s to 79that I saw the huge crash in score. The 60s have similar sentence structures and logic games.
Anyways, congrats on the great scores. Best of luck with the test
Thanks
. And hopefully I won't have a bad test. lol
I think what you pointed out is pretty legitimate. I had used all my 60's and its possible and pretty likely that played a role. I think the language of the test changes but its more gradual. So if I had done 60 series I wouldn't see a big drop or feel a big change when I do later 70's.
Fingers crossed for PT 82 lol.
The newer tests are different, but not harder. I think it can take some people a few tests to adjust to the subtle differences (and the differences are minor).
Let's rock it!
I think I agree with this more. They are different. But the hype around them had always been oh they are so different and so hard that just trying to take a 70 series made me nervous and I know it makes other people nervous.
@Sami I love the fact that you were given the test blindly.
I think a lot of this has to do with how good a person's fundamentals are, as opposed to just recognizing past patterns. Test makers have to be one step ahead of test takers, and must therefore evolve over time. If a person is getting answers right more b/c of similarity to previous questions than b/c of understanding the underlying logic, then changes in the test can be brutal.
@uhinberg
I actually have to disagree again.
I feel my fundamentals were very strong when I jumped to do PT 79. I don't think having a score drop means you don't understand the underlying logic. Quite the opposite, I feel the shift in how some of the questions were asked and the more convoluted sentence structure and grammar parsing just took some time to adjust to. I often felt I knew the right answer but couldn't find the wording I was expecting in the answer choices. I think this this is common for a lot of people.
Anyways, I'll stop being so disagreeable now
, I just felt it important to add my perspective because I don't want people to get freaked out by seeing a drip in score if they jump ahead, because it doesn't mean you don't understand the test. I do advise taking some time with the later tests though so as to get used to the style and different tricks that become more common
@sami
It's interesting to note that I did not actually anticipate that the modern tests were harder so you can only imagine my surprise when I got a 163 after getting 167-168 on my previous practice tests (taken from practice tests 55-62, can't recall the exact tests). It was only after that I started investigating my drop and doing more modern tests that I realized that my drop was related to the new ways the LSAT test makers configured the test.
You're lucky that the order of LR question difficulty does not affect your performance, and I assume, that there are others, like myself, that are not so lucky. In that case, its important for us to create a new strategy for completing LR - one where we do not panic when the third question we receive is extremely difficult and affects our confidence/focus.
I have also come a long way, studying 30+ hours a week this summer, improving substantially from my diagnostic of 148. I think this goes to show that we are all different - the way we study and internalize the LSAT. So for those that are affected negatively by the newer LSAT's, do not fret - we will make it through this together!
That is actually interesting that you did not anticipate the modern tests were harder. I do think 163 is within 5 point range of 167, so its within your lower end of score range. I don't know. I don't want to be committed to the idea they are not harder. I think I could very well be wrong.
. > @"vanessa fisher" said:
Please don't stop being disagreeable Vanessa
. To disagree is fundamental to having a good discussion. I honestly felt the same way that I was being disagreeable and I almost didn't want to keep repeating myself -especially because I don't think my experience alone outweighs other people. My experience is just another data point and it could be affected by other factors. I really do like that people had different experiences and are adding to the discussion. I am happy that you felt comfortable saying your experience because it was different - it makes it that much more important.
I agree with your advice that its advisable to take some time with later tests. It was important that I see how I do with weird games to know that they are a weakness of mine.
I misspoke. I didn't mean how strong a person's fundamentals are, but how much a person is being guided by those fundamentals, rather than an expectation of certain answers. We all tend to rely on certain heuristics and other crutches. The fact that you were able to adjust to the newer tests indeed shows that your fundamentals were strong. But the fact that you were thrown off by not finding the language you were looking for shows that you were expecting something on the basis of earlier tests. Evidently, though, some people are less thrown off by these types of changes. I hypothesized that this could be a function of how much one has come to rely on certain shortcuts and heuristics, rather than on their fundamental understanding.
I think Sami's experience is interesting because it's objective and blind, unlike all the other reports on this topic I've seen. Back in the day, everyone thought the 60's were different and harder. We don't see that as being the case anymore. It's just not true to us even though people swore by it when the 60's were the contemporary series.
I have always been in the camp that the 70's do represent a shift in the way the test is written. The LR language, if not the logic, felt harder to me, the AC's in RC felt a little more subtle, and the games felt a little less cookie cutter. But I bet I'd think that either way; I bet I'd've thought it about the 60's.
I've never taken a test not knowing what I was taking, and expectations absolutely influence experience. So Sami's blind takes are anecdotal (as are all of our personal experiences) but very interesting results, maybe the only objective data I've seen on this. It would be really interesting to see this applied to a larger population. Until there's empirical data though, I think it must remain indeterminate. Always an interesting discussion.
I am starting to sense the same trend now listed in the original post.
I started from PT1 and am now reaching high PT50
LR:
changed from [0 to -4] to [0 to -3]
I feel LR is getting slightly easier.
Swatowski0's words made me thinking: this issue is too complicated.
I am sure if someone averagely score below -2 on lR sections in early preptests he or she would be very minimally if at all impacted by the tricks Swatowski0 mentioned. Such a person's finding may be very unbelievable to other test takers.
It truly depends on persons.
RC:> @swatowski0 said:
I took the PTs in random order, so I tend to agree that the tests' difficulty hasn't changed overall. Some tests are easier than others, but I never noticed a trend of, "Oh, every time I take a test in the 80s, my score is much lower than the tests I took in the 50s."
My scores are not noticeably better for earlier tests, and my scores are not noticeably worse for later tests. Some older tests are more difficult than newer tests and vice versa.