Anecdotal evidence that the 70s PTs are different from 50s and 60s PTs

cmelman95

Here's my anecdotal evidence that the 70s PTs are harder (or at least different) from earlier modern PTs.

PTs 54-59, 61, 62, 65, 66 (Not cherry picking, these are just the tests I've done from these series):

Avg. score: 174.5 (high 177 [thrice], low 170 [once])
Avg. RC: -2.3
Avg. LR: -2.4
Avg. LG: -2.6

PTs 70-77 (excluding PT 76):

Avg. score: 171.1 (high 174 [once], low 169 [twice])
Avg. RC: -2.7
Avg. LR: -4.8
Avg. LG: -2.9

For me at least, this is clear evidence that the LSAT has evolved. That evolution has made the test noticeably harder.

A couple interesting data points:
* I once got three consecutive -0 RCs in the 50s. Haven't gotten a single one since.
* I'm now getting twice as many questions wrong on LR. I think it's because they're using less formal logic and more complex grammar forms and/or extremely subtly wrong trap answer choices.

Anyone else seen a similar trend? I found this exercise simultaneously interesting and depressing.

Nicole Hopkins

@cmelman95 said:
That evolution has made the test noticeably harder.

It's not harder. You're just more vulnerable to the way it's testing certain skills. It's got its laser pointed right to a gap in your armor. And it's a real gap that would otherwise have gone undetected—so be grateful for that.

I ain't gonna sugarcoat this, because you don't need me to Because YOU GOT THIS.

At this point I can't even tell the difference between new LR, old LR, etc. It's all the same to me now because my skills are to the point where I'm not vulnerable to any of the particular eras of tests. Emphasis on NOW ... It took a lot of work to get to this point. But it's work anyone can do.

Ron Swanson

One comment about the new LR, I feel like part of the evolution is a lot more words per question. On older tests you could easily bank up tons of time crushing shorter questions in like :40.

Now you still have to crush those short questions, but you need the time to attack the more numerous longer ones rather than using the same amount of time to fully dissect the toughest questions/eliminate traps

Basically the added "difficulty" comes from increased volume, not necessarily tougher questions or logic

Cant Get Right

@cmelman95 said:
extremely subtly wrong trap answer choices.

I’ll give you this. They do seem to get trickier with the wrong answer choices. But the task is still the same. Master the logic to the point that your perception of right and wrong becomes truly dichotomous. At that level, even the trickiest wrong answer choice should seem just as wrong and as obvious as any other.

stepharizona

They other thing ive noticed is you cant rely on indicator words and other "shortcuts" as @"Ron Swanson" the LR sections are longer, often with subconclusions (with indicators posing as MCs)

As test takers have become more evolved, so has the test.

But what @"Nicole Hopkins" & @CantGetRight is right, with Mastery, you dont notoce the difference.

cmelman95

I'm trying so hard to figure out what the differences are. I just can't seem to pin down a weakness and attack it. Urgh

westcoastbestcoast

My LR performance on the PT 70s have been somewhat similar to the past exams but I personally found the RC in PT 70s to be brutal. Particularly the fourth passage in PT 71 and I found the RC in PT 72 to be difficult as well. How have you guys been able to adjust to the difficult RC?

Like_Spike

On the 30 - mid-60s tests I was consistently getting between -0 an -3 (usually even -2) on LRs and now in the 70s it's not uncommon for me to get -5 or -6.

Hugely demoralizing considering how close the date is and how well I've been doing to the point (consistently 172-175 ten tests in a row and now the last 3 I've taking in the 70s have been 168).

cmelman95

@AdrienBibi you and me both dude. I can't figure out what's going on

Like_Spike

At first I had peg it as burning out, but for the past week I've been relaxing and just reading to keep my mind sharp.

Took another test yesterday and I was calm, but focused - felt quite confident about it too.

No difference. Really finding that the foundations I've built just don't seem to be transferring to the newer tests. I'm feeling a little let down that I seem to be so good at doing older tests after all of this prep but nearly no better at LR on the newer ones than when I started.

cmelman95

@AdrienBibi Yeah I'm exactly the same way. I desperately want to avoid a retake, but you can only do your best. I feel like I've given this my absolute all, so at the end of the day being pissed that I can't replicate my old scores doesn't do anyone any good. It's unfortunate, but what are you gonna do.

I know the orthodoxy is that if you keep putting in good practice the results will come. But at some point I'm gonna have to take the test and move on to the many other things in my life that I've been putting off since I started studying in September. My best is all I can give.

apublicdisplay

I've steered clear of the 70s, save for one or two, to save them until up to my September test day and since I'm still having problems in the 50s - 60s, but it kind of sounds like it would be a better idea to at least familiarize myself with them early on. Do you guys think you would have benefited from the exposure to at least a few early on in your studies?

cmelman95

@apublicdisplay yeah, as long as you thoroughly review everything of course. Though to be honest I'm still not sure exactly what the differences are, so maybe the extra time wouldn't have actually helped me. But familiarizing yourself with the weird games that crop up in a couple 70s tests and generally seeing if you're adversely affected will probably help.

Nicole Hopkins

@cmelman95 said:
I desperately want to avoid a retake, but you can only do your best.

Retakes and three takes are fine

Nicole Hopkins

@apublicdisplay said:
Do you guys think you would have benefited from the exposure to at least a few early on in your studies?

This is why we skip around so much in the BR groups!

cmelman95

@"Nicole Hopkins" said:
Retakes and three takes are fine

I know there's no shame in it, and law schools are fine with it. It's just that, as I said, I have many other things in my life to attend to, and I'm no longer able to push everything else off. At some point I just have to get on with it already, you feel?

Cant Get Right

@"Nicole Hopkins" said:
This is why we skip around so much in the BR groups!

Yep. You also want to foolproof the more recent games sooner rather than later. They throw in some curveballs and it’s not something you want to encounter too late in the process.

Cant Get Right

@cmelman95 said:
I'm trying so hard to figure out what the differences are. I just can't seem to pin down a weakness and attack it. Urgh

Why do you need to establish the differences between early and later tests to do this? See what you missed and why. Then study that.

Like_Spike

I've found the recent LGs and recent RCs to be as easy if not a bit easier for the RC on the newer exams.

But I have found the tacit understanding on LR question structure I gained from the core curriculum significantly less helpful for the newer LRs - it may be because the question stems are less straightforward or something of the sort but I don't remember it being addressed anywhere in the CC that a shift's taken place where at a minimum it surely has in at least a superficial way.

cmelman95

@"Cant Get Right" said:
Why do you need to establish the differences between early and later tests to do this? See what you missed and why. Then study that.

To solve a problem, you need to first identify what the problem is. There must be some underlying reason why I'm consistently doing worse.

Cant Get Right

Absolutely @cmelman95 . But why is identifying the differences between newer and older PTs necessary to identify the problem? You identify your weaknesses in the newer tests the same way you do on the older tests. See what you missed and why. Then look inward, not outward. Our weaknesses do not lie within the test.

cmelman95

@"Cant Get Right" If I can identify the difference(s) between the old and new tests that are tripping me up (i.e. more of a certain question type, longer stims, more correlation/causation arguments) I can target it and drill it. Just seeing what I missed isn't the same as looking for persistent patterns.

Seriousbird

@"Cant Get Right" said:
Yep. You also want to foolproof the more recent games sooner rather than later. They throw in some curveballs and it’s not something you want to encounter too late in the process.

Thanks for this. I'm halfway through the curriculum and will probably start PTing soon (that is after I have completed the curriculum). I was going to go in order from 39-78 but after reading this and other comments, I'm tempted to go backwards i.e. 70's first.

I think if you have the drilling and reviewing down coupled with the concepts, it should be all relative right? The newer tests are just a different way of testing the same concepts? I'm really hoping the answer is yes, as I have been going really slowly at mastering the different facets of LR.

Nicole Hopkins

@"Cant Get Right" said:
You identify your weaknesses in the newer tests the same way you do on the older tests. See what you missed and why. Then look inward, not outward. Our weaknesses do not lie within the test.

WORD!!!

Nicole Hopkins

@sweetsecret said:
I'm tempted to go backwards i.e. 70's first.

I wouldn't go backwards but I think a lot of folks benefit from skipping around a bit! That way there's no "recent tests shock" all at once before the test.

Cant Get Right

@"Nicole Hopkins" said:
I think a lot of folks benefit from skipping around a bit!

Yeah, I really think skipping is the way to go. Even if you're not planning to do the Group BR, @sweetsecret I think the schedule for that is really solid.

@sweetsecret said:
The newer tests are just a different way of testing the same concepts? I'm really hoping the answer is yes, as I have been going really slowly at mastering the different facets of LR.

I wouldn’t say it’s “a different way of testing” even. It’s the same way of testing the same concepts. The only difference I’ve really noticed is the newer tests do seem to have a slightly higher proportion of more attractive wrong answer choices. So as an example: If an old question were converted to more contemporary standards, maybe one of the wrong answer choices which could have been eliminated for multiple reasons before is changed so that it can only be eliminated for one. Other than that (and that even is debatable), I really don’t think there is any significant difference between older tests and current trends in LR.

africannarp

@"Cant Get Right" said:
The only difference I’ve really noticed is the newer tests do seem to have a slightly higher proportion of more attractive wrong answer choices.

I absolutely agree with you. I was almost going to give up prepping after taking PT73 yesterday. Then I saw this post last night and went back to study all the LR questions on PT73 very carefully and watched almost all the video explanation. Today I was feeling a lot better with a new test. Although I still circled a lot of questions for BR, my accuracy went up. I think simply being aware of the trap answer choices helps. Now, I just need to make sure I understand all the questions I circled.

One more week, guys. We can do it.

Nicole Hopkins

@"Cant Get Right" said:
The only difference I’ve really noticed is the newer tests do seem to have a slightly higher proportion of more attractive wrong answer choices.

Yeah.