Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.1K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 27 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
- 37 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
- 636 Technical Problems
- 285 Off-topic
Related Discussions
There is something unruly that PT 80s are nothing like previous LSATS (Rant)
I say go go go
Member
When you focus hundreds of hours in the old PT's and finally catch up, it's another level, but not a level of to train more to exceed.
It's obvious when looking at the meta-scores that for the LSAC too many people are hitting 170 so they are making it so absurd that some questions are bound to cause people to have issues. It's disturbing as well that they are going to remove Logic Games because people are "getting it". And it's obvious that when LG is so clear cut they won't remove questions nor have it contested, yet with new PT I see 30 - 40% answers right ON THE FIRST 10 QUESTIONS.
This test went from understanding the theory behind the questions to making sure you understand any upcoming tricks.
It's outrageous that you have to spend 300-400 hours to get 170s and then slip back to the 160's since God forbid law schools weigh 70% instead of 75% of your weight-in application.
And before people start to defend the LSAC, it's the LSAC that caused the pressure for schools to get this achievement mentality to 170. 170 doesn't mean top 10%, it's the top 2.5% yet schools will do absolutely everything to get into that 170 elite status,
It's already bad enough that Hispanics get average 146, now I'm facing this test like the ending of Glengarry Glen Ross , where I thought I had it until the realization that it was mere delusion.
Comments
Hi there! Quick correction. Logic games are being removed not because people are cracking them, but because there was a lawsuit between the LSAC and a blind student who argued the disability prevented him from doing the necessary task of diagramming. LSAC settled and agreed to gradually remove the section.
https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2019/10/14/lsat-removes-logic-games-section/
When are they removing the logic games?
Yes I would also like to know when logic games will eventually be removed.
In October 2019 they announced it would be removed over the next 4 years.
It should be noted, however, that LSAC will most likely make an announcement when they will remove Logic Games for good - meaning it won't come out of nowhere.
LSAC has generally given ample notice when they make major changes - they announced way ahead of time when they were moving to full digital, when they were going add back the experimental section and so forth.
My opinion is just purely speculation but I would reckon LSAC won't do anything with LG over this coming cycle with the chaos of COVID. If they did eventually choose to remove it, I think they would start next cycle (at the soonest but even that is probably too soon) and they would make an announcement way ahead of time.
LG games are the best, snowflakes ruining the LSAT. They should make a specific exception for blind students instead.
The reasoning in this argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that the argument:
A) is fucking awesome.
They're still going to have an AR section, it just won't require diagramming. No guarantee that people will find this easier, and there's not a wealth of practice tests in whatever new format they will have. The games are easy if you can get the inferences up front, hard if you miss them. Extremely trainable.
And why is the argument vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it is awesome? Wouldn't that "most strongly support"?
That's such an interesting metaphor you've got going on here: in what way do you see games (logic games games to be precise!) as snowflakes that are ruining the LSAT? Great to know that we have a LSAC representative in our midst!
Is the inference is that the blind students are snowflakes? I hope that's not where that was going...
I never thought about it before, but imagine trying to do LG without diagramming. I don't believe the content of the test can be adapted for students through accommodations, so removing the section would be the most fair, but yeah, kinda sad to think it won't be included.
Am I the only one that feels removing Logic Games will make the test harder to score high?LG is the only section where you can consistently expect to score high if you have it down, where as other sections your score will still fluctuate more.
I'm probably biased because I love the test and have enjoyed studying for it (no misery here!) but I don't find the PTs in the 80s to be impossible. In fact, I intentionally left several of them for the weeks leading up to October and got my highest scores consistently (168; BRing in the 170s). I don't want to make the LR question flaw of inferring from too small a sample, but my experience tells me the PTs in the 80s test the same skills and are just as conquerable.