Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

Experimental Section Order and Scoring

taylorwoodsloebtaylorwoodsloeb Member
in June 2017 LSAT 6 karma

Hi,

For me, the toughest part of the test has always been not letting my brain get tired from analyzing minutia and subtleties over and over... and over and over. I scored best on PTs when an LG section broke up LR and RC. I kind of think of LG as a "break" or a mental energy boost. Yesterday the LSAT hit some of us with LR, RC, LR right out of the gate. I was fine with the first LR (experimental :/) and the RC, but mentally gassed by LR #2. So, my question: Does the LSAC take section order into account when standardizing? Like, if the average score for takers who had the above order is 4 questions less than those with a different experimental section, is that considered? In a test where mental stamina is potentially the most important factor, not doing so would strike me as a little unfair.

Thanks!

Taylor

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • Daniel.SieradzkiDaniel.Sieradzki Member Sage ⭐
    edited June 2017 2301 karma

    Hi @taylorwoodsloeb,

    I am glad you brought this issue up. I have given it a lot of thought. There certainly seems to be an advantage in getting the experimental as section 3 or section 5 because those are the sections where you would be the most tired. I could see someone arguing that having section 1 as an experimental would also be good because some people take time to warm up. Consequently, having section 2 or section 4 as an experimental would be unfortunate.

    I would like to believe that the LSAC has data suggesting what order to the normal sections is most helpful to test takers. Thus, if someone had an experimental for section 3, they would get a more difficult line up for the other sections. If someone had an experimental for section 2, they would get an easier line up for the other sections. This would make this issue fair to everyone. I do not know if this is actually the case, but I hope it is. It could very well be that the LSAC considers this issue de minimis, which it might very well be. In any case, this is a very interesting topic and I look forward to seeing what others have to say.

  • hon132hon132 Free Trial Member
    122 karma

    It's a pretty big assumption for the test order to affect test takers in that large a way. It seems more an issue of personal attitude towards certain parts rather than an indicator of the entire population. I had lunch at some spot near the center and then took a 5 hour energy right before I went in. I was good to go.

  • taylorwoodsloebtaylorwoodsloeb Member
    6 karma

    @Daniel.Sieradzki

    Thanks for the response. Given their experience with administering this thing, I'm sure LSAC knows what's up here. I can't be the only one with this issue. In any event, it just seems like a very strange glitch in a standardized system to say that ordering, all other things being equal (as they are), is irrelevant doesn't wash with me. I'll message LSAC directly and post their reply here at some point down the road.

    Taylor

  • OlamHafuchOlamHafuch Alum Member
    2326 karma

    @taylorwoodsloeb Great points! I seriously doubt that LSAC takes this into account even though they should. There was an extremely difficult experimental LG section that some test takers took, and could have very well shot their confidence for the rest of the test, not knowing that it was experimental. Seems like a big disadvantage to those who had that section, but I don't think that LSAC cares. Truth be told, I'm coming to the conclusion that LSAC doesn't care much about the test taker's experience, other than in those areas in which they could face legal problems (e.g., accommodations for disabilities) or get flak from law schools. As I've posted elsewhere, the testing site I was at was atrocious, and I'm sure people have complained about it in the past.

Sign In or Register to comment.