Law School Discussion

LSAT Preparation => Studying for the LSAT => Topic started by: Andrew on February 07, 2004, 05:24:16 AM

Title: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: Andrew on February 07, 2004, 05:24:16 AM
Congratulations to everyone who took the LSAT today.  Please make sure to have a good meal and a drink (or several) before obsessing about it here.  Then - discuss!
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: Cooley-GR on February 07, 2004, 12:22:33 PM
I had two games sections on today's test.  Sections 3 & 4.  Any speculation as to which one was the throw away?  I thought section 3s problems much easier than 4.

Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: pigsfeet007 on February 07, 2004, 12:43:45 PM
I had games 3 & 5 .. 5 was much harder and had 1 extra problem set.  Section 3 had only 24 questions.  Section 5 had a real hard one about student housing. I really hope that was the experimental section.
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: justme on February 07, 2004, 12:49:49 PM
I'm pretty sure section 3 was experimental. Form what I understand, every one has the experimental section at the same time. From readomg through postings on some other boars, it sounds like section 3 was it.

I had 2 games sections as well, 3rd and 4th.  My 3rd section was pretty easy, had 22 questions. The 4th section was tougher, 23 questions, the first set there was no room for notes/diagrams, there was student/faculty housing, colored pencils, and i think birds. I'm pretty sure this was the real one.

Hope that helps
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: pigsfeet007 on February 07, 2004, 12:54:03 PM
yeah the one w/ the pencils and birds, is the one i did awful on. Could someone who just had 1 games section confirm that this was the section they had?
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: lsmf on February 07, 2004, 01:27:28 PM
Anyone know whether the theory that "it can't be a real section if the number of questions for all four sections would add up to less than 101" is true?

This would automatically invalidate the easier NON-pencil, bird housing one, because that section had only 22 questions for me, adding to 100 questions only.

Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: helix on February 07, 2004, 01:49:47 PM
I only had one games section.  It was the one with the computers, pencils, birds and houses.
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: michimoibelle on February 07, 2004, 02:40:06 PM
I had 2 game sections. #3 & #4. Section 3 was really easy & section 4 was HARD. Do you really think that section for was the "real" section, the one with pencils, birds,etc.
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: notimeformudclub on February 07, 2004, 05:04:15 PM
Section 3 was the experimental section on today's test, no matter what your topic was, it was section 3.  And yes, the "real" games section with the computer store, and the stupid f-ing pencils, and those hateful birds) was an utter nightmare.  For what its worth, everyone at our test center was miserable about that section.

All in all, the reading comp wasnt too bad and the logical reasoning was of average difficulty.  They REALLY gave it us on the games though.
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: justme on February 07, 2004, 05:34:16 PM
the 101 questions thing is usually true, but not definitely.  In the past decade or so, there has been at least one LSAT with 100 questions, and at least one with 102. Still, the vast majority have come ot 101.
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: Cooley-GR on February 07, 2004, 06:04:06 PM
Ok, I realize this is highly speculative but anyone want to take a guess at what the conversion table will look like?  Here's a few from the December 2003 test:

Reported    Lowest Raw  Higest Raw
170          90          90
165          83          84
160          75          75
155          66          66
153          62          63
150          56          57
147          51          52
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: hookem law on February 07, 2004, 06:47:35 PM
This was a difficult LSAT.  It will only take about 68 correct responses to get a 175.
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: midwestfool on February 08, 2004, 07:18:10 PM
Well..it appears the computers/birds/pencils/housing section was the real McCoy.  LSAC folks are just trying to weed us out...the LSAT has about as much to do with the practice of law as watching Law and Order, or eating a fruitcake for that matter.   According to one LSAT prep site, in the past eight years, the experimental section has always been either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd -- 55% of the time it's the third section.   Had I known that, I might have realized that the fourth section was genuine and indeed, tried much harder.  The fourth one, since it appeared exceptionally difficult -- c'mon no freaking room for diagrams -- I was sure it had to be fake.   And don't tell me everybody thought the rest of the test was cake -- I don't think it was, and I was scoring 162 on practice tests!  I guess the LSAT rewards those that can adapt well.  Has this strategy ever been used before???  I spent like fourteen minutes on that stupid first section.

The only reason I'm not going to cancel is because this last guy says top score will be 68 -- WHERE ARE YOU BASING THIS ON??? OR ARE YOU JUST TRYING TO MAKE US FEEL BETTER?? Now, I'm sure some people scored well, that's just how some people are.   Some freak obviously will get 101 right.   What does that mean for the rest of us, mediocre testers?  Talk to me goose (or geese).
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: Victor on February 08, 2004, 07:37:20 PM
What did you guys do to prepare?
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: hookem law on February 08, 2004, 10:25:20 PM
Yes, the test is about adapting in the middle of it.  No one will get 101 correct on this test.  The most anyone will get is 93, which will of course be a 180.
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: hollywoodude on February 08, 2004, 11:37:32 PM
I don't think 93 will be a 180 and 68 will absolutely not yield a 175. I've seen harder tests where a 180 is adjusted to no less than 96 correct responses. But hey, I hope its as low as possible.
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: midwestfool on February 09, 2004, 09:02:03 AM
Yeah, what was I thinking?....68 will never be a 175.  That guys just bustin' our balls.   I do think, however, that in the book,  10 more, actual LSAT Tests, once a 95 qualified as a 180.   You know, it would be nice if we could talk to actual test makers here (i.e. if we only had some insider tips here).
Who here has connections?

As far as methods employed in the preparation of my test, I used Cracking the LSAT, and the (2) 10 Actual books direct from LSAC.  I studied for three weeks, mostly on weekends since I have a son and work full-time.    Also, I read the 180 book by Kaplan.   They all seemed fine --- but nothing will prepare you for the real thing.    ADVICE:   Take some time off to rest, don't go drinking 2 or even 3 nites before the test, and make sure you get some sleep. And if anybody has the flu, cold, or even a sore throat -- don't go near em!    Anybody tries to break your confidence, ignore it. 

Also, when you're taking these "practice tests" do it the right way: 5 minute breaks and only a TEN minute midbreak half way through.   Have someone time you, and make sure they cough once or twice through it to add realism.  AND JUST FOR FUN -- throw in an extra, unscored test.   None of the other self-test guides do this -- but it's done on the real thing, so why shouldn't we   After all, the test, among other things, is designed to measure ENDURANCE -- how well do you think when you're tired and nervous.   Lots of us could do well on these things, if we only had enough time.   

I used a silent timer, that way I knew how I was managing time, and didn't have to look up at the clock, but felt on the real thing that I was rushing, and often finished the sections with 3-4 minutes left on the clock.   For me, it's hard to go back and change answers.   I just kinda sat there and hoped I didn't make too many stupid mistakes.   Also, maybe it was the cold I had, but I felt way more drained on the real thing then on those stupid practice tests.

Looking at comments made at this site, some people claim Kaplan test prep services do not pan out, yet it is interesting that I haven't seen anybody knock the Princeton Review Crew.  (Am I wrong in my assesment?)  Kinda like, how come you don't hear any jokes about father-in-laws?

Here's an analogy from my limited experience:  My sister's MCAT experience.  The MCAT is kinda like the LSAT, but for med students, and it's only 7 hours long instead of 4-1/2.   So anyways, she took it once, did poorly, took it again after taking KAPLAN review, also did poorly, and finally a third time, after taking P.R..  The last time she did well enough that she's now in Med School.     So maybe Princeton Review is better...OR,  maybe some people just have good and bad days.    And then, what works for some may not work for all.   You decide.   Life is full of ambiguity, and so is the LSAT.
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: hookem law on February 09, 2004, 10:48:04 AM
Yeah I wasn't serious about the scores I laid out.  68 correct=175?  I can't believe anyone bought that.
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: pbc on February 09, 2004, 11:23:24 AM
Thus far, every post I have read seems to be in aggreement that the level of difficulty of the FEB 04 LSAT was significantly higher then that of most previous tests. Anyone disagree with that claim. I thought I did O.K; however, the test was more difficult than I anticipated even though I couldn't have done a better job preparing.  Did anyone prepare for the FEB LSAT with the DEC test, and, if so, could you compare the relative difficulty of that test with this one so we can all gain a sense of where we stand on the bell curve.

My stab in the dark prediction:  The mean, 151, will be a raw score of 56,  the cut off for 155 will be a raw score of 64, the cut off for 160 will be a raw score of 72, and the cut off for 170 will be a raw score of 89.
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: hollywoodude on February 09, 2004, 11:43:52 AM
yes, your predictions seem fairly reasonable. an 89 or even an 87 might be a 170.
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: tsuhiro on February 09, 2004, 12:06:46 PM
I had three LR sections, #1, #3 & #4. Section 3 and 4 were ok, but section 1 was hard. I almost had no time finishing all the questions. For those who had the same orders with mine, which do you think is the experimental? Hope it was section 1!
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: pbc on February 09, 2004, 12:10:25 PM
The word is that section 3 was the experimental; regardless of what type of section it was.
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: hollywoodude on February 09, 2004, 12:37:01 PM
One of the LR sections was really hard. Too many assumption questions and abstract arguments. I didn't finish that one either. I am sure a lot of people had a hard time with that one.
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: justme on February 09, 2004, 02:07:08 PM
Comparing Feb and Dec,

I thought the RC section was maybe a tiny bit harder in Dec;
the LR sections about the same;
and the games much easier in Feb than Dec.

But that's just my opinion....
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: pbc on February 09, 2004, 02:50:47 PM
Hmmmmm, Thanks for the bad news.
Title: Re: Feb 7 LSAT
Post by: kslaw on February 10, 2004, 10:32:43 AM
The housing question was awful. I had no idea how to diagram it, so I just started doing process of elimination by trying out every scenario. not sure how well that worked.

I felt pretty comfortable with the rest of the test, though I could be way off. the logical reasoning sections, it's so hard to know how well I did because eliminating three answers was always easy, and choosing between the remaining two was always hard.