Importance of the very most recent preptests?

[kmart1]

This forum has been an excellent resource so far for me in preparing for the October LSAT--I definitely have learned a lot from the various FAQs and topics here.  I am looking for a little bit of advice, however, on my specific situation.

I know that taking more recent preptests is important.  I am pretty happy with where I am right now though; my very first unprepared, timed LSAT was a 165, and I have improved to the point where I am averaging approximately a 173 on timed tests under simulated conditions including experimental sections.

The problem is that all of these tests consisted of samples from the first and second compilation of the "10" books in addition to the 3 tests found in the Superprep, so the newest test I have taken is the February 2000 test.  For what it's worth, Games is by far my strongest section, whereas I lose anywhere from 2-5 points on LR and RC because of lack of speed/endurance (but not comprehension).  This worries me a bit since the FAQ and other posts around here seem to say that games has gotten easier and RC has gotten longer, whereas LR has stayed relatively the same.  Obviously, there is the comparative reading section, too.

Does anyone who has more experience with the evolution of the tests in the last 8 years or so have any advice as to whether it'd be necessary to spend the money on 1-day shipping and order the last 3 or 4 preptests (or buy the third "10" book and go through the last 5 of those over the next 5 days), or are the changes not drastic enough to really be a concern?

[Lindbergh]

You should definitely do some of the most recent preptests, as there have in fact been various changes.

Generally, I would advise skipping the pre-95 (first 10) tests altogether, and focusing mainly on the 3rd book of 10 ("Next 10") and the most recent individual exams.  The 2nd book of 10 (10 More) can be used if you need more than 25 or so exams.

[Leverandon]

I don't think that the changes are that drastic to justify that for the last week. What I do think is drastic is the number that you must avoid missing to score over 170 on a recent LSAT. Thus, your score of 173 on older tests is probably a few points higher than what you would be scoring on a more recent LSAT.

[EarlCat]

I wouldn't worry about old vs. new.  The test has evolved a bit, but not enough to make me think you'd do great on old ones and poor on new ones or vice versa.

[Lindbergh]

I believe there's a more recent exam (free) on the LSAC site.  I'd at least hit that.

[augusta]

Yeah, June '07 is on the LSAC site. Free to download, but I'd try to print it at a campus computer lab or something of that sort--it's a hefty file, lots of paper and ink. If I'd tried to print it at my house I think my little ink-jet would have keeled over.

[tony_rocky_horror]

Would anyone recomend taking this test as the diagnostic vs using as PT?

[blairchuckalways]

I think it's legit as a diagnostic, though the scale is a tad rough. I would definitely take advantage of it as a PT, at least to get a sense of the comparative reading in RC if you haven't come across it yet.

[kmart1]

Thanks for the replies and advice.  I suppose I'll take the June 2007 test under testing conditions, and if I don't score around where I want to, think a little harder about delaying until December.

[augusta]

I actually took that one as a diagnostic--didn't know any better at the time. I did ok (159). And I'm retaking it right now so I better darn well get a good score. I wish they had emoticons for "look of intense determination". Or "I have no idea what you are talking about--is that English?". Apparently those are the two emotions I use most often. Which means I CAN NEVER EXPRESS MYSELF PROPERLY on LSD!