how difficult was the september lsat as compared with the past 5 released?

[Dr. Raoul Duke]

I personally wouldnt mind a shift of emphasis from Games to RC, as it seems to already be in motion, judging by the last several tests.  I just hope they adjust the scale accordingly - having a difficult, time-consuming RC section can be just as much of a nusciance as some of the tough LG sections in Preptests 25-39. 

[sladkaya]

I would acturally prefer a reading comp to be the deciding section for upcoming LSATs even though it may seem like they are extremely difficult now since this was the first LSAT heading in that direction. Maybe LSAC sorta smartened up and having reading comp being a key skill in law school and the profession rather than solving these ridiculous logic games is a good reason to make rc a little more difficult and games a little less. I'm in favor of the new direction this is heading. Anyone agree?

Absolutely!  Considering the volume and density of material we'll read in law school, RC being a deciding factor makes more sense.  And this is the section that measures ability more than practice, though I'm sure if the trend continues, prep test companies will publish RC Bible soon.

[bonkers1234]

yea umm i'm going to say -10 with a distinct possibility of -11. for those of you who think games are the deciding factor, my teacher told me that the lsat is DELIBERATELY shifting in importance from games to RC. i think we actually were the first test where it was so lopsided. though i sorta ran out of time on the games, i didnt think they were *hard*, though maybe slightly more than recently. however, RC was a beast. and i even finished on time. im judging this solely by the amount of contention that has occured over at least 5 questions-- where the passage seemed to be interpreted completely differently. not only was the section longer, but the material was way more dense than usual-- especially the science passage. i really wouldn't be surprised, esp if people screw up so badly on reading comp, that the scale is -11. the test may be standardized for certain questions... but lsac has never administered this test with these questions and this amount of time crunch. i'm hoping they will adjust accordingly.

i also dispute that these LR sections were easy. they were definitely harder than the stuff i had been taking. i got 0-1 wrong on most of the practice tests i was taking *combined). i think i may have missed 3 or 4 this time around. the amount of debate on this board is a good indicator that questions were harder than they might have at first seemed.

[CNB]

anyone got a link to a thread that shows the scales of all of the past years?

Doesn't include June, but does go back to Dec 96.

http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/correct_targeted.htm

Someone else with PT 49 could fill in all the breaks for June...

[Root Hog]

yeah this whole scale business seems like bull. What if they set the scale to a -10 before the test, and then people did really bad? Do they just conclude that we are stupid and give us the -10 anyway, or do they give us the benefit of the doubt and change the scale if the score distribution is way different than what they expected?

  Yes, but if they indeed use experimentals, you just have to trust that it was just as hard then as it was for us now. If you go on the theory of carving it from the past three LSAT scales take a look at JUN 05, look back at the past three and tell me how the ridiculous jump in scales makes sense there?

[dusya4]

I just looked at Dec 04 scale and oh my god, is that a dream or what? 92= 175 !!? Damn. And that test was relatively easy in my opinion. Damn, some people are so lucky.

I loved that curve, couldn't justify it either cause that was the only 180 I got on a recent preptest.

[prajna]

i really think we got extra screwed because a lot of us got RC first section. i think i would have done a lot better, concentrated a lot more if i had it in a later section. this is bad news if scale is predetermined because i don't think people who had it as experimental before had it on section 1 (or only a small portion), thus they might have not had such a hard time.

[Dr. Raoul Duke]

i really think we got extra screwed because a lot of us got RC first section. i think i would have done a lot better, concentrated a lot more if i had it in a later section. this is bad news if scale is predetermined because i don't think people who had it as experimental before had it on section 1 (or only a small portion), thus they might have not had such a hard time.

I agree completely.  RC is probably the worst section to "warm up" with (nerves just made it worse), and especially an RC of that cliber difficulty didnt help.  I seriously wish it would have been anything but Section 1. 

[mjb]

i really think we got extra screwed because a lot of us got RC first section. i think i would have done a lot better, concentrated a lot more if i had it in a later section. this is bad news if scale is predetermined because i don't think people who had it as experimental before had it on section 1 (or only a small portion), thus they might have not had such a hard time.

I loved seeing the RC first. I think it being first is the sole reason why I finished it on time.