Feb LSAT

[Trainwreck]

How'd everyone do today? Was the test hard?

[Trex555]

Meh. I had three LR sections and didn't love that two much. I'm weighing my choices but I may keep it. Games were a bit tough, but the LR wasn't so bad. You?

[Trainwreck]

Nah, i didn't take it. I was just wondering how it went for everyone.

[Brutal]

It was brutal...

[EarlCat]

It was brutal...

Karma +1 for the 'tar.

[Jack Daws]

I heard the games were a bitch. The juicer game apparently sucked hard.

[Tailgator2010]

I heard the games were a bitch. The juicer game apparently sucked hard.

I heard the same. doesn't matter now. none of us will ever see the test.

 

[Jeffort]

I heard the games were a bitch. The juicer game apparently sucked hard.

I heard the same. doesn't matter now. none of us will ever see the test.

 

I heard from students that the LG section was harder than a lot of the recent tests they used for practice.

It's sounding and looking like the phase of typically getting easier than usual LG sections compared to pre 2005 LG sections that went on pretty consistently for a few years was not a permanent shift with the test.   

Many of the LG sections from June 2005 to 2008 seemed significantly easier overall than prior tests (a few of them were super easy if you knew what you were doing with the basics), but LG sections on several of the tests from the last few years have seemed to me to be more difficult than most of them from the 2005 to 2008 era.   Maybe the 'Golden Years' of lessor difficulty LG sections was a short fluke result of the computer program LSAC developed and started using several years ago to develop and assemble tests from the item bank.

Who knows what LSAC has up their sleeve, they always seem to switch things up and vary the balance of difficulty of the section types.   

[LSAT Eliminator]

Who knows what LSAC has up their sleeve, they always seem to switch things up and vary the balance of difficulty of the section types.   

Agreed 100%. They love to set up a "pattern" that they then switch after a few years. There's tons of examples of that occurring. Always expect the unexpected with them, and if it doesn't happen, consider yourself lucky 

[Jeffort]

Who knows what LSAC has up their sleeve, they always seem to switch things up and vary the balance of difficulty of the section types.  

Agreed 100%. They love to set up a "pattern" that they then switch after a few years. There's tons of examples of that occurring. Always expect the unexpected with them, and if it doesn't happen, consider yourself lucky  

Yep.  And on that vein of thought, there is a reason LSAC headquarters is right next to a cemetery.    

See attached image!  (click or right click it for larger view)

[effinA]

OMFG That is hilarious!!!!!!!

[Brutal]

After much thought, I decided to cancel. Back to studying again.

Now that is brutal 

[Brutal]

It was brutal...

Karma +1 for the 'tar.

Thanks dude.

[Jeffort]

After much thought, I decided to cancel. Back to studying again.

Now that is brutal 

Ehh, better to live to fight another day rather than have a sub-par score on your record that LS's will see.  Even though most Law Schools now say they take the higher score rather than using the average of multiple scores, they still see both or more, I know one girl that had 5 reported scores that got into a highly ranked LS in Virginia.  That girl was determined!  The change RE: average of multiple scores vs. taking the highest score for admissions was based on what the LS's have to report about their student body, which in turn heavily influences the schools rank. 

Don't sweat it about canceling your first take.  I canceled my first take and hit 99th percentile with a 177 second take and was accepted to many T14 LS's with scholarship offers from some of them. 

[Brutal]

+1 for the support. Thanks