<p>Does anybody know which sections of the LSAT are changing?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Beginning with the June 2007 administration,** LSAC will introduce a variant of reading comprehension, called comparative reading, as one of the four sets in the LSAT reading comprehension section. In general, comparative reading questions are similar to traditional reading comprehension questions. However, there is one significant difference: instead of being based on one longer passage, comparative reading questions are based on two shorter passages. The two passages together are of roughly the same length as one reading comprehension passage, so the total amount of reading in the reading comprehension section will remain essentially the same. A few of the questions that follow a comparative reading passage pair might concern only one of the two passages, but most questions will be about both passages and how they relate to each other. **</p>
<p>More information, including test preparation material for comparative reading, will be available on the LSAC website (<a href="http://www.LSAC.org%5B/url%5D">www.LSAC.org</a>) in mid-February 2007. This information will also appear in the printed 2007-2008 LSAT & LSDAS Information Book, to be distributed in February 2007.</p>
<p>Also beginning with the June 2007 LSAT, test takers will no longer be randomly assigned one of two different kinds of writing prompt—decision or argument—for the writing sample. All test takers will be assigned a decision prompt. The writing sample will continue to be unscored. </p>
<p>These two changes are a result of extensive research by LSAC staff and consultations with the LSAC Test Development and Research Committee.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Whhooopss...</p>
<p>Sorry Sybbie, I confused your D for Marney's. Never mind.</p>
<p>Thanks so much Sybbie</p>
<p>Do they take into account different majors such as engineering, which generally has a low GPA? Do they factor in the undergrad school as some grade much more harshly, especially for engineering, than other schools?</p>
<p>I have a question for the current ranking and scoring percentile of last years test. what are the percentile and corresponding scores. is 160 a 82 percentile and so forth.</p>
<p>Thank you</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have a question for the current ranking and scoring percentile of last years test. what are the percentile and corresponding scores. is 160 a 82 percentile and so forth.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't have this information, but how would it be relevant/necessary? At any rate, the 99th percentile for the recent LSATs is pretty stable at 172.</p>
<p>There seems to be a bit amount of stability in the score and the corresponding LSAT % rank. My "educated guess" is that by keeping the % rank consistent would be the only way to compare all testtakers no matter what particular exam then took i.e. the June 2006 vs. Dec 2006 test.<br>
As nspeds stated a 172 does seem to correspond to the 99th %- 170 is top 2 %- 167 top 5 % - and 163 top 10 %. etc etc.<br>
It does seem possible that it changes slightly- but the score must have some consistency or it just wouldn't make any sense when "comparing" each applicants qualifications</p>
<p>
[quote]
It does seem possible that it changes slightly- but the score must have some consistency or it just wouldn't make any sense when "comparing" each applicants qualifications
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly.</p>
<p>For 1996 LSATs, 9 questions wrong was around a 175. Now it is around a 171. This can make the difference between an acceptance and a rejection at, say, HYS, everything being equal.</p>
<p>Thank you... The reason I ask is exactly how you guys responded. I wanted to compare to the past years. I particularly have a friend who took the lsats before me 2 years and wondered if we were on the same scale. I know they take the last 3 years and come up with the scale. His score was a 163 and he said he was in the 87th percentile. I wanted to know what a today's score would be like at that range.</p>
<p>I understand. I just wanted to clarify an inference that some kids may have taken from the references to top 25. (After all, why not # 27? or #26?). It seems to be such an underlying assumption on this board that if you don't get into HYP, your life is over. </p>
<p>I think we've probably beaten this poor dead horse by now.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For 1996 LSATs, 9 questions wrong was around a 175. Now it is around a 171. This can make the difference between an acceptance and a rejection at, say, HYS, everything being equal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While I'm sure that you are correct, nspeds, the LSAT is designed to reflect your relative score compared to all of the other test-takers at a given administration (and over a period of years) so that test scores are comparable from administration to administration. In this way, if a given administration is considered "easy", meaning that, on average, more test-takers got more questions correct than in previous administrations of the test, or "hard" meaning the opposite, it won't matter. Therefore getting two answers wrong on an "easy" administration of the LSAT should equate to the same LSAT score (meaning percentile rank of the test-taker) getting three or more questions wrong on a "hard" administration of the LSAT (or something like that).</p>
<p>I understand that, sally. </p>
<p>What is particularly interesting is that, first, the 1996 LSAT is much easier for me than the newest one and, second, according to a well-informed source, the current LSATs have been getting harder: the reading comprehension passages are more difficult and time-consuming, for instance. Additionally, whereas on previous LSATs, for the logical reasoning there might be a couple of questions where one stimulus will count for two questions. In the latest ones, there was a stimulus for every question. Once again, having to read more stimuli is another time-drain.</p>
<p>What will be even more interesting is when the "New and Improved" LSAT results come into the mix which will occur 6/07.
Regardless of the difficulty or ease of the new format, I am sure the LSAT scores will depend on % rank. i.e. A 170 score new or old format is going to have to imply that you are in the top 2 % of testtakers otherwise it's not a fair comparison. A comparison of the "curve" to get the 170 will probably indicate if the new test is easier or harder than the format now being used.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What will be even more interesting is when the "New and Improved" LSAT results come into the mix which will occur 6/07.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, it's actually quite surprising. Though I have been urging on this forum that the new LSAT is only the result of a minor change, recent information from very well-informed sources has changed my mind:</p>
<p>The new test could very well be more difficult for test-takers. I've heard from numerous persons who are prepping that it is becoming increasingly difficult to complete the RC on time. In fact, view certain RC time-saving strategies as a necessity for finishing on time. Since the new RC will be introduced with only two passages of its kind in circulation, it will be even more difficult to finish on time, at least without having the materials and time to prepare more time-saving strategies.</p>
<p>In fact, I have been advised to take the December or October administration instead of the February, simply because I will have more time and more prep-materials with which to prepare and "experiment."</p>
<p>nspeds: I've been advised the same thing.</p>
<p>How peculiar. My post #51 above was actually sent last night (not today), as a reponse to nspeds' post on the other thread. So please ignore for this discussion - as you probably already did, since it makes no sense at all here !</p>
<p>My d may have "lucked" out as she really had no other choice but to take the Dec. LSAT's because of her study abroad program.<br>
Normally, I'd say if you believe that the percentage rank in relationship to all testtakers dictates your LSAT score, then it should not really matter if you take it Feb (old format) or later (new format).
BUT- if you think it possible that you may need to take the test more than once, you may want to delay taking it. This way, if you take it twice, at least it is the same format and you'll have some past experience with the test. It really may not make sense to take the new and old format of the LSAT's as you will have to study differently for the RC section. If you have decided to take the test ONE TIME ONLY, it really may not matter if you take it in February or later. </p>
<p>Good luck to you guys-</p>
<p>Nsped- I am curious- were you advised not to take the June LSAT as it is the first new test, or did you inadvertently state you were told to take December or October instead of Feb?? You didn't mention the June LSAT, so I was wondering if you just made a mistake in your last posting or was it suggested not to take the June exam? I am now doubly glad my d is done with this test. The class of 2008 now has to "strategize" when to take the test. As the new test comes into play for everyone in June, this will no longer be an issue.</p>
<p>nspeds, when do you plan to apply to law school?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nsped- I am curious- were you advised not to take the June LSAT as it is the first new test, or did you inadvertently state you were told to take December or October instead of Feb?? You didn't mention the June LSAT, so I was wondering if you just made a mistake in your last posting or was it suggested not to take the June exam? I am now doubly glad my d is done with this test.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry, yes, I made a mistake. I should've been more clear.</p>
<p>I was advised that I should take the February test, and that if I cannot, I should take the October or December test for the reasons given above.</p>
<p>
[quote]
nspeds, when do you plan to apply to law school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am applying for entrance in fall 2008, so my applications go out this September. Even if I am accepted at my first-choice, I might not go; for I am also interested in pursuing a Ph.D in philosophy.</p>
<p>The February test doesn't look like a long shot for me... hopefully. Then... it's relaxation!</p>