<p>I took a preptest from 96 last month and got a 151 (raw score 59). Yesterday I took preptest 9 from 93 and got a 159 (raw score 69).</p>
<p>I was somewhat elated about the 159, but I realized that the curve on preptest 9 is quite generous compared to more recent administrations. For example, for more recent LSATs a raw score of 69 is more likely to be in the 154-156 range and not a 159. I am wondering if I should put more weight on the raw score or lsat score (120-180) to track my progress in the future? Also, is the disparity in the curve due to the difficulty/easiness of a particular test, the strength of the group that takes the lsat at each sitting, the amount of people that take it, etc.? Basically, I am wondering if this 159 holds any weight. Thanks.</p>
<p>The best way to evaluate is probably to try a more recent exam and just get the score from that. 1993 was fifteen years ago. There are books full of old exams -- try one from, say, 2004.</p>
<p>i suggest you stop doing tests from more than 2 years back. I did preptest from many different periods including preptest 7, 35, 48, and the most recent ones. My advice is to NOT take any test before 47. Tests before 47 are so far apart from the test you will be taking, that it is almost counterproductive. The words and phrases and question types are too dissimilar to help you.</p>
<p>I guess its a matter of opinion. The tests overall from any time measures the same things. Therefore all test scores are valid. But for all those preparing for the upcoming tests, take an earlier test and then some of the more recent ones to decide for yourself how the questions are asked (differently or otherwise).</p>
<p>For me personally, to have a consistent mindset to pick up on keywords from the more recent tests helps me increase efficiency in reading the questions and prompts. Without a doubt, the early tests are worded differently but if that doesn't hinder you in anyway then by all means take them for practice, otherwise, don't.</p>
<p>yeah, I think in the preparation stage concentrating on the numbers isn't good. Focus on your weakness, whether they be a specific LR type, a type of reading passage, etc and tackle them. Then when you feel comfortable with all problem types move to taking fullpreptests to build stamina and consistency.</p>
<p>A good book for tackling specific problem types is the Kaplan mastery book - I got it on ebay for 15 bucks.</p>
<p>I disagree with WingZer0. There is a lot to be gained from studying older tests, though I wouldn't go back earlier than say 1996. There are at least three reasons why it's good to start back that early.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Studying tests from only the past few years won't give you more than a dozen or so preptests. For some people, this may be sufficient. However, I think for most, it would be useful to get through about 20 or more.</p></li>
<li><p>This is related to the first point, but since the LSAT has not changed dramatically in the past decade or so, it is worthwhile to practice on older tests simply because the more exposure you have to question types, the better. Two weeks before I took the September 2007, I went through intensive drills of specific question types. I can't say this is what totally cemented my command of the test, but it certainly helped. My practice test scores during the week before the test were all within the high end of my range, and I exceeded those scores on the actual test.</p></li>
<li><p>Finally, though there haven't been really major changes (aside from the comparative section in RC), there have been subtle changes to the games and RC sections in terms of difficulty. Most people agree that starting sometime in the early 2000s, the games section got a little easier, and to compensate, the RC section got a little harder. Therefore, studying older and newer tests will prepare you for anything; harder games sections from the 1990s will help you really cut your teeth, and harder RC sections from recent tests will accustom you to them as well. Also, be aware that though the games section has gotten easier in general, LSAC does like to through surprises at test-takers every so often.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I also personally recommend the PowerScore Logical Reasoning Bible and Logic Games Bible. There were invaluable to me in the course of my preparation. Aside from those books, the only things you really need are as many preptests as you can get your hands on. Stay away from any "fake" materials put out by companies like Princeton Review or Kaplan. </p>
<p>So the Princeton Review material isn't reliable? I bought it to compliment the LR bible, the games bible, and all the old practice tests from the LSAC website. My score on the Princeton Review practice test was a complete outlier from my scores on the ones from LSAC. It would be a relief if the test wasn’t valid.</p>
<p>I used the PR book and it was a perfectly adequate projection. If you're using old LSAC tests, it's probably the better estimate. If the LSAC tests are recent, then obviously they're the better estimate.</p>