<p>i took two practice LSATs in the past two days, and on the first i got a 167 (which i was kind of concerned about, but it is a jumping off point) and today i got a 179. the first test was from a mcgraw-hill book, and the second was from the LSAC book of ten actual tests. are the mcgraw-hill tests much harder than the real LSATs? the test i took today was a real LSAT from 1993 - have they gotten a lot harder since then?</p>
<p>If you’ve never had much formal preparation before, then those are strong initial scores, regardless of whether or not you timed yourself strictly. You should in no way be “concerned” about scoring a 167 on a practice test if you’ve only just begun to study.</p>
<p>Tests from the early 1990s are not that different substantively from the modern test. The major difference lies in the harshness of the scale. Back then, students could afford to miss about 13-15 questions and still sneak by with a 170, but these days, it has tightened up to something more like 9-10 wrong. </p>
<p>Keep in mind, though, that the McGraw-Hill test is made up, so is not probably not that reliable. And a 179 on a practice test, while commendable, is just one test. You need to take a few more before you really know where you stand.</p>