Pre-1991 LSATs

[lsat_ndoda]

Hey, PowerScore Staff, hope you're well. I have two questions:

1) Does anyone know how one might access test material from before 1991? Apparently the tests from 1982 to 1991 all had Logical Reasoning, Logic Games, and Reading Comp. It had just one LR section and in place of the second LR section we have today had a section called Issues and Facts. Might these be found in any old prep guides or other resources?

2) I did dig up one old LSAT book from 1982 published by Harcourt. The book features four sample tests. However, I am not sure how licensing and contracting worked back in those days. Is it likely these are real LSATs? Constructing an LSAT is an expensive and complicated process, so I know it is hard to fake it. I've only cursorily glanced at them (since I may use them as PT's). To me, they look authentic, but you all have better eyes for this I presume.

Thanks!

EDIT: The Harcourt tests have the sections of the modern test in addition to a now obsolete section called "Issues and Facts."

[Claire Horan]

Hi LSAT_ndoda,

I don't have an answer to your questions. Sorry about that!

But I'm also very curious why you are on the lookout for old tests. The LSAT has changed much over the years, and the test you end up taking will likely be most similar to the more recent tests. For that reason, I suggest students who have access to many practice tests start with the most recent ones and work their way backward in time. Have you already taken all of the tests between 1991 and the present?!

[lsat_ndoda]

Hi LSAT_ndoda,

I don't have an answer to your questions. Sorry about that!

But I'm also very curious why you are on the lookout for old tests. The LSAT has changed much over the years, and the test you end up taking will likely be most similar to the more recent tests. For that reason, I suggest students who have access to many practice tests start with the most recent ones and work their way backward in time. Have you already taken all of the tests between 1991 and the present?!

Thanks for the response. I've used much of the material from 1991 to present. While I know the reuse value is significant (I've used most tests carefully, not foolproofing most games or reviewing most test's LR/RC too closely), I was under the impression that LR, RC, and LG from before 1991 wouldn't be much different and might be okay to use. Of course, newer tests are superior (since they are more substantively similar to upcoming tests generally) and I'll use them much closer to the test date, but I thought LR, RC, and LG from the 1980s could also be helpful. Frankly, it looks quite similar, like with regard to question types (though, again, the book doesn't make it clear whether this is LSAC official material).

Other the the removal of the old "Issues and Facts" section and the change in scoring, could you describe more specifically how the test has changed since pre-1991, specifically with regard to LR, RC, and LG?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi LSAT_ndoda!

Even when the LSAT isn't changing in big noticeable ways, it goes through smaller changes which we think of as trends. Though the LSAT hasn't undergone major changes to its structure and question types since 1991, the test has trended in different ways, making even tests from the early '90s somewhat different than more recent tests. For example, you may have noticed that older tests had more LR stimuli with 2 question stems than we've seen in recent years. LR tended to have more questions involving formal logic, whereas more recently there seems to be an increase in causal reasoning. Tests from the '90s also tended to have more of the uncommon game types. Etc.

I haven't extensively studied LSAT sections from the '80s, but it's likely they also had some different quirks. In the past 40 years, there have been advances in psychometrics that have influenced the making of standardized tests and it's highly probable that it's a totally different set of people writing questions today than were writing questions 40 years ago. So while I can't say it's completely useless to study questions from the '80s, I also don't think there's much value to it.

It seems like you've been busy if you've already made it through all the material from 1991 to the present! It might be time to think more about your study strategy. Just taking a bunch of practice tests or going through a bunch of practice questions won't significantly help your score unless you're also reviewing thoroughly to identify areas for improvement. You say you haven't been thoroughly reviewing your practice tests because you want to make sure you can retake them in the future. But thoroughly going over practice tests to identify your own trends, weak spots, and skills that need honing will help you better prepare for future practice tests and will be more likely to move you toward your goal score than just working your way through every LSAT question released since the '80s.

Hope this helps. Good luck with your studying!

Best,
Kelsey

[Dave Killoran]

Hey Ndoda,

Let me add my two cents to the fine answers you've already been give above:

1) Does anyone know how one might access test material from before 1991? Apparently the tests from 1982 to 1991 all had Logical Reasoning, Logic Games, and Reading Comp. It had just one LR section and in place of the second LR section we have today had a section called Issues and Facts. Might these be found in any old prep guides or other resources?

My answer below addresses whether the tests in these books are real tests (NO), but as for that pre-1991 material, you aren't going to be able to access it. LSAC did release those exams and we have them (and I've studied them extensively), but we cannot distribute them as we don't hold the copyright and they are not licensable per LSAC (the license program didn't exist then). Funny aside, our copies are actually stored in a bank vault!

That said, this still shouldn't be an area of concern for you. The test construction standards at that time varied widely, and the difficulty levels are all over the place, from incredibly easy to ridiculously hard. The language and presentation are different as well, and when the test moved to the "modern" format in 1991, they increased the test-making standards and the exam became far more consistent. And they've only gotten better since then. So, while those test are fun to look at, they aren't all that useful, and you'd be far better served taking the 90 modern LSATs in release and learning them so well you could teach them to me

2) I did dig up one old LSAT book from 1982 published by Harcourt. The book features four sample tests. However, I am not sure how licensing and contracting worked back in those days. Is it likely these are real LSATs? Constructing an LSAT is an expensive and complicated process, so I know it is hard to fake it. I've only cursorily glanced at them (since I may use them as PT's). To me, they look authentic, but you all have better eyes for this I presume.

Thanks!

EDIT: The Harcourt tests have the sections of the modern test in addition to a now obsolete section called "Issues and Facts."

The chances are extremely low these are "real" tests. LSAC did not implement their licensing system until almost a decade later, largely thanks to the work of the late, great Jim Vaseleck. Thus, what you are looking at is the standard of the time: fake tests made by Harcourt or a subcontractor. A nice historical curiosity, but not made anywhere near the current standards due to, as Kelsey mentioned above, the test trending away from those old forms.

Thanks!

[lsat_ndoda]

Hi LSAT_ndoda!

Even when the LSAT isn't changing in big noticeable ways, it goes through smaller changes which we think of as trends. Though the LSAT hasn't undergone major changes to its structure and question types since 1991, the test has trended in different ways, making even tests from the early '90s somewhat different than more recent tests. For example, you may have noticed that older tests had more LR stimuli with 2 question stems than we've seen in recent years. LR tended to have more questions involving formal logic, whereas more recently there seems to be an increase in causal reasoning. Tests from the '90s also tended to have more of the uncommon game types. Etc.

I haven't extensively studied LSAT sections from the '80s, but it's likely they also had some different quirks. In the past 40 years, there have been advances in psychometrics that have influenced the making of standardized tests and it's highly probable that it's a totally different set of people writing questions today than were writing questions 40 years ago. So while I can't say it's completely useless to study questions from the '80s, I also don't think there's much value to it.

It seems like you've been busy if you've already made it through all the material from 1991 to the present! It might be time to think more about your study strategy. Just taking a bunch of practice tests or going through a bunch of practice questions won't significantly help your score unless you're also reviewing thoroughly to identify areas for improvement. You say you haven't been thoroughly reviewing your practice tests because you want to make sure you can retake them in the future. But thoroughly going over practice tests to identify your own trends, weak spots, and skills that need honing will help you better prepare for future practice tests and will be more likely to move you toward your goal score than just working your way through every LSAT question released since the '80s.

Hope this helps. Good luck with your studying!

Best,
Kelsey

Kelsey,

Thanks so much. I have dissected a number of my practice tests as well as foolproofed some logic game sections after using them as PT's. I think the mistake I made in the beginning of my studies is that I tried to cut corners a bit, so I was doing a lot more testing than I was review. I've begun to shift in the other direction, to reviewing and deconstructing questions (partly by necessity I suppose). I can say that's helped a lot . Jon or Dave had asked me when I first posted in April if I could easily explain the differences and similarities between Sufficient and Necessary assumption questions. Contrasting my understanding then with my understanding now makes for a stark difference. Frankly, I'm not too flustered over the lack of fresh material since I know the reuse value of tests is considerable. Still, I thought I'd see what's out there.

Thanks for your feedback regarding the evolution of the test of the dubious utility of this old, likely mock material. I think it's said in the 80's test prep was nowhere near as rigorous as it is today and the test are also perhaps not as hard (formal logic and conditional logic, mostly), so the available materials being less sophisticated makes sense. I'll take this material with a grain of salt.

[lsat_ndoda]

Hey Ndoda,

Let me add my two cents to the fine answers you've already been give above:

1) Does anyone know how one might access test material from before 1991? Apparently the tests from 1982 to 1991 all had Logical Reasoning, Logic Games, and Reading Comp. It had just one LR section and in place of the second LR section we have today had a section called Issues and Facts. Might these be found in any old prep guides or other resources?

My answer below addresses whether the tests in these books are real tests (NO), but as for that pre-1991 material, you aren't going to be able to access it. LSAC did release those exams and we have them (and I've studied them extensively), but we cannot distribute them as we don't hold the copyright and they are not licensable per LSAC (the license program didn't exist then). Funny aside, our copies are actually stored in a bank vault!

That said, this still shouldn't be an area of concern for you. The test construction standards at that time varied widely, and the difficulty levels are all over the place, from incredibly easy to ridiculously hard. The language and presentation are different as well, and when the test moved to the "modern" format in 1991, they increased the test-making standards and the exam became far more consistent. And they've only gotten better since then. So, while those test are fun to look at, they aren't all that useful, and you'd be far better served taking the 90 modern LSATs in release and learning them so well you could teach them to me

2) I did dig up one old LSAT book from 1982 published by Harcourt. The book features four sample tests. However, I am not sure how licensing and contracting worked back in those days. Is it likely these are real LSATs? Constructing an LSAT is an expensive and complicated process, so I know it is hard to fake it. I've only cursorily glanced at them (since I may use them as PT's). To me, they look authentic, but you all have better eyes for this I presume.

Thanks!

EDIT: The Harcourt tests have the sections of the modern test in addition to a now obsolete section called "Issues and Facts."

The chances are extremely low these are "real" tests. LSAC did not implement their licensing system until almost a decade later, largely thanks to the work of the late, great Jim Vaseleck. Thus, what you are looking at is the standard of the time: fake tests made by Harcourt or a subcontractor. A nice historical curiosity, but not made anywhere near the current standards due to, as Kelsey mentioned above, the test trending away from those old forms.

Thanks!

Dave,

Thank you very much for this. Now that you say this, I believe I recall either you or Jon having briefly talked about the pre-1991 tests and the wide variance in difficulty on question items. Honestly, accessing this material is not a big deal. I still have unused practice tests (mostly from the 90's, though) but I just wanted to see what's out there. Thanks for reminding me that the predictive validity of these older mock tests is probably limited.

I'm curious, why is LSAC so hardcore about keeping those old official tests under wraps? If the predictive validity is minimal and at one point in time they were in circulation to some extent, why the need to lock them down now?

Thanks for this, I'll take these with a grain of salt. And remember we're indebted to Jim Vaseleck.

[Dave Killoran]

I'm curious, why is LSAC so hardcore about keeping those old official tests under wraps? If the predictive validity is minimal and at one point in time they were in circulation to some extent, why the need to lock them down now?

I'd say this is the case for a couple of reasons, first that there's been absolutely no demand for those exams, so they've never really even been pressed about them. If no one is asking you for them, you aren't likely to spend a bunch of time getting them ready to release. The other is that these tests were made long ago, and as such don't represent their best work. Having them in the public when they aren't a representation of the current exam doesn't serve any interest of theirs, so there's an incentive to simply let them be forgotten.

Thanks!

[bkdwyer@gmail.com]

Hi PowerScorers,

Because I received my bachelor's in 1991 and yet did not take my first LSAT until 2021, I found myself in this rabbit hole today, sleuthing the conversion of 1991 scores of 029 - 033 to modern scores. The reason is that my Academic Summary shows that 029 and 033 were the respective mean scores that year for my two undergraduate institutions. I tried to include a screenshot, but could not. Will try to paste text below to clarify:


Transcript Analysis

Year Total Hours 87-88 88-89 89-90 91-91 90-91 -
Education Level U U U U U
College BOSTONU BOSTONU BOSTONU UMASSBS BOSTONU
College Code 3087 3087 3087 3924 3087
LSAT College Mean 029 033

Any insight greatly appreciated!
Thanks.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi B,

Thanks for the message! The percentiles move around over the years, but here's a rough correlation:

• 29 = ~37% = 149
  
  33 = ~56% = 154

For what it is worth, LSAC has said that scores on the old LSAT and on the new LSAT cannot be equated using just percentiles.

Additionally, I'm not sure of the data source, but the "Num Candidates" looks off to me--2404 from Boston U alone in a single year? That would break the single school yearly record by about seven-fold. Regardless, the percentiles above are accurate as you will find

Thanks!