Anyone else get destroyed by the 2nd RC today?

[VitalGiraffe]

Ouch.

RC - LR - LG - RC

I thought the first RC went really well. LR was fine. LG I had to guess one questions, wasn't sure about two more.

Second RC killed me. It had Nigeria languages, Prosecutorial misconduct, Photographic Apertures, Quantum Physics.

If someone didn't have 2 RC please comment. I would love to know which RC counted.

[Peanut Butter]

In my opinion, having 2 RC passages is the worst. 2 LG or LR would be so much better for me. RC is particularly tiring.

[Nemo]

22 hours ago, VitalGiraffe said:

Ouch.

RC - LR - LG - RC

I thought the first RC went really well. LR was fine. LG I had to guess one questions, wasn't sure about two more.

Second RC killed me. It had Nigeria languages, Prosecutorial misconduct, Photographic Apertures, Quantum Physics.

If someone didn't have 2 RC please comment. I would love to know which RC counted.

I had two LG sections. LG-LR-RC-LG and the RC one had one about two books, EMFs, leaves, and I can't remember the last one. But do you remember the topics for the logic games section. I'm trying to figure out which one was scored. 

Edited August 15, 2021 by Nemo

[VitalGiraffe]

1 hour ago, Nemo said:

I had two LG sections. LG-LR-RC-LG and the RC one had one about two books, EMFs, leaves, and I can't remember the last one. But do you remember the topics for the logic games section. I'm trying to figure out which one was scored. 

Did you write today or yesterday? I had movies, fencing, political speeches.

[BlockedQuebecois]

LSAC: Don’t talk about the contents of the LSAT.

Pretty easily identifiable law school applicants: I will go and discuss the contents of the LSAT on the internet in detail! 

LSAC isn’t at all likely to do anything about it (even when you consider how notoriously litigious they are about this stuff), but come on people. Your first instinct after writing the LSAT shouldn’t be to immediately go breach the candidate agreement on an open website that prohibits you from ever deleting your post. 

Edited August 15, 2021 by BlockedQuebecois

[VitalGiraffe]

10 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Pretty easily identifiable law school applicants: I will go and discuss the contents of the LSAT on the internet in detail! 

This is in detail? You have a rather low bar for what counts as detail.

Here is what Powerscore says (Dave Killoran is connected with people within LSAC): https://forum.powerscore.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=35311

Quote

Per LSAC policies, you are allowed to discuss LSAT question topics and difficulty in general. For example, this means you can identify a game by name and discuss whether you thought it was difficult. You cannot talk about specific answer choices, however. So, "The Water Tubes game was difficult for me" is fine; "the answer to the first three questions was A in that game" is not acceptable.

Nothing in this thread comes close to the threshold LSAC would consider unacceptable.

[BlockedQuebecois]

*Sigh* Killoran says a bunch of shit that isn’t actually accurate. Go read the candidate agreement or simply check the FAQ: 

Quote

You may share general information, such as how you felt about the test-taking experience, the exam overall, or a section of the test. Sharing more details, such as information about a particular passage or a particular question and how you answered it, is prohibited.

[Emphasis added.]

Anyways, you do you. Like I said, the LSAC isn’t likely to care, the same way the LSO isn’t likely to care when people post details about the bar exam here. It’s just a bad look and poor judgment. 

ETA: also, your own link answered your question. One of the first five comments confirms that your second RC section was the real one. 

Edited August 15, 2021 by BlockedQuebecois

[VitalGiraffe]

29 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Killoran says a bunch of shit that isn’t actually accurate.

Citation needed.

I think you are interpreting that far too broadly. Talking about the general topic is totally okay (i.e. "the quantum physics passage") but if I were to say "the quantum physics passage where they talked about toasters burning bagels, then talked about how Galileo shaped the discussion with his PhD thesis" would not be okay.

[BlockedQuebecois]

You can’t “citation needed” when someone literally provides two citations.

Anyways, I’m done. You do you. 

[kiamia]

My understanding is that the LSAC people are particularly leery of people disclosing information that can help other test takers identify which section of the exam is the experimental one and which is scored. 

Quote

You agree that prior, during, and after you take the Test, you will not discard, discuss, disclose, copy, misappropriate, or otherwise share with anyone any information about the Test questions, Test answer choices, Test content, or any of LSAC’s intellectual property related to the Test, whether orally, in writing, on the Internet, or via any other means or media, nor will you assist any person or entity in doing so. [emphasis added] 

https://www.lsac.org/about/lsac-policies/lsac-candidate-agreement/2021-2022-lsat

As a matter of contractual interpretation, I can't really square the above with Killoran's FAQ answer that you posted. Whatever his connections are with people in LSAC, his opinion may not mean anything if you do end up getting in trouble for violating a pretty clear contractual term. 

As BQ points out, plenty of people do it without experiencing repercussions. But you've already agreed not to do it, so probably shouldn't. 

Edit: Of course, this isn't legal advice (which nobody on this threat or these forums would be providing you with) but just general life advice. 

Edited August 16, 2021 by kiamia

[Pantalaimon]

As a random observation, discord allows you to delete posts and is also a far more ephemeral place to discuss things.

[VitalGiraffe]

20 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

You can’t “citation needed” when someone literally provides two citations.

You're citations were not for the the claim I quoted.

[VitalGiraffe]

All I have to say to the other commenters is that LSAC can and does force people to take down information they have posted. As you have all acknowledged, they don't do that for the type of information I have posted here. So unless they have arbitrarily decided to pick and choose which of their rules, and to what extent they interpret the vagueness of the broadly stated rules you have quoted here, they have given at least tacit approval of very vague information such as passage topics (as claimed by Killoran).

[kiamia]

Quote

[...] they have given at least tacit approval of very vague information such as passage topics (as claimed by Killoran).

If you want disregard rules and contractual terms based on whatever you think the consequences will be, that's your business. When I make a commitment, especially contractually, I tend to try and keep my word. Plus, I don't see the point of taking a risk where negative consequences to myself are dependant on the discretion of the other party, instead of my own actions. 

Edit: I'll add that the terms of the contract are not vague. They're broad in order to catch all the prohibited circumstances, but they're assuredly not vague. There are not multiple ways to interpret what it means when the contract says you will not share any information about any questions with anyone else. Nobody's going to buy "gee that was unclear and vague and I didn't understand what it was saying". [again, not legal advice, just general life advice]. 

Edited August 17, 2021 by kiamia

[Hegdis]

Just to make this extra fun for you all, YES the old forum was monitored and I assume this one is as well. YES, people check to see if applicants are violating their very first contract (it's a level of stupid all its own: I want to be a lawyer! Watch me breach my first professional contract!)

And no, we aren't deleting anything. But we will lock these threads.

The internet is not a non-space where no one can see what you're doing. Consider this your first lesson.