I took one look at it and i felt depressed… I scored pretty well for Vol 1 Exam 1 and I think i would probably fail the Vol 2 exams at this point. I think they are so hard that it is not representative of the real exam.
I don’t plan on looking at them. Maybe I’ll try a few problems here and there, but if it’s anything like L1, which it sounds like it is, then it’s not going to be worth it.
I think vol. 2 is not quite as hard as vol. 1, I heard someone say the vol. 2 Qs are older which may explain it (n.b., there could be a learning effect in there causing this perception) either way I think it’s good to get the experience. I hope the L2 exam is the same as the L1 exam in that Schweser/Stalla grossly overstate the complexity of the questions.
Advice from a L3er…the Schweser volume 2 was much more difficult than the actual exam. I took an exam a week prior to the real thing and got in the 50’s…score above 70% on all but 2 sections on the real thing.
If it’s hard, it’s absolutely worth it. As an L2 repeater, I can say that I would have benefited from more exposure to more complex item sets and vignettes prior to the exam. Book 1 was not as difficult as the exam, IMO.
I been doing the S Vol 2 exam book first. Figure I do the hard book first to learn then go back to the Vol 1 book when the actual test is closer, then use Q-bank to target. Got 1- 53% am, 60% pm, 2- 67% am so far. My guessing must be getting better. However, I think it’s better practice then the Q-bank in terms of structure and as a test simulation plus going back to read the answers explained helps me learn some tricky concepts.
I also like that you can check your answers online and see how everyone else did as a gauge of difficulty. My two cents.