Prior to the Dec test, does anyone know of the most recent exam to feature a -14 in the conversion table? I think I remember seeing a -16 pt from back in the '90s during my practice. Just curious. Thanks.

The -14 was a fucking MIRACLE. I really believe that this is some sort of miracle that happened. I would have gotten a 165 on this exam had it not been for this outstanding miracle. Thank you LSAC for helping people cope with the recession by easing our path into law school!!!

do you not understand what a curve is?

Post subject: Re: the -14 Reply with quote
The -14 was a fucking MIRACLE. I really believe that this is some sort of miracle that happened. I would have gotten a 165 on this exam had it not been for this outstanding miracle. Thank you LSAC for helping people cope with the recession by easing our path into law school!!!

Miracle, indeed. I actually scored 1 point higher than my highest pt score. Go figure. I am very grateful.

Very few people here seem to. The only difference a "loose" curve makes is a decrease in how much luck is a factor (meaning it should be HARDER not easier for someone to get lucky and get a higher score than they normally would).

Interesting - does the -9 I made in September convert to a 174-75 or something from December?

Usually curves normalize, but there are 2 ways a curve like this can actually help, 1) If it is because of lot of out of work people with little prep flooded the test, and so to get the top 1% of this larger/less qualified pool, they gave more leeway at the top, so more of the better prepared made top 1% than usually would; 2) you are like me and your main issue is occasional carelessness - people who get things wrong because they are tricked by questions, etc., the curve doesn't make a difference. But if you are the type that tends to misbubble one or two or once or twice an exam do something flubby, a lose curve is nicer to you, since with a -8=170 your couple of usual clerical mistakes are a big deal, and at -14 they are almost non-existent.

No because your test was easier. LSAC tries its hardest to make sure a 172 = 172 on every test ever given. Of course that's possible but they are damn good at it.

That's not how it works. The test is equated not curved. If more peopletook it unprepared the curve doesn't change, just percentage of people who get high scores goes down.

I wish I knew how the curve affected my score. Or didn't. But I don't know BECAUSE THE LSAC ARE EVIL AND CLEARLY OUT TO GET ME AND DRIVE ME TOTALLY INSANE.

LSAC: It's working. You've driven me stark raving mad. I've lost my fucking mind. Please give me my score now.

It's one possible way, along with mound of pleasure, or tasty cake, or chimichanga, to describe parts of a female's body, right?

Seriously though, I think a lot of people--myself included at one point--believe that even though your score might be a little better because, for whatever reason, the curve was more generous, schools will judge you harshly if they see that instead of getting -9 or -10 to get a 170 (or whatever example you wish to use), they got a 170 with a-14. In other words, the schools will look at their scores as a little less valid, even though the whole point of the test being constructed the way that it is is to ensure that the scores are basically equal from test to test.

ive seen ur posts and havent said anything but man im sorry dude...i like wanna give u a hug

No they won't. Its the same.

Give me a fucking break already. Yes, I know how it works. Yet without this curve I wouldn't have a 169 right now. Suck it bitch.

TCR is no you don't.

haha - thanks i just keep telling myself that they're triple checking my 180.

I don't give a damn what anyone says about it "being curved, and therefore is the same as every other test" for certain test takers the curve DOES matter. I consistently do no miss more than a set number of questions on the LSAT. I'm always within a certain range in terms of what I miss. Consequently, I do better on the tests with the easier curves--period.

Do you not understand how a curve works?

Just kidding.

Do you get the hard ones correct and make silly mistakes? Because in that case the curve does make or break you.

You are clueless.

i consistently missed 9-10 questions on PT's and this gives me an avg score of 171-172

This test was a little harder i think, hence i missed 12 and hit my average of 171

so if the curve was tighter, i probably wouldn't have missed 12 and if it was looser i probably would have missed more...

thats how a curve works

DING DING DING.

We have a winner.

Why am I clueless? I certainly don't believe it.

I never said it's a rational way to think, only that I suspect a lot of people make themselves believe things that aren't true, like this, because they get so paranoid about the process. Do you have some sort of claim the contrary about the way people think? It was just a suggestion, and if you have a better one, trust me, I'm ready to hear it.

Once again, I didn't say I believe it, although I sort of came up with some sort of illogical thought along the same lines before realizing how silly it was. I simply suggested a lot of people believe something irrational about the curve because the process is making them a little nuts.

Yes. Some people have a greater or weaker correlation in their raw score to test difficulty relationship than the average test-taker.