Talk to me...3.3 GPA, Sept-163, Dec-170, Feb -Retake? Forum

[Ragged]

OP: Apply this cycle with your current score. If doesn't work out the way you want it, take a year off over which you can study like a mad man, retake and reapply.


On the curve subject: is there an official LSAC policy on this or is everyone just speculating?

[Sourpunch]

They're all assholes who speculate and then bitch when someone else, including a credible source such as an LSAT prep instructor, presents an alternative theory.

[09042014]

They're all assholes who speculate and then bitch when someone else, including a credible source such as an LSAT prep instructor, presents an alternative theory.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/er ... /72/0f.pdf

There is a mini-summary on equating on page 9 in the intro.

[Sourpunch]

^ Good source. Still, it doesn't discount the idea that LSAC might also consider number of test takers + low scores as a reason to also adjust the curve.

[09042014]

^ Good source. Still, it doesn't discount the idea that LSAC might also consider number of test takers + low scores as a reason to also adjust the curve.

Yes it does. That would defeat the entire purpose of equating.

[vanwinkle]

^ Good source. Still, it doesn't discount the idea that LSAC might also consider number of test takers + low scores as a reason to also adjust the curve.

It appears that the way they take it into consideration is through adjustments on future tests using questions of similar difficulty. The curve still appears to be predetermined and kept that way. LSAC considers it important to make sure the test scores remain relevant across multiple tests, so even if more people take and fail, they still want similar results to previous tests so your 170 correlates properly to last year's 170.

[Sourpunch]

^ That is what I'm arguing though. That perhaps they realized that giving it a -12 curve, for example, might lead to let's say a 5% decline in 165+ers, and decided to remedy that with an adjustment to the curve. That would not defeat the purpose of equating.

[09042014]

^ That is what I'm arguing though. That perhaps they realized that giving it a -12 curve, for example, might lead to let's say a 5% decline in 165+ers, and decided to remedy that with an adjustment to the curve. That would not defeat the purpose of equating.

Yes it would. LSAC wants a 165 to equal a 165 all the time. That is the goal. Adding points defeats that.

[vanwinkle]

^ That is what I'm arguing though. That perhaps they realized that giving it a -12 curve, for example, might lead to let's say a 5% decline in 165+ers, and decided to remedy that with an adjustment to the curve. That would not defeat the purpose of equating.

No, you're arguing the opposite. If they believe that a -14 curve is what a 165 on this test equal to a 165 on prior tests, they'll leave it at a -14 curve, whether that means fewer people get 165s on this test than normal or not. You're arguing that they should change the curve to accomodate the actual results from test-takers, even if that means more people get 165s despite the difficulty of the test and a 165 was thus "easier" to get and worth less than a 165 on a prior test.

[Ragged]

I was under impression that LSAT was structured in a way that 172 is always the 99th percentile and so on. If that's true then it would seem logical that the less prepared (intelligent etc.) the test takers are the easier it is to be in the top 1,2,3,10 percent the easier it is to get that 172 or that 160. The study Desert Fox provided doesn't seem to discount that.

So the -14 curve might be explained by two factors: either the test was really more difficult or more unprepared people took it or both.

Oh and also I don't think they made the curve more generous just because they were more test takers, at least I hope not cuz that would be total bs.

[aether]

I was under impression that LSAT was structured in a way that 172 is always the 99th percentile and so on.

No. That's a curve. Whenever you allow a fixed percentage of the test-takers to get 'A's (or 172s, or "excellents", or whatever) then you're grading on a curve.

Equating means that people who get 'A's this year are roughly as good as the people who got 'A's last year. If a particular pool of test-takers are more skilled, you'll get a higher percentage of 'A's. If they're less skilled, you'll get fewer 'A's.

To put it another way: if you give the LSAT to ten thousand four-year-olds, the 99th percentile will be below 150.

(Assuming, of course, that we are all smarter than four-year-olds... )

[Ragged]

I was under impression that LSAT was structured in a way that 172 is always the 99th percentile and so on.

No. That's a curve. Whenever you allow a fixed percentage of the test-takers to get 'A's (or 172s, or "excellents", or whatever) then you're grading on a curve.

Equating means that people who get 'A's this year are roughly as good as the people who got 'A's last year. If a particular pool of test-takers are more skilled, you'll get a higher percentage of 'A's. If they're less skilled, you'll get fewer 'A's.

To put it another way: if you give the LSAT to ten thousand four-year-olds, the 99th percentile will be below 150.

(Assuming, of course, that we are all smarter than four-year-olds... )

Ah, ok. Can you exaplin how equating works? Does it have to do with experimental secation?