what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

bakemono
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 3:54 am

what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby bakemono » Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:22 pm

Maybe it's just me, but i do feel that it was a fairly easy test. Was there a particular reason why the -14 was warranted? Is this is a paradigm shift from LSAC itself to somehow produce higher numbers?

What does it say about the Feb. curve?

Obviously, anything we can say is speculation at best, but this doesn't seem to have been discussed all that often, or rather, i've been out of the TLS loop lately, so it would be great if anybody could fill me in.

User avatar
Sauer Grapes
Posts: 1222
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:02 am

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby Sauer Grapes » Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:25 pm

....
Last edited by Sauer Grapes on Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jonas586
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:21 am

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby jonas586 » Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:26 pm

LSAC got bored and wanted to wreak serious havoc on people's cycle.

bakemono
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 3:54 am

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby bakemono » Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:39 pm

Sauer Grapes wrote:How did you do on the December test?

It's -14 because it was comparatively more difficult than the average test.


-7. wasn't that like a 175 or something... i think i've only broken 175 three times taking virtually all of the PT's.

LG (-1): my worst section usually. It had 3 basic linears and a grouping game, nothing untraditional. Just made a mistake on one question in game 1 i believe.

LR (-4): -2 on each section. The first LR section was extremely easy, and the 2nd one was much tougher especially towards the end, but still not "very hard" compared to other LSAT's. QWERTY got me, as did the question right after that one about legal obligation.

RC (-3): usually my best section. nothing particularly remarkable. It's just challenging but that describes the easiest sections of just about every RC section from PT 50 onward.

I didn't cheat. As in.. i didn't stop the clock for bathroom breaks, snack breaks, etc... i ovaled in. Basically, i just did everything i could to simulate real test situations. I'm just confounded by the reaction of the TLS community. My other friends who are done with LSAT's now took it after hearing about the -14, and we're all pretty much in agreement that this test did not deserve the -14... if nothing else if we're going to talk about correlation between difficulty and the curve, we might've pegged this as one of the few cases of a -9.

PT 57 was a TOUGH test. Each section was certifiably hard... each section from PT 57 is MUCH harder than each section from the dec. test without too much debate i'd imagine, and even PT 57 only got a -11.

I thought it was pretty obvious how relatively easy 59 was after seeing the score reaction threads. Within the first 3-4 pages, a good portion (about half) reported higher scores, but the more important thing is that they experienced like... 5-6+ point increases.

I dunno... i'm almost thinking that it may have to do with the type of test taker. Like if you're only in the 150 level, you wouldn't know the diff, but higher 160 level people would experience a significant boost.

Sorry if i was rude to anybody... i thought 59 was a straight-up joke without even mentioning a -14 curve. Admittedly, i'm a bit bitter, cause i took the much harder Asian Dec. LSAT, and i can almost assure you that it didn't have a -14 curve.

I'm extremely curious, cause i took the Feb. LSAT, and i'm wondering if i could perhaps enjoy a better than average curve (-10 to -11). I really need a 170+ with my pathetic GPA and even a -12 would almost assure me a 170... i think anyway.

User avatar
Sauer Grapes
Posts: 1222
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:02 am

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby Sauer Grapes » Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:44 pm

....
Last edited by Sauer Grapes on Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jks289
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby jks289 » Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:44 pm

I had the same thought. December seemed really easy, and I scored a 175. If I end up bombing the Feb test I will kick myself forever for not just taking December. Let's hope this is a new curve trend!

bakemono
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 3:54 am

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby bakemono » Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:49 pm

jks289 wrote:I had the same thought. December seemed really easy, and I scored a 175. If I end up bombing the Feb test I will kick myself forever for not just taking December. Let's hope this is a new curve trend!


i took the Dec. test in Asia, and the LG brutally raped me... like a -8 i imagine. I think i did enough to pull off a 170 in the Feb. test, but either way i'm kicking myself for not taking it back in the states, plane tickets and all. Even with a 170(1), a 174(5) would've changed my entire cycle.

ddelmar
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby ddelmar » Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:56 pm

Newsflash: A test appearing easier to one person in no way proves that it in fact was......

Obviously there was a reason for -14 curve, and the curve was pre-determined, so even the test makers felt it was harder.

I scored a 171 on the December test, and that was right in line with my PT average, even a couple points lower.

Sorry you got screwed on a harder test (if that's true). But your feeling the December test was easy doesn't mean it was for everybody (it certainly wasn't for me).

User avatar
TTTennis
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:12 pm

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby TTTennis » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:00 am

jks289 wrote:I had the same thought. December seemed really easy, and I scored a 175. If I end up bombing the Feb test I will kick myself forever for not just taking December. Let's hope this is a new curve trend!


You did a retake after scoring 175? I hate people like you. Not really, I just envy people like you. :twisted:

User avatar
stratocophic
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby stratocophic » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:04 am

jks289 wrote:I had the same thought. December seemed really easy, and I scored a 175. If I end up bombing the Feb test I will kick myself forever for not just taking December. Let's hope this is a new curve trend!


Twins (minus retake). I wanted to fist pump during the break.

dovetail
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:05 pm

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby dovetail » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:18 am

bakemono wrote:Maybe it's just me, but i do feel that it was a fairly easy test. Was there a particular reason why the -14 was warranted? Is this is a paradigm shift from LSAC itself to somehow produce higher numbers?

What does it say about the Feb. curve?

Obviously, anything we can say is speculation at best, but this doesn't seem to have been discussed all that often, or rather, i've been out of the TLS loop lately, so it would be great if anybody could fill me in.


A more forgiving curve doesn't produce any higher numbers than any other test. The curve just serves to scale the actual scores to their predetermined percentiles.

Basically, there are always the same percentage of 180's, 170's, 168's, etc. If the average test taker's score on a given test is lower than usual, the curve corrects that.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby 09042014 » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:23 am

dovetail wrote:
bakemono wrote:Maybe it's just me, but i do feel that it was a fairly easy test. Was there a particular reason why the -14 was warranted? Is this is a paradigm shift from LSAC itself to somehow produce higher numbers?

What does it say about the Feb. curve?

Obviously, anything we can say is speculation at best, but this doesn't seem to have been discussed all that often, or rather, i've been out of the TLS loop lately, so it would be great if anybody could fill me in.


A more forgiving curve doesn't produce any higher numbers than any other test. The curve just serves to scale the actual scores to their predetermined percentiles.

Basically, there are always the same percentage of 180's, 170's, 168's, etc. If the average test taker's score on a given test is lower than usual, the curve corrects that.


That is not true. The tests are curved so a 170 is as hard as a 170 on every other test ever given. At least that is the goal.

User avatar
agentdedalus
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:24 pm

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby agentdedalus » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:26 am

equating. touche.
Last edited by agentdedalus on Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

dovetail
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:05 pm

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby dovetail » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:31 am

Some people thought the Dec. 09 curve was more forgiving than usual because some many people are looking to avoid the job market ITE by going to law school. The thinking goes that if more average joes are tackling the LSAT, then we get a bump in the 150~ range, and therefore LSAC needs to bump more people up on the higher end as well.

For example (and these numbers are totally made-up):

If in a normal year you have 15,000 people with 150's and 400 people with 175's,

and in December 09 you had 20,000 people with 150's and still just 400 people who would have normally earned 175's (since we assume that the bump is coming from the increase in median-range scorers)...

that results in a bunch of people who would have normally earned 174's getting bumped up to 175.

dovetail
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:05 pm

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby dovetail » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:34 am

Desert Fox wrote:
dovetail wrote:
bakemono wrote:Maybe it's just me, but i do feel that it was a fairly easy test. Was there a particular reason why the -14 was warranted? Is this is a paradigm shift from LSAC itself to somehow produce higher numbers?

What does it say about the Feb. curve?

Obviously, anything we can say is speculation at best, but this doesn't seem to have been discussed all that often, or rather, i've been out of the TLS loop lately, so it would be great if anybody could fill me in.


A more forgiving curve doesn't produce any higher numbers than any other test. The curve just serves to scale the actual scores to their predetermined percentiles.

Basically, there are always the same percentage of 180's, 170's, 168's, etc. If the average test taker's score on a given test is lower than usual, the curve corrects that.


That is not true. The tests are curved so a 170 is as hard as a 170 on every other test ever given. At least that is the goal.


It is true. If a given test is harder (to the point that everyone misses an average of 2 points more than usual), the curve corrects it by two points. This is the exact principle that ensures that a 170 on one test is as hard as a 170 on every other test.

User avatar
TTTennis
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:12 pm

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby TTTennis » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:37 am

dovetail wrote:Some people thought the Dec. 09 curve was more forgiving than usual because some many people are looking to avoid the job market ITE by going to law school. The thinking goes that if more average joes are tackling the LSAT, then we get a bump in the 150~ range, and therefore LSAC needs to bump more people up on the higher end as well.

For example (and these numbers are totally made-up):

If in a normal year you have 15,000 people with 150's and 400 people with 175's,

and in December 09 you had 20,000 people with 150's and still just 400 people who would have normally earned 175's (since we assume that the bump is coming from the increase in median-range scorers)...

that results in a bunch of people who would have normally earned 174's getting bumped up to 175.


I'm not buying into this logic. If more people were looking to enter law school as a means to escape the situation of the economy, why would all these people take the Dec. test? It's not like the situation with the economy hit us in November. The economy has sucked for a while now, so everyone looking to attend law school would likely take the June and September tests as well. However, neither of those tests saw a -14 curve.

User avatar
stratocophic
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby stratocophic » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:40 am

cdd_04 wrote:
dovetail wrote:Some people thought the Dec. 09 curve was more forgiving than usual because some many people are looking to avoid the job market ITE by going to law school. The thinking goes that if more average joes are tackling the LSAT, then we get a bump in the 150~ range, and therefore LSAC needs to bump more people up on the higher end as well.

For example (and these numbers are totally made-up):

If in a normal year you have 15,000 people with 150's and 400 people with 175's,

and in December 09 you had 20,000 people with 150's and still just 400 people who would have normally earned 175's (since we assume that the bump is coming from the increase in median-range scorers)...

that results in a bunch of people who would have normally earned 174's getting bumped up to 175.


I'm not buying into this logic. If more people were looking to enter law school as a means to escape the situation of the economy, why would all these people take the Dec. test? It's not like the situation with the economy hit us in November. The economy has sucked for a while now, so everyone looking to attend law school would likely take the June and September tests as well. However, neither of those tests saw a -14 curve.


Doesn't LSAC set the curve before the test is ever scored?

dovetail
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:05 pm

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby dovetail » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:44 am

cdd_04 wrote:
dovetail wrote:Some people thought the Dec. 09 curve was more forgiving than usual because some many people are looking to avoid the job market ITE by going to law school. The thinking goes that if more average joes are tackling the LSAT, then we get a bump in the 150~ range, and therefore LSAC needs to bump more people up on the higher end as well.

For example (and these numbers are totally made-up):

If in a normal year you have 15,000 people with 150's and 400 people with 175's,

and in December 09 you had 20,000 people with 150's and still just 400 people who would have normally earned 175's (since we assume that the bump is coming from the increase in median-range scorers)...

that results in a bunch of people who would have normally earned 174's getting bumped up to 175.


I'm not buying into this logic. If more people were looking to enter law school as a means to escape the situation of the economy, why would all these people take the Dec. test? It's not like the situation with the economy hit us in November. The economy has sucked for a while now, so everyone looking to attend law school would likely take the June and September tests as well. However, neither of those tests saw a -14 curve.


I'm more of a fan of the "Dec. 09 was harder than usual" argument. I just threw this in as an alternate explanation, since the OP didn't feel like it was any harder.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby 09042014 » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:45 am

dovetail wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
dovetail wrote:
A more forgiving curve doesn't produce any higher numbers than any other test. The curve just serves to scale the actual scores to their predetermined percentiles.

Basically, there are always the same percentage of 180's, 170's, 168's, etc. If the average test taker's score on a given test is lower than usual, the curve corrects that.


That is not true. The tests are curved so a 170 is as hard as a 170 on every other test ever given. At least that is the goal.


It is true. If a given test is harder (to the point that everyone misses an average of 2 points more than usual), the curve corrects it by two points. This is the exact principle that ensures that a 170 on one test is as hard as a 170 on every other test.


Sorry you are wrong. Look up the term equating. Also notice the percentile of 170 has changed by 1% since they instituted no averaging retakes.

The scale of the lsat was already known before you ever took it. That is the entire point of experimental sections. They run statistics on the questions to gauge difficultly of the section.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby 09042014 » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:46 am

stratocophic wrote:
cdd_04 wrote:
dovetail wrote:Some people thought the Dec. 09 curve was more forgiving than usual because some many people are looking to avoid the job market ITE by going to law school. The thinking goes that if more average joes are tackling the LSAT, then we get a bump in the 150~ range, and therefore LSAC needs to bump more people up on the higher end as well.

For example (and these numbers are totally made-up):

If in a normal year you have 15,000 people with 150's and 400 people with 175's,

and in December 09 you had 20,000 people with 150's and still just 400 people who would have normally earned 175's (since we assume that the bump is coming from the increase in median-range scorers)...

that results in a bunch of people who would have normally earned 174's getting bumped up to 175.


I'm not buying into this logic. If more people were looking to enter law school as a means to escape the situation of the economy, why would all these people take the Dec. test? It's not like the situation with the economy hit us in November. The economy has sucked for a while now, so everyone looking to attend law school would likely take the June and September tests as well. However, neither of those tests saw a -14 curve.


Doesn't LSAC set the curve before the test is ever scored?


Yes.

dovetail
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:05 pm

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby dovetail » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:51 am

But just for conversation's sake, ITE panickers probably wouldn't have had the foresight to take it all the way back in June 2009 if they weren't graduating until Spring 2010. They could conceivably have only gotten serious about law school in September, once the new school year had started. And then they probably wouldn't have wanted to take it without any preparation, and therefore delayed until December.

User avatar
TTTennis
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:12 pm

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby TTTennis » Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:05 am

Desert Fox wrote:
stratocophic wrote:
cdd_04 wrote:
dovetail wrote:Some people thought the Dec. 09 curve was more forgiving than usual because some many people are looking to avoid the job market ITE by going to law school. The thinking goes that if more average joes are tackling the LSAT, then we get a bump in the 150~ range, and therefore LSAC needs to bump more people up on the higher end as well.

For example (and these numbers are totally made-up):

If in a normal year you have 15,000 people with 150's and 400 people with 175's,

and in December 09 you had 20,000 people with 150's and still just 400 people who would have normally earned 175's (since we assume that the bump is coming from the increase in median-range scorers)...

that results in a bunch of people who would have normally earned 174's getting bumped up to 175.


I'm not buying into this logic. If more people were looking to enter law school as a means to escape the situation of the economy, why would all these people take the Dec. test? It's not like the situation with the economy hit us in November. The economy has sucked for a while now, so everyone looking to attend law school would likely take the June and September tests as well. However, neither of those tests saw a -14 curve.


Doesn't LSAC set the curve before the test is ever scored?


Yes.


This can't be right.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby 09042014 » Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:08 am

cdd_04 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
stratocophic wrote:
cdd_04 wrote:
I'm not buying into this logic. If more people were looking to enter law school as a means to escape the situation of the economy, why would all these people take the Dec. test? It's not like the situation with the economy hit us in November. The economy has sucked for a while now, so everyone looking to attend law school would likely take the June and September tests as well. However, neither of those tests saw a -14 curve.


Doesn't LSAC set the curve before the test is ever scored?


Yes.


This can't be right.


Why can't it be. Because it is.

User avatar
stratocophic
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby stratocophic » Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:10 am

cdd_04 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
stratocophic wrote:
cdd_04 wrote:
I'm not buying into this logic. If more people were looking to enter law school as a means to escape the situation of the economy, why would all these people take the Dec. test? It's not like the situation with the economy hit us in November. The economy has sucked for a while now, so everyone looking to attend law school would likely take the June and September tests as well. However, neither of those tests saw a -14 curve.


Doesn't LSAC set the curve before the test is ever scored?


Yes.


This can't be right.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_School_Admission_Test

Control-F "equating", /thread.

ShiftyOne
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:43 pm

Re: what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test?

Postby ShiftyOne » Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:18 am

cdd_04 wrote:
dovetail wrote:Some people thought the Dec. 09 curve was more forgiving than usual because some many people are looking to avoid the job market ITE by going to law school. The thinking goes that if more average joes are tackling the LSAT, then we get a bump in the 150~ range, and therefore LSAC needs to bump more people up on the higher end as well.

For example (and these numbers are totally made-up):

If in a normal year you have 15,000 people with 150's and 400 people with 175's,

and in December 09 you had 20,000 people with 150's and still just 400 people who would have normally earned 175's (since we assume that the bump is coming from the increase in median-range scorers)...

that results in a bunch of people who would have normally earned 174's getting bumped up to 175.


I'm not buying into this logic. If more people were looking to enter law school as a means to escape the situation of the economy, why would all these people take the Dec. test? It's not like the situation with the economy hit us in November. The economy has sucked for a while now, so everyone looking to attend law school would likely take the June and September tests as well. However, neither of those tests saw a -14 curve.



Most people knew it sucked, but unless they had an internship that offered them a full time position, most people don't start looking for jobs until senior year. So once you start looking in the fall and realize you wont have anything, it is october/november. Just in time to sign up for the lsat. Although I don't agree that thats the reason for the huge curve, games and rc were more difficult than usual.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest