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

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 » Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:29 am

stratocophic wrote:
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.


No, no. I meant 175 on a timed PRACTICE test of December. I decided to wait for February to give myself some time. But I will hate my life if the February test ended up being much harder. December seemed so easy, I wish i had just taken it.

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 1:32 am

jks289 wrote:
stratocophic wrote:
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.


No, no. I meant 175 on a timed PRACTICE test of December. I decided to wait for February to give myself some time. But I will hate my life if the February test ended up being much harder. December seemed so easy, I wish i had just taken it.


Well, you're in good company with the 175 either way. I did wonder why someone would retake with that score, but then I'm not exactly looking at Harvard or Yale :wink:

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 1:39 am

stratocophic wrote:
cdd_04 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
stratocophic wrote:
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.


And so, I'm very, very wrong.

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 1:57 am

cdd_04 wrote:
And so, I'm very, very wrong.


Oh man, me too. I guess that's what I get for believing hearsay.

Kobe_Teeth
Posts: 964
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:40 am

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

Postby Kobe_Teeth » Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:10 am

The first LR (i think it was the first) screwed some scores. I remember that morning a lot of people going -0, -6, -1, -3 (or something similar). And, I know that first LR was way below my average as well.

And it wasn't impossible, it was sneaky tough like the September LR's (see Bears and Wigs). A lot of questions that don't seem tough in a PT can make you second guess on test day.

There was also 1 tricky game (flights).

A lot of people will whine about the statue passage in RC but I only went -1 on that passage. Didn't think it was that tough.

I guess now that I've written this, it was a test that had at least one significant trap in each section. If you suck at games, there was a game that was going to be rough. If you suck at RC, there's a passage to rattle you. If you get thrown off by tricky LR's, its got 'em. There was something for everyone on this test, whereas other recent tests usually give ya a break on at least 1 section. (See September 09 games).

UTexas
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 10:20 pm

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

Postby UTexas » Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:05 am

Scored a 178 on the December test after prepping for several weeks at 177-180. I thought it was one of the hardest LSATs I had ever taken, and harder than any test since at least 2002. I thought the June 2009 LR and RC were a complete and utter joke in comparison to December. I finished both LRs in June in under 27 minutes at -0, the RC in 32 minutes at -0, and the LG at -1.

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

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

Postby keg411 » Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:39 pm

I took Dec09 as a PT and I agree that it was one of the hardest LSAT's. Far harder than June09 (PT 57). The LR was very similar to Sept09 (PT58), except there were more tough questions. The tough LR prompted the -14.

My caveat is that both LG and RC on Dec 09 were both easier than LG and RC on 57 and 58. But the LR was so significantly harder that it made the difference. As a PT, I got a 165 on PT59. Since then I've taken 2 PT's and have gotten a 170 on PT52 and a 171 on PT51. There really is a difference.

dynomite
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 6:58 pm

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

Postby dynomite » Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:48 pm

keg411 wrote:But the LR was so significantly harder that it made the difference.


+1

I got a 172 on PT 59 (though I did take it after a 9-hour workday, which wasn't the best idea) but was surprised by how high the scaled score turned out to be -- I only got 89 credited responses (I think?).

Some of those LR questions in particular were very tricky, requiring a number of re-reads, and that RC passage was dense. (I will say that reading the questions ahead of time on RC helped me there -- I knew what I was looking for and was able to ignore the rest)

Overall, I found the Feb test to be slightly easier.

Flanker1067
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:47 pm

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

Postby Flanker1067 » Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:49 pm

Anyone arguing against equating is retarded and this thread doesn't make sense. -14 was prompted because it was a harder test, not because LSAC decided to change things up. As for the other, economy dragging in lots of average joe's argument, that doesn't make sense either. The economy effects smart people as much as as anyone else, as the number of great jobs goes down as well. Maybe you aren't forced into unemployment, but who wants to be underemployed anyways. I decided on law school for this reason, I have a job but I don't feel that its what I want, therefore I took the LSAT and did pretty well. I am certainly not "helping" anyone.

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 2:54 pm

Flanker1067 wrote:Anyone arguing against equating is retarded and this thread doesn't make sense. -14 was prompted because it was a harder test, not because LSAC decided to change things up. As for the other, economy dragging in lots of average joe's argument, that doesn't make sense either. The economy effects smart people as much as as anyone else, as the number of great jobs goes down as well. Maybe you aren't forced into unemployment, but who wants to be underemployed anyways. I decided on law school for this reason, I have a job but I don't feel that its what I want, therefore I took the LSAT and did pretty well. I am certainly not "helping" anyone.


No one was arguing against equating. I simply did not know about the process and did not know the curve was pre-determined. Once I saw the link I realized it was.

I'm glad you were able to vent on here though. Isn't tls a wonderful place? :D

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

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

Postby Ragged » Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:57 pm

How do they curve it before the test is administered? How do they decide if a particular section is tougher than the other, without having a bunch of people take it first? And then, how much tougher?

Flanker1067
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:47 pm

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

Postby Flanker1067 » Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:58 pm

cdd_04 wrote:
Flanker1067 wrote:Anyone arguing against equating is retarded and this thread doesn't make sense. -14 was prompted because it was a harder test, not because LSAC decided to change things up. As for the other, economy dragging in lots of average joe's argument, that doesn't make sense either. The economy effects smart people as much as as anyone else, as the number of great jobs goes down as well. Maybe you aren't forced into unemployment, but who wants to be underemployed anyways. I decided on law school for this reason, I have a job but I don't feel that its what I want, therefore I took the LSAT and did pretty well. I am certainly not "helping" anyone.


No one was arguing against equating. I simply did not know about the process and did not know the curve was pre-determined. Once I saw the link I realized it was.

I'm glad you were able to vent on here though. Isn't tls a wonderful place? :D



Ok, I am sorry, it is just that this gets covered so much on this site and it is quite simple. I apologize if you have not seen it before.

Flanker1067
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:47 pm

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

Postby Flanker1067 » Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:59 pm

Ragged wrote:How do they curve it before the test is administered? How do they decide if a particular section is tougher than the other, without having a bunch of people take it first? And then, how much tougher?



They do, that is why there is a practice section on the 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 3:01 pm

Ragged wrote:How do they curve it before the test is administered? How do they decide if a particular section is tougher than the other, without having a bunch of people take it first? And then, how much tougher?


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

This

Click on "equating" to read about the process.

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 3:04 pm

Flanker1067 wrote:
cdd_04 wrote:
Flanker1067 wrote:Anyone arguing against equating is retarded and this thread doesn't make sense. -14 was prompted because it was a harder test, not because LSAC decided to change things up. As for the other, economy dragging in lots of average joe's argument, that doesn't make sense either. The economy effects smart people as much as as anyone else, as the number of great jobs goes down as well. Maybe you aren't forced into unemployment, but who wants to be underemployed anyways. I decided on law school for this reason, I have a job but I don't feel that its what I want, therefore I took the LSAT and did pretty well. I am certainly not "helping" anyone.


No one was arguing against equating. I simply did not know about the process and did not know the curve was pre-determined. Once I saw the link I realized it was.

I'm glad you were able to vent on here though. Isn't tls a wonderful place? :D



Ok, I am sorry, it is just that this gets covered so much on this site and it is quite simple. I apologize if you have not seen it before.


Not a problem! Personally, I enjoyed you calling me a retard. It almost made me want to argue. Then I realized I was retarded for pretending like I knew how the test curve was determined. :D

JasonR
Posts: 421
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 9:09 am

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

Postby JasonR » Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:04 am

Dec 09 was substantially harder than usual. The -14 curve reflects that.

User avatar
goosey
Posts: 1543
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:48 pm

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

Postby goosey » Sat Feb 13, 2010 1:21 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.

It actually makes perfect sense because the curve is determined by the previous 8 administrations, so for a while, we were in the same pool as pre-recession testers--its is very possible that december is the test when the huge influx of unprepared testers finally pushed the curve up. Both june and sept tests had a much higher turnout than usual, so no, its not dependent on more testers in december alone, rather the numbers having increased so much over the past 8 administrations. I think feb will either have the same curve or worst case -12

Big Dog
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:34 pm

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

Postby Big Dog » Sat Feb 13, 2010 1:33 am

How do they curve it before the test is administered? How do they decide if a particular section is tougher than the other, without having a bunch of people take it first? And then, how much tougher?


That's what the experimental section is for...new questions get answered by thousands of people every few months. In addition to testing the "hardness" of a question, the test writers can also check for racial, gender, regional and other inbalances. This is the same process used by CollegeBoard for the SAT, btw.

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

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

Postby Ragged » Sat Feb 13, 2010 1:34 am

Big Dog wrote:
How do they curve it before the test is administered? How do they decide if a particular section is tougher than the other, without having a bunch of people take it first? And then, how much tougher?


That's what the experimental section is for...new questions get answered by thousands of people every few months. In addition to testing the "hardness" of a question, the test writers can also check for racial, gender, regional and other inbalances. This is the same process used by CollegeBoard for the SAT, btw.


Ah, that makes perpect sense. Sorta thought ES was the way.

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

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

Postby bakemono » Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:46 am

i'm aware of all your arguments, and then some. I just simply can't remove myself from how easy this test is (from my p.o.v. of course). I still think it's a joke, and I can't imagine anyone getting 170+'s regularly in PT's not agreeing with me. I know some people here have already commented on how hard this test was... like... this test was the hardest in recent history.... someone said? Are you on crack? There were about 5 hard questions in LR both sections combined, the LG had 3 basic linear.. how f'n hard could a basic linear be? And the other game was a standard grouping game. There was nothing experimental about it a la PT 55 game 4, zephyr game, clan game, snakes, birds (cage/exhibition), etc.... The basic linears weren't even in the area of difficulty as a June 2007 Game 3, the one about the cruise ships (?). The RC was just ok, but it's no Willa Cather, basins of attraction, etc...

Obviously i'm gonna get a lot of flak for this, and i accept that my argument holds little ground from a logical perspective, but I've taken every PT in existence, and I don't understand how people can even compare this to 55,57,50,51 let alone being the "hardest test in recent memory."

That's kinda why i thought this might be some sort of a pattern, and wanted to ask some of you less statistically challenged to perhaps offer some theories. Whatever.........


Seriously, would you like to go through each section question by question and determine the difficulty of the test? It's personal perspective of course, but it's easy enough to the point that I really think it's objectively well... "easy."

It's kinda like this. I took PT 57 and got a 173 scaled, but it was a harrowing exp. that other TLS'ers/friends that took the test with me could attest to, cause one was analyzing how i approached the test. I only had 5 minutes left for the last passage (fractal geometry) and somehow managed to get a -0 on it. I couldn't finish the LG, and the LR was pretty f'n hard too. My point is... even when i get a great score, i could still tell if the test was easy/hard. Is there even a single section from PT 59 that was harder than 57? Seriously, name one?

My theory was pretty similar to goosey's actually.

februaryftw
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:01 pm

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

Postby februaryftw » Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:24 am

bakemono wrote:i'm aware of all your arguments, and then some. I just simply can't remove myself from how easy this test is (from my p.o.v. of course). I still think it's a joke, and I can't imagine anyone getting 170+'s regularly in PT's not agreeing with me. I know some people here have already commented on how hard this test was... like... this test was the hardest in recent history.... someone said? Are you on crack? There were about 5 hard questions in LR both sections combined, the LG had 3 basic linear.. how f'n hard could a basic linear be? And the other game was a standard grouping game. There was nothing experimental about it a la PT 55 game 4, zephyr game, clan game, snakes, birds (cage/exhibition), etc.... The basic linears weren't even in the area of difficulty as a June 2007 Game 3, the one about the cruise ships (?). The RC was just ok, but it's no Willa Cather, basins of attraction, etc...

Obviously i'm gonna get a lot of flak for this, and i accept that my argument holds little ground from a logical perspective, but I've taken every PT in existence, and I don't understand how people can even compare this to 55,57,50,51 let alone being the "hardest test in recent memory."

That's kinda why i thought this might be some sort of a pattern, and wanted to ask some of you less statistically challenged to perhaps offer some theories. Whatever.........


Seriously, would you like to go through each section question by question and determine the difficulty of the test? It's personal perspective of course, but it's easy enough to the point that I really think it's objectively well... "easy."

It's kinda like this. I took PT 57 and got a 173 scaled, but it was a harrowing exp. that other TLS'ers/friends that took the test with me could attest to, cause one was analyzing how i approached the test. I only had 5 minutes left for the last passage (fractal geometry) and somehow managed to get a -0 on it. I couldn't finish the LG, and the LR was pretty f'n hard too. My point is... even when i get a great score, i could still tell if the test was easy/hard. Is there even a single section from PT 59 that was harder than 57? Seriously, name one?

My theory was pretty similar to goosey's actually.


This isn't worth much, but I also found the test to be easy to normal, as compared to the other recent PTs I took in equivalent testing conditions (I've also taken 40+ tests). My raw score was better on PT 59 than a number of other recent exams. The RC was nowhere near as hard for me as a number of other tests. The games were pretty simple. I knew the curve going in, but I probably would have guessed a -11 if I had taken the exam. The LR had one or two more difficult questions, but I certainly thought it would be harder based on the TLS reactions to the test. My LR average on 59 was better than most other tests I have taken. Of course, it might have been a test that played to my strengths, or I was simply having a good day.

I also have thought of goosey's explanation for the impact of the recession on equating. This would be about the time it would start to have an impact on the tests, if there is some systematic reason to believe that people taking the LSAT because of a bad economy are less likely to be as prepared as a "normal" cycle. The only theoretical reason I can think of is that a "normal" cycle is more likely to have a higher proportion of students who have been gunning for law school for years, and are thus more likely to be prepared for the test. Test administrations with those who are fleeing a bad economy might therefore contain more students who take the test on a whim, or as one option among many, and are thus less concerned about scoring well their first time out.

In any event, the 8 administrations explanation can't really explain a spike from one test to the next, it can really only be used to suggest that the recent tests have become less exacting than those prior to those containing experimentals done by recession fleeing test takers; the effects of the change outlined by goosey would be gradual. So my best guess would be that it is a combination of a slightly harder test and the effects of a slightly less prepared population of test takers whose experimentals are starting to have an effect on the curve. One of the pieces of data that I think would be worth having is how the test breaks down in terms of percentage of credited responses for each section, and their variance. It might just be that difficult LR trips up more people than difficult LG; a good comparison on this front is the GRE, where a ton of test takers get perfect scores on the quantitative section, but the gradations for the verbal are much more pronounced. So a tough LG might not mean as much for the curve as a tough LR.

Also, is there any potential effect of the new rules on cancellations on the curve? I.e., since people can't cancel last minute any more, we might have an increase of would-have-cancelled-because-unprepared-test-takers taking the experimental sections in the sep exam, thereby impacting the dec curve? I just throw this out as a question, I assume LSAC has covered for this somehow.

User avatar
BigA
Posts: 448
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:22 am

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

Postby BigA » Sun Feb 14, 2010 2:26 am

bakemono wrote: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.


This worries me. Anyone else think it's harder to pull off a good score in Asia? I plan on taking the June exam there.

JasonR
Posts: 421
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 9:09 am

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

Postby JasonR » Thu Feb 25, 2010 6:26 pm

goosey 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.

It actually makes perfect sense because the curve is determined by the previous 8 administrations, so for a while, we were in the same pool as pre-recession testers--its is very possible that december is the test when the huge influx of unprepared testers finally pushed the curve up. Both june and sept tests had a much higher turnout than usual, so no, its not dependent on more testers in december alone, rather the numbers having increased so much over the past 8 administrations. I think feb will either have the same curve or worst case -12


No. If you understand a little about statistics and how equating process works, that theory still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Any hypothetical large influx of substantially less prepared test takers (a questionable assumption in the first place) would have no effect on future "curves" (which actually aren't curves). Every LSAT is effectively equated to the June 1991 baseline. The LSAC equates a given test to the administrations of the previous 3 years (12 tests) because new LSATs are drawn from the experimental sections of those administrations. However -- and this is the key point that you and almost everyone else miss -- those previous administrations do not exist in a vacuum; those tests are themselves equated to prior tests which are also equated to prior tests, and so on, in a chain that stretches back to June 1991. The LSAC equating process ensures that a 170 in December 2009 is the same as one from 2005, 1998, or 1991.

Less prepared test takers, in the aggregate, are going to going to perform more poorly on both their actual LSAT and on the experimental sections tested alongside the real sections. Accordingly, the LSAC statisticians aren't going to mistake a weaker aggregate performance on experimental sections as solely being due to an increased difficulty of those sections. It's not even an issue. A group consisting of a higher than average proportion of less prepared test takers will have also performed at a lower level on their actual LSAT test, which was already equated to prior tests. Regardless of the strength of the group taking a given administration, LSAC statisticians are easily able to derive the difficulty value of the experimental sections by analyzing divergences between performance on experimental sections and the actual equated test being taken by those same test takers.

The equating process ensures that the setting of LSAT scoring scales is completely insulated from any variation in the populations taking given test administrations.

User avatar
scribelaw
Posts: 771
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 3:27 pm

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

Postby scribelaw » Thu Feb 25, 2010 6:33 pm

I thought the RC was really hard on the December test.

I somehow missed 6 on that section. In almost every PT, I had been in the -1 to -4 range, and in September I missed 3.

JasonR
Posts: 421
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 9:09 am

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

Postby JasonR » Thu Feb 25, 2010 7:08 pm

bakemono wrote:i'm aware of all your arguments, and then some. I just simply can't remove myself from how easy this test is (from my p.o.v. of course). I still think it's a joke, and I can't imagine anyone getting 170+'s regularly in PT's not agreeing with me. I know some people here have already commented on how hard this test was... like... this test was the hardest in recent history.... someone said? Are you on crack? There were about 5 hard questions in LR both sections combined, the LG had 3 basic linear.. how f'n hard could a basic linear be? And the other game was a standard grouping game. There was nothing experimental about it a la PT 55 game 4, zephyr game, clan game, snakes, birds (cage/exhibition), etc.... The basic linears weren't even in the area of difficulty as a June 2007 Game 3, the one about the cruise ships (?). The RC was just ok, but it's no Willa Cather, basins of attraction, etc...

Obviously i'm gonna get a lot of flak for this, and i accept that my argument holds little ground from a logical perspective, but I've taken every PT in existence, and I don't understand how people can even compare this to 55,57,50,51 let alone being the "hardest test in recent memory."

That's kinda why i thought this might be some sort of a pattern, and wanted to ask some of you less statistically challenged to perhaps offer some theories. Whatever.........


Seriously, would you like to go through each section question by question and determine the difficulty of the test? It's personal perspective of course, but it's easy enough to the point that I really think it's objectively well... "easy."

It's kinda like this. I took PT 57 and got a 173 scaled, but it was a harrowing exp. that other TLS'ers/friends that took the test with me could attest to, cause one was analyzing how i approached the test. I only had 5 minutes left for the last passage (fractal geometry) and somehow managed to get a -0 on it. I couldn't finish the LG, and the LR was pretty f'n hard too. My point is... even when i get a great score, i could still tell if the test was easy/hard. Is there even a single section from PT 59 that was harder than 57? Seriously, name one?

My theory was pretty similar to goosey's actually.


You can wring your hands all you want, but Dec 2009 was just a harder than average test, even if you and every single one of your friends didn't think so.

Also, just naming a game type doesn't say anything at all about difficulty. A basic linear game with loads of possible solutions can be a time-consuming bitch, depending on which types of questions are asked. Then there are advanced linear games or linear-grouping hybrid games that look scary but have only 3 or 4 possible solutions, all of which you can derive pretty quickly in your setup. One pure sequencing game can take 4-5 minutes and another can be a time-eater with several complex rules and sequence permutations. Just saying "3 basic linears!" doesn't prove anything.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bearedman8, jen203, Rogah, SunDevil14 and 12 guests