February 2010 LSAT curve Forum

[Miznitic]

I took the Feb 10 test and did better than I expected.

Shut up, LSAC worm. We're coming for your job.

Eh?

[JasonR]

I have reason to believe LSAC deliberately maniuplated the December 2009 curve, conversion chart, whatever you want to call it.

If you are knowledgeable about the LSAT and have taken many practice tests, you should know without any doubt the curve on the December 2009 LSAT was not right. It just wasn't.

I know there are others who feel the same way, but aren't speaking out because dummies keep vehemently attacking my post.

If I had to guess, the curve on the LSAT was about -8 when it should have been about -12.

Actually it's kinda funny, I was getting laughed at for guessing at a -13 curve after december test. It was definitely the hardest test i took.

How many tests have you taken exactly? I laugh at the people who think the December 09 curve should have had a -14 curve. I really laugh.


Take tests 41 or 42 as examples and then compare it to test 59.

And the rest of us laugh at conspiracy theory-promoting wingnuts who don't have one scintilla of a clue as to how the scoring scales are set.

The December 2009 LSAT was harder than usual. This was determined by tens of thousands of test-takers before the test was ever administered. You might have found it easier, but the reliability of LSAC's equating procedures does not require total conformity of opinion.

Just deal with the fact that you choked in primetime and got a crappy score.

[JasonR]

I took the Feb 10 test and did better than I expected.

Shut up, LSAC worm. We're coming for your job.

Eh?

Reread the last paragraph of the OP's post.

[JasonR]

I am almost certain that the February 2010 test was overly strict to compensate for the many additional high scores given out in December.

I have reason to believe LSAC deliberately maniuplated the December 2009 curve, conversion chart, whatever you want to call it.

Please share the hard evidence you discovered. That is to say, something other than your personal opinions about the 12/09 and 2/10 tests. What kind of statistical modeling did you employ to arrive at these conclusions?

[FreeGuy]

Judging by poll results at the present time, it appears that 27 LSAC worms and sympathizers have voted, but only 16 patriots have voted. Either you're with us, or you're against us.

Look at this LSAC worm smiling:



Let's put an end to LSAC's treachery!

[fastforward]

Whoa -- I'm new here and this was one of the first threads I saw! Good thing someone suggested ROFL. Made me think of the Highlights Magazine characters.

Goofus: I didn't score a high as I predicted on the Feb LSAT, so I just know LSAC is jerking us around with their bogus test equating! And the December scale was too much! I know that for a fact!! This is so unfair!! Someone at LSAC should be FIRED!!!

Gallant: I did pretty well on the Feb LSAT. I didn't score nearly as high as my prep test average, but I've read that happens sometimes. It would help to see what I missed, but I knew in advance this test was undisclosed. I guess I'll have to decide whether it would make sense to retake the test. I'll bet that if I really commit to a well-thought-out study strategy, I could improve my score a few points.

[HiLine]

Goofus: I didn't score a high as I predicted on the Feb LSAT, so I just know LSAC is jerking us around with their bogus test equating! And the December scale was too much! I know that for a fact!! This is so unfair!! Someone at LSAC should be FIRED!!!

Seriously, do you know what equating means?

[fastforward]

Um, yes. Do you know that Goofus was always the ill-mannered idiot?

[Compaq1984]

This is hilarious.

For the record, I took both the 12/09 and the 02/10. My PTs averaged a 174/175, with a low of 171 and high of 178. I got "creamed" on the 12/09 test (164) and got what I feel was about right on the 02/10 test (172).

12/09 was a bitch. Bad RC, time-consuming LG, and one hard LR. The fact that I scored 10 points below my PT average even with a -14 curve makes me, personally, feel that the curve was justified.

Also, shut up. Just retake.

Yeah, Yeah... you probably work for LSAC and your getting paid to post this!!!

hahahaha...j/k

its all a conspiracy!!

WORM!

[skip james]

Whoa -- I'm new here and this was one of the first threads I saw! Good thing someone suggested ROFL. Made me think of the Highlights Magazine characters.

Goofus: I didn't score a high as I predicted on the Feb LSAT, so I just know LSAC is jerking us around with their bogus test equating! And the December scale was too much! I know that for a fact!! This is so unfair!! Someone at LSAC should be FIRED!!!

Gallant: I did pretty well on the Feb LSAT. I didn't score nearly as high as my prep test average, but I've read that happens sometimes. It would help to see what I missed, but I knew in advance this test was undisclosed. I guess I'll have to decide whether it would make sense to retake the test. I'll bet that if I really commit to a well-thought-out study strategy, I could improve my score a few points.

holy crap i haven't thought about goofus and gallant in years. haha

[kopper]

My Feb LSAT was postponed due to weather. I took the test on 2/20 and took the Dec 2009 as a practice test the week before under strict timing conditions. I scored 168 (-16) on the Dec 09 PT and well below that on the official Test I took in Feb. I took many practice tests to prepare and did not feel I performed poorly on the official test I took in Feb. I did not find the Dec 09 test to be that difficult so can't see why it would need a -14.

[JasonR]

Well, it "needed" a -14 in order to be equated to all previous tests, since it was statistically determined to be significantly more difficult than average. The LSAC doesn't "need" you, specifically, to agree that the test was more difficult in order for their assessment to be correct.

What was the range of your PT scores prior to the Feb 10 test?

[tomwatts]

There are not that many people who took the February 2010 LSAT relative to other test dates, so if a large, raw number of people performed below what they expected, we can be pretty sure someone in LSAC ought to be FIRED.

Well, as of right now, we have 54 people who voted, I believe, and I think there are usually about 16,000 people who take the February test, so I'm pretty sure that we can draw reliable statistical inferences from a self-selecting sample of roughly 0.3% of the test-taking population.

Hey, 0.3%. That's not bad. Before running the numbers, I would've guessed more like 0.001% or something.

[kopper]

Well, it "needed" a -14 in order to be equated to all previous tests, since it was statistically determined to be significantly more difficult than average. The LSAC doesn't "need" you, specifically, to agree that the test was more difficult in order for their assessment to be correct.

What was the range of your PT scores prior to the Feb 10 test?

OK tough-guy I wasn't saying LSAC needed me I just didn't agree with the -14 curve for that test. 168 was one of the better scores for me and much better than my official score for Feb 2010. Its the luck of the draw and I may have scored better if I had taken the test in December rather than waiting until February. Oh well, if I get into the school I wish to attend it won't matter. However, part of me would like another shot at the LSAT.

[cubswin]

In this thread, if you want to contribute to holding LSAC accountable for their [sic] actions, post your PT average and your February 2010 LSAT score.

For me, this is the best part. The OP seems to honestly be under the impression that complaining about his LSAT score on the internet will make some kind of difference.

[Keile]

I took the Feb 10 test and did better than I expected.

Shut up, LSAC worm. We're coming for your job.

LoL. I'm sorry. This was hilarious!!

[lsatwizo]

I am almost certain that the February 2010 test was overly strict to compensate for the many additional high scores given out in December.

I have reason to believe LSAC deliberately maniuplated the December 2009 curve, conversion chart, whatever you want to call it.

Please share the hard evidence you discovered. That is to say, something other than your personal opinions about the 12/09 and 2/10 tests. What kind of statistical modeling did you employ to arrive at these conclusions?

lmfao. 'statistical modeling'. fool.

Look, if you know the LSAT well, I do not know how you can say the December '09 LSAT should have had a -14 curve. It shouldn't have. It's that simple.

I know there are many out there who feel the same way because I think the discrepancy in the December curve is extraordinarily obvious. They just aren't posting.

I do hope that at least one person at LSAC is lifting an eyebrow and wondering.

[JasonR]

LOL. Make that "fool with something much better than my shitty score."

So you still have nothing but "It shouldn't have" and "It's that simple." You're just a whiny idiot. You tripped and faceplanted in primetime. Accept it.

I know there are many out there who feel the same way because I think the discrepancy in the December curve is extraordinarily obvious. They just aren't posting.

Yes, at least you can take heart in knowing that you aren't the only imbecile with this opinion.

[FreeGuy]

I do hope that at least one person at LSAC is lifting an eyebrow and wondering.

Do you mean wondering as a result of your exposing the "injustice" of the Dec -14 and subsequent Feb scores, or as a result of the "absurdity" of the situation itself?

[invisiblesun]

The curves are set based on actual test-taker performance on those sections. Who are we supposed to trust, an angry frustrated applicant who was disappointed with his/her score or the LSAC statisticians who get paid to equate different LSATs? I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if you had rocked the test. FWIW, I scored one point above my PT average, which included strictly self-administered PTs, some of which were the second I had taken that day. It's a general trend that people don't perform as well on the real thing as they do on PTs. Since the majority of poll respondents scored either at or slightly below the PT average, it sounds like the LSAC got the curve right.

Don't blame the LSAC, either accept your score or try again. There's a reason schools tend to take the higher score- it's because they know that your performance can depend heavily on your mental state on a given day.

[Sauer Grapes]

ITT OP whines about failing the LSAT, hilarity ensues.

[Fast_Fingers]

12/09 was a bitch. Bad RC, time-consuming LG, and one hard LR. The fact that I scored 10 points below my PT average even with a -14 curve makes me, personally, feel that the curve was justified.

Yeah, I took the 12/09. I remember one logic game being quite a pain, though I remember it being a selection that I tried to do a master sketch (short-circuiting after thinking hard for all that time). Also, I remember losing exactly one point for each question (after one freebie) I missed to get my score, 169. As for its difficulty, it was easier than the average practice test, though I tend to do better under pressure and caffeine.

For the OP, you can try again and best of luck in the admissions cycle.

To Boardride below: Yeah, I heard the Dinosaur Logic game was insane. Going through it in class, I was pretty sure I would've bombed it if I wasn't expecting it.

[boardride23]

I score consistently in the 167-170 range on practice tests, 4 of which were in large proctored settings, and my December LSAT was a 161. I had two reading comprehension sections, the second of which (the real one) was the hardest reading comp section I've ever taken (and I had taken 30+ tests)... coming from experience, I thought the December LSAT was extraordinarily difficult (though logic games weren't as bad as Feb. from what I hear)... to each his own.

[climbintolaw]

Why people start flinging insults around over a topic like this, I don't know? As far as the Feb. LSAT goes, it was easier than the December test. I studied with every practice test I could buy. I'm guessing the difference between the two curves was about 2-3 points, and that difference came from the Games.

[ZhengyaZhangya]

For the record, I got owned by the December test. I was averaging 167-170 on practice tests and ended up with a 161.

I retook in February and felt a lot better coming out of the test. LG, for me anyway, were a lot easier on the February administration. I ended up scoring better than my average (173).

So, no, I don't think February was a conspiracy.