JasonR wrote:Miznitic wrote:I took the Feb 10 test and did better than I expected.
Shut up, LSAC worm. We're coming for your job.
Eh?
JasonR wrote:Miznitic wrote:I took the Feb 10 test and did better than I expected.
Shut up, LSAC worm. We're coming for your job.
lsatwizo wrote:Panther7 wrote:lsatwizo wrote: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.
Miznitic wrote:JasonR wrote:Miznitic wrote:I took the Feb 10 test and did better than I expected.
Shut up, LSAC worm. We're coming for your job.
Eh?
lsatwizo wrote:I am almost certain that the February 2010 test was overly strict to compensate for the many additional high scores given out in December.
lsatwizo wrote:I have reason to believe LSAC deliberately maniuplated the December 2009 curve, conversion chart, whatever you want to call it.
fastforward wrote: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!!!
lawschoollll wrote: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.
fastforward wrote: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.
lsatwizo wrote: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.
JasonR wrote: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?
lsatwizo wrote: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.
JasonR wrote:Miznitic wrote:I took the Feb 10 test and did better than I expected.
Shut up, LSAC worm. We're coming for your job.
JasonR wrote:lsatwizo wrote:I am almost certain that the February 2010 test was overly strict to compensate for the many additional high scores given out in December.lsatwizo wrote: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?
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.
lsatwizo wrote:I do hope that at least one person at LSAC is lifting an eyebrow and wondering.
lawschoollll wrote: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.
Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum�
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests