Curving Question

User avatar
Knock
Posts: 5152
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:09 pm

Curving Question

Postby Knock » Sat Apr 03, 2010 4:41 pm

So to determine the curve, you take the highest possible raw score (usually 101) and subtract the number of correct answers to get a 170 scaled score (for example, a 89 raw), so the curve is -12. Is that correct?

And usually the range of scores varies from -14 (hardest) to -8 (easiest)?

Also, what has the highest (hardest) curve and the lowest (easiest) curve been?

Thanks.

User avatar
Knock
Posts: 5152
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: Curving Question

Postby Knock » Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:42 pm

Knockglock wrote:So to determine the curve, you take the highest possible raw score (usually 101) and subtract the number of correct answers to get a 170 scaled score (for example, a 89 raw), so the curve is -12. Is that correct?

And usually the range of scores varies from -14 (hardest) to -8 (easiest)?

Also, what has the highest (hardest) curve and the lowest (easiest) curve been?

Thanks.


Still confused about this, help appreciated.

Thank you.

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

Re: Curving Question

Postby JasonR » Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:54 pm

I have to start off with my usual annoying reminder that the test is not actually curved, so you aren't really calculating a "curve" here.

That said, you are correct in your method of calculating the so-called "curve."

I don't remember seeing any PT where missing fewer than 8 would drop you to 170. I remember a -16 PT from back in the 1990s. I think one of the SuperPrep PTs (B?) is -15 or -16.

Here's a link for score conversion tables from Dec 06 to Sept 09 (Dec 09 is -14):

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=100147

User avatar
Knock
Posts: 5152
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: Curving Question

Postby Knock » Tue Apr 06, 2010 5:00 pm

JasonR wrote:I have to start off with my usual annoying reminder that the test is not actually curved, so you aren't really calculating a "curve" here.

That said, you are correct in your method of calculating the so-called "curve."

I don't remember seeing any PT where missing fewer than 8 would drop you to 170. I remember a -16 PT from back in the 1990s. I think one of the SuperPrep PTs (B?) is -15 or -16.

Here's a link for score conversion tables from Dec 06 to Sept 09 (Dec 09 is -14):

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=100147


Thank you, and apologies for my incorrect terminology.

So I am correct in inferring that a -14 test is substantially more difficult than a -8 test?

User avatar
mazzini
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:16 pm

Re: Curving Question

Postby mazzini » Tue Apr 06, 2010 5:08 pm

So I am correct in inferring that a -14 test is substantially more difficult than a -8 test?


It really depends on your particular strengths and weaknesses. But as a general rule and according to the LSAC, yes.

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

Re: Curving Question

Postby JasonR » Tue Apr 06, 2010 5:12 pm

Knockglock wrote:Thank you, and apologies for my incorrect terminology.


Haha, don't apologize. I'm just being a pain.

Knockglock wrote:So I am correct in inferring that a -14 test is substantially more difficult than a -8 test?


You are correct in that, without reference to a scaled score, a -14 test is substantially more difficult than a -8 test. The test-makers' aim is for a 170 (or any given score) to represent the same level of ability on every test, so, for the test-taking aggregate, getting a given scaled score on a -14 or a -8 test should be equally difficult for both tests.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: blackpi and 6 guests