June 2010 CURVE Predictions Forum

[Ragged]

-11 at the very least. LG was ridiculously hard. Ive never seen a game like the last one.

False and false. The day this test is released I will be happy to point out several games that share a similar hybrid structure...

Yea but the thing with that game is that all the quesitons were vague hypotheticals. There were no easy questions to gain momentum on.

[Albatross]

-11 at the very least. LG was ridiculously hard. Ive never seen a game like the last one.

False and false. The day this test is released I will be happy to point out several games that share a similar hybrid structure...

Difficulty is a subjective quality, thus my first claim is not necessarily false. And again, the mere fact that a game may exist in a similar structure as the last game does not make my second claim false. You've used faulty logic. Your claims have been dismissed.

[Non-Chalant1]

It's going to be -9 or something unfortunately.......no....I believe...-14.

[3|ink]

-11 at the very least. LG was ridiculously hard. Ive never seen a game like the last one.

False and false. The day this test is released I will be happy to point out several games that share a similar hybrid structure...

Yea but the thing with that game is that all the quesitons were vague hypotheticals. There were no easy questions to gain momentum on.

This.

There have been games like the 4th game. I can't deny that. However, the questions were particularly difficult. I'm pulling for a -10 or -11.

[mst]

Difficulty is a subjective quality, thus my first claim is not necessarily false. And again, the mere fact that a game may exist in a similar structure as the last game does not make my second claim false. You've used faulty logic. Your claims have been dismissed.

This is why this board is so annoying. I wasn't going to court with you... I was simply saying that I think your incredibly wrong to assert that at the very least this is a -11, and that I find it unbelievable that a person such as yourself hasn't seen a game very close to (aka "like") that one in terms of premises, set up, and questions. I'm sure you'll get the chance to get technical with your arguments one day, but in the meantime can't you just accept that this entire thread is just a bunch of guys and gals completely bullshitting random curve estimates to pass the time (and that includes me)?

[mst]

Yea but the thing with that game is that all the quesitons were vague hypotheticals. There were no easy questions to gain momentum on.

Totes McGoats see where your coming from. There weren't many "leading" questions similar to many other games where you progressively can find out more as you work your way through. This was the case no matter how you worked the last logic game, whether backwards, forwards, randomly, etc.

[a11 1n]

mst your avatar is awesome lol.

[BigA]

to all you guys who are predicting the curve: are you usually good at predicting the curves? Who among you actually try to guess after taking PTs and are always right or close to right.

I must say I am terrible at it. Sometimes I don't get the curve at all. I'd say my raw scores have no correlation with the curve, or maybe a reverse correlation.

That said, I think this test was really hard. So it's probably a -10

[Knock]

to all you guys who are predicting the curve: are you usually good at predicting the curves? Who among you actually try to guess after taking PTs and are always right or close to right.

I must say I am terrible at it. Sometimes I don't get the curve at all. I'd say my raw scores have no correlation with the curve, or maybe a reverse correlation.

That said, I think this test was really hard. So it's probably a -10

Same.

I'm hoping and praying for a -11!

[BigA]

Same.

I'm hoping and praying for a -11!

oh. well I need more help than that. I agree with the guy who said -30

[WestOfTheRest]

I would be happy with a -10. My last test was a -8, if it's that bad this time I'm going to jump.

[TOMaHULK]

Why do the predictions keep getting lower as days go by?

Inb4-"Because now that the excitement of the test wears off, we are being more realistic."

I can't imagine that curve being any lower than -10. I think -9 or lower would be a horribly call by the LSAC.

[theZeigs]

Yea but the thing with that game is that all the quesitons were vague hypotheticals. There were no easy questions to gain momentum on.

Totes McGoats see where your coming from. There weren't many "leading" questions similar to many other games where you progressively can find out more as you work your way through. This was the case no matter how you worked the last logic game, whether backwards, forwards, randomly, etc.

I disagree with this. I got stumped on the second question of the last game, which when I did it after the test, revealed the "big deduction" to me. I will admit, the big deduction only popped out at me after I drew all of the hypos for that particular question; I believe there were four hypos that needed to be made to realize this one. I learned the hard way that when you have a lot of time on a game and are stumped, draw hypos.

I'm sticking with my -10, mostly because it was a 100 question test.

Also, does anyone know if or how this group of test takers changes the curve? I thought it was pre-determined by experimental administration. Obv., we don't find out the curve until after the test, but isn't the curve set in stone before the test is even taken?

[TOMaHULK]

Yea but the thing with that game is that all the quesitons were vague hypotheticals. There were no easy questions to gain momentum on.

Totes McGoats see where your coming from. There weren't many "leading" questions similar to many other games where you progressively can find out more as you work your way through. This was the case no matter how you worked the last logic game, whether backwards, forwards, randomly, etc.

I disagree with this. I got stumped on the second question of the last game, which when I did it after the test, revealed the "big deduction" to me. I will admit, the big deduction only popped out at me after I drew all of the hypos for that particular question; I believe there were four hypos that needed to be made to realize this one. I learned the hard way that when you have a lot of time on a game and are stumped, draw hypos.

I'm sticking with my -10, mostly because it was a 100 question test.

Also, does anyone know if or how this group of test takers changes the curve? I thought it was pre-determined by experimental administration. Obv., we don't find out the curve until after the test, but isn't the curve set in stone before the test is even taken?

Apparently it is, but can be adjusted based on widely universal circumstances (i.e. the mulch games was hard and everyone sucked on it). At least that's what I've read on TLS...

[Albatross]

Yea but the thing with that game is that all the quesitons were vague hypotheticals. There were no easy questions to gain momentum on.

Totes McGoats see where your coming from. There weren't many "leading" questions similar to many other games where you progressively can find out more as you work your way through. This was the case no matter how you worked the last logic game, whether backwards, forwards, randomly, etc.

I disagree with this. I got stumped on the second question of the last game, which when I did it after the test, revealed the "big deduction" to me. I will admit, the big deduction only popped out at me after I drew all of the hypos for that particular question; I believe there were four hypos that needed to be made to realize this one. I learned the hard way that when you have a lot of time on a game and are stumped, draw hypos.

I'm sticking with my -10, mostly because it was a 100 question test.

Also, does anyone know if or how this group of test takers changes the curve? I thought it was pre-determined by experimental administration. Obv., we don't find out the curve until after the test, but isn't the curve set in stone before the test is even taken?

Apparently it is, but can be adjusted based on widely universal circumstances (i.e. the mulch games was hard and everyone sucked on it). At least that's what I've read on TLS...

Im not sure that's correct. Seeing as how they only allow so many percentage of people score a certain score, I feel that the scale cannot be predetermined. They would also have to have a fairly close prediction of how many people were taking the test I think.

[TOMaHULK]

[quote="kesextonAlso, does anyone know if or how this group of test takers changes the curve? I thought it was pre-determined by experimental administration. Obv., we don't find out the curve until after the test, but isn't the curve set in stone before the test is even taken?[/quote]

Im not sure that's correct. Seeing as how they only allow so many percentage of people score a certain score, I feel that the scale cannot be predetermined. They would also have to have a fairly close prediction of how many people were taking the test I think.[/quote]

It would be interesting to know for sure. People sometimes talk about it on here as though they do know for a fact. However, it may very well be speculation disguised as knowledge.

[Dany]

Also, does anyone know if or how this group of test takers changes the curve? I thought it was pre-determined by experimental administration. Obv., we don't find out the curve until after the test, but isn't the curve set in stone before the test is even taken?

Apparently it is, but can be adjusted based on widely universal circumstances (i.e. the mulch games was hard and everyone sucked on it). At least that's what I've read on TLS...

Im not sure that's correct. Seeing as how they only allow so many percentage of people score a certain score, I feel that the scale cannot be predetermined. They would also have to have a fairly close prediction of how many people were taking the test I think.

Understanding Your Score
Your LSAT score is based on the number of questions answered correctly (the raw score). There is no deduction for incorrect answers, nor are individual questions on the various test sections weighted differently. Raw scores are converted to an LSAT scale that ranges from 120 to 180, with 120 being the lowest possible score and 180 the highest possible score. This is done through a statistical procedure known as equating, a method that adjusts for minor differences in difficulty between test forms.

What is the LSAT?
The unscored section, commonly referred to as the variable section, typically is used to pretest new test questions or to preequate new test forms.

Both of those are taken directly from LSAC's website. It's pretty damn clear that they preequate the test based on its statistical difficulty. The scale is predetermined statistically because they already know how difficult a test is (because of the countless experimental sections used.) It would not matter how many people took the test (percentages v. totals fail), and mostly because test-takers are NOT judged relative to each other, they're judged relative to the difficulty of the test.

Please note: I don't mean to come off as rude, but it kind of annoys me when misconceptions about this go around.

[christinalsat]

I keep hearing that the scored LG section was administered as an experimental in 2009. If that's true, does it make a difference? I'm assuming that given the recession, a larger number of people took the lsat who would not have normally taken it and/or prepared as much as folks who have taken it in other years -- which seems like it would make for a softer curve.

That's probably just wishful thinking, but let me know if I am right or wrong.

[nematoad]

did anyone else find one of the LRs to be significantly harder than the other (the one with the minivans and that funky question type that ive only seen a few times was much harder) i found the games to be really easy up until the 4th game (damn fields, i had 16 minutes and still didnt finish that sucker) and RC was pretty straightforward. i'm going with -11 170 and -18 for 165.

[theZeigs]

Im not sure that's correct. Seeing as how they only allow so many percentage of people score a certain score, I feel that the scale cannot be predetermined. They would also have to have a fairly close prediction of how many people were taking the test I think.

Well, the other side of this would be that it means that if they had an administration with an abnormal amount of high test takers, they would have to make it so that fewer people got those high scores, i.e. make the curve harder than their pretesting would indicate. I think this highlights the difference between a "curved" test and an "equated" test.

Steve's LSAT Blog has a good explanation of how they make the curve: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/ls ... -lsac.html

Believe me, I hope they take into account the difficulty of both the Mulch and the Tuscany game and/or ensure that a bunch of people get good scores. I think that with the combo of both Mulch and Tuscany, that might make the curve be more generous; unlike last June's test (Dinos), there were two hard/weird games that might affect the curve.

Fingers crossed.

[balzern]

I didn't think mulch was that bad...just a kind of weird game i guess.

[suspicious android]

Im not sure that's correct. Seeing as how they only allow so many percentage of people score a certain score, I feel that the scale cannot be predetermined. They would also have to have a fairly close prediction of how many people were taking the test I think.

This is not the case. The score range for a given test is not necessarily the score range for a different test. June and October/September tests have a higher median (about 2 points) than the other tests (with February having the lowest median of all). This means on certain tests, more than half of all scorers will score above the median for the LSAT in general. They don't predetermine the % of people who get a certain score.

[theZeigs]

I didn't think mulch was that bad...just a kind of plug-and-chug linear with few inferences or am I missing something?

I didn't think it was a hard game, but it was a very unusual game, that's for sure. I can't think of another game that's similar...but then again, if I could, I wouldn't be posting it until scores are released

[joefiore]

Hoping for a -12/13 ...Anticipating a -10/11

Logical reasoning--Very average (though it's a blur to me now, especially section one because my nerves got to me a bit)

Reading Comprehension--A little easier than more recent exams, but I really struggled with the last passage for some reason

Games--I'd say there was 1 easy game, 2 medium games (mulch was strange, but doable), and a very difficult game (interns frolicking in fields or something ridiculous )... possibly a reason for a better curve because of the ambiguous wording, but I doubt LSAC will take pity

Here's hoping for -13 and a shot at 170 for me

[notreallyalawyer]

I'd say -9/-10. yes, the test was tough. but i don't think it was significantly tougher than i had expected based on PT's. The RC was not that bad. I found the LR to be standard and the games were not easy but also not outside my expectations of a difficult section. Really I've seen much harder games on other PT's. There was one pattern game and the rest were grouping/assignment or linearity or both, that is if I remember correctly. I can't remember the first game at all really except that maybe it was an in/out game? oh well. I feel like -9 wouldn't be surprising I'm hoping for -10 and anything else would just be awesome.