Ragged wrote: zworykin wrote: Ragged wrote:
3|ink wrote:-20 for a 170
Wouldn't want that. It would make 175 worthless.
No it wouldn't, the test is equated. A 175 is a 175
Of course, I doubt we'll ever see an LSAT that's so difficult it earns a -20... but remember, back in the early '90s it wasn't uncommon to see a -15 or even -16 (the 175s on those were around -8 to -10).
I know. But if there was 2000 people with a 175+ applying to Harvard it would suck.
No doubt. Hmm. The average number of takers for the June LSAT is around 25,000. So 2,000 people would put us at the 92nd percentile. That's normally, what--164, 165? That would have to be either the most ridiculously poorly equated LSAT ever, or the most incredibly gifted+neurotic group of takers ever.
Of course that's assuming your "2000 people" are all from this test. We can expect something like 160,000 people to take the test this year--call 1/4 of them retakers, so 120,000 people. 2,000 would then be 98.33 percentile, which is usually something like a 170-171, so that would still be a pretty crazy cycle. 175 is about 99.7 generally, so there ought to be more like 350-400 people with that score.
Of course, that's not counting people applying with scores from previous years...
(Yes, I know you aren't being serious. Neither am I. I'm just bored and in the mood to play with ridiculous hypotheticals.