Curve Discussion Forum
- balzern
- Posts: 347
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 2:27 pm
Curve Discussion
Voice your thoughts on the curve and give reason why.
Last edited by balzern on Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
- KevinP
- Posts: 1322
- Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:56 pm
Re: Curve Discussion
Felt like a -10. LR felt average albeit it had a few tricky questions. RC felt easier. LG.... I screwed this up but other people said it was average/harder.
- Adjudicator
- Posts: 1108
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:18 am
Re: Curve Discussion
I would be happy with an average curve.
- r2b2ct
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:33 pm
Re: Curve Discussion
I wouldn't be surprised with a -9 based on my experience, but people seem to have had trouble with the games so maybe it'll be generous.
-
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:05 pm
Re: Curve Discussion
-11 at the worst in my opinion. Just looking at the trend, and assuming that it will be less generous. It would just be surprising to stray that far from the past several tests by going -10. Plus it seems that the curves are more generous with harder games (the only time I've seen a nice curve is when ppl on here gripe about the hard games) and this LG was hard. The RC wasn't bad but it wasn't that easy and LR was quite tricky. However, this goes against what most ppl have said on here (LG was hard, rest was easy) so perhaps it is just me
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Sinra
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:15 pm
Re: Curve Discussion
I'm figuring a -10. I honestly didn't think it was too hard. RC was very easy IMO. LG were ok and LR is LR. I felt more like PT 58 than 59 or 60. No way it's a -14 monster like Dec 09. That test deserved a generous curve.
- WonkyPanda
- Posts: 346
- Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:35 pm
Re: Curve Discussion
Agreed, this test was easier than 59 and 60. I am guessing a -11, but we'll see what kind of cooky algorithm/method LSAC does to finally make that curve.Sinra wrote:I'm figuring a -10. I honestly didn't think it was too hard. RC was very easy IMO. LG were ok and LR is LR. I felt more like PT 58 than 59 or 60. No way it's a -14 monster like Dec 09. That test deserved a generous curve.
- KevinP
- Posts: 1322
- Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:56 pm
Re: Curve Discussion
Imagine a -15.... just so they can look at TLS for shits and giggles. Kind of like when the -14 curve was first posted for December.WonkyPanda wrote:Agreed, this test was easier than 59 and 60. I am guessing a -11, but we'll see what kind of cooky algorithm/method LSAC does to finally make that curve.Sinra wrote:I'm figuring a -10. I honestly didn't think it was too hard. RC was very easy IMO. LG were ok and LR is LR. I felt more like PT 58 than 59 or 60. No way it's a -14 monster like Dec 09. That test deserved a generous curve.
- Sinra
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:15 pm
Re: Curve Discussion
I'm hoping it was! Sure felt like it. I mean leaving the test I felt really good about it. Of course, TLS tends to bring my confidence post-test down..but I can't stay away. People bringing up questions that I remember being absolutely sure about and then just by virtue of hearing about them I think "Wait, did I choose wrong??" Whatever. I didn't get dumber or become less prepared between yesterday and this morning. But going from my real reaction post-test...not a ridiculous curve. Games even were OK. A little bit tricky and time-consuming but overall not hard. And thank the gods no courses to take except for three and writing or theater. I fracking hate those.WonkyPanda wrote:Agreed, this test was easier than 59 and 60. I am guessing a -11, but we'll see what kind of cooky algorithm/method LSAC does to finally make that curve.Sinra wrote:I'm figuring a -10. I honestly didn't think it was too hard. RC was very easy IMO. LG were ok and LR is LR. I felt more like PT 58 than 59 or 60. No way it's a -14 monster like Dec 09. That test deserved a generous curve.
- DearCan
- Posts: 302
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:13 am
Re: Curve Discussion
The curves on the last two tests has been -14 and I'm honestly hoping for that. Probably won't get it but it doesn't hurt to hope.
- WonkyPanda
- Posts: 346
- Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:35 pm
Re: Curve Discussion
I wish we could look back and see what people thought the curve would be for december. Does TLS tend to overestimate or underestimate? I'd bet under. Lot's of amazing takers here can skew the apparent difficulty of the test. Normal people do exists everyone!KevinP wrote:Imagine a -15.... just so they can look at TLS for shits and giggles. Kind of like when the -14 curve was first posted for December.WonkyPanda wrote:Agreed, this test was easier than 59 and 60. I am guessing a -11, but we'll see what kind of cooky algorithm/method LSAC does to finally make that curve.Sinra wrote:I'm figuring a -10. I honestly didn't think it was too hard. RC was very easy IMO. LG were ok and LR is LR. I felt more like PT 58 than 59 or 60. No way it's a -14 monster like Dec 09. That test deserved a generous curve.
- Sinra
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:15 pm
Re: Curve Discussion
December FELT like that though. my head was fried after that test. I should have canceled.KevinP wrote:Imagine a -15.... just so they can look at TLS for shits and giggles. Kind of like when the -14 curve was first posted for December.WonkyPanda wrote:Agreed, this test was easier than 59 and 60. I am guessing a -11, but we'll see what kind of cooky algorithm/method LSAC does to finally make that curve.Sinra wrote:I'm figuring a -10. I honestly didn't think it was too hard. RC was very easy IMO. LG were ok and LR is LR. I felt more like PT 58 than 59 or 60. No way it's a -14 monster like Dec 09. That test deserved a generous curve.
-
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:19 pm
Re: Curve Discussion
June was -12+1 question removed and Dec was -14.DearCan wrote:The curves on the last two tests has been -14 and I'm honestly hoping for that. Probably won't get it but it doesn't hurt to hope.
I'd give someone 10:1 odds that it's either -11 or -12.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- OrdinarilySkilled
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:22 am
Re: Curve Discussion
I think the 101 questions is nice, like a built in curve point. I don't see how 93 questions right would ever be <170. That said, my gut feeling is -9, since the recent generous trends were probably not going to continue and this test seemed easier than junes.
- DearCan
- Posts: 302
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:13 am
Re: Curve Discussion
Ah, my bad. I just saw that a raw score of 87 on both tests got you a 170.LogicGamez wrote:June was -12+1 question removed and Dec was -14.DearCan wrote:The curves on the last two tests has been -14 and I'm honestly hoping for that. Probably won't get it but it doesn't hurt to hope.
I'd give someone 10:1 odds that it's either -11 or -12.
-
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:32 pm
Re: Curve Discussion
Im hoping for a -11 or above, but -10 also seems feasible. If its -14 I would LEAP for joy, like, literally...
- Sinra
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:15 pm
Re: Curve Discussion
That would be absolutely glorious.DearCan wrote:Ah, my bad. I just saw that a raw score of 87 on both tests got you a 170.LogicGamez wrote:June was -12+1 question removed and Dec was -14.DearCan wrote:The curves on the last two tests has been -14 and I'm honestly hoping for that. Probably won't get it but it doesn't hurt to hope.
I'd give someone 10:1 odds that it's either -11 or -12.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- KevinP
- Posts: 1322
- Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:56 pm
Re: Curve Discussion
TLSers thought the curve was less generous than it really is.WonkyPanda wrote:I wish we could look back and see what people thought the curve would be for december. Does TLS tend to overestimate or underestimate? I'd bet under. Lot's of amazing takers here can skew the apparent difficulty of the test. Normal people do exists everyone!KevinP wrote:Imagine a -15.... just so they can look at TLS for shits and giggles. Kind of like when the -14 curve was first posted for December.WonkyPanda wrote:Agreed, this test was easier than 59 and 60. I am guessing a -11, but we'll see what kind of cooky algorithm/method LSAC does to finally make that curve.Sinra wrote:I'm figuring a -10. I honestly didn't think it was too hard. RC was very easy IMO. LG were ok and LR is LR. I felt more like PT 58 than 59 or 60. No way it's a -14 monster like Dec 09. That test deserved a generous curve.
http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... =6&t=99063
-
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:37 pm
Re: Curve Discussion
I just consulted my hotline psychic. She said it would be a -15 curve.
EVERYONE GET READY FOR THE PARTYBOAT!!!!
EVERYONE GET READY FOR THE PARTYBOAT!!!!
- St.Remy
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 10:12 pm
Re: Curve Discussion
Except that last test was a -12...DearCan wrote:The curves on the last two tests has been -14 and I'm honestly hoping for that. Probably won't get it but it doesn't hurt to hope.
-
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:05 pm
Re: Curve Discussion
Not sure if this helps, but here are the score trends for recent tests.
--ImageRemoved--
from lsat blog
--ImageRemoved--
from lsat blog
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:46 am
Re: Curve Discussion
Isn't how hard the test is only one input into forming the curve? Unless I'm mistaken doesn't it rely in large part on the number of takers? If a large number of well, mediocre, test takers decided to take the LSAT because, say, they don't think they're going to get jobs in this still tight economy... couldn't that make an easy/average test get an average/generous curve?
- DrackedaryMaster
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 5:11 pm
Re: Curve Discussion
I'd say -10 if there was 100 q's. However, I believe it will be -11, maybe -12.
I'd really like to know what the raw score will be for 160. I was prepping with Raw Scores in the 83-87 range consistently, mostly buoyed by games, but got screwed today. RC was about average (22-23), and I probably missed about the same number of questions I normally do for total LR (39-41), but LG screwed me. I panicked on the last two games because I took so much time finishing the first two games which I'm pretty sure I got right. Depending on my guesses, I'd say (16-19). I feel my raw is somewhere around 72, but could be in the mid-80's I figure that something like a 157-164 depending on where this curve comes down. Thank God league bowling is starting up or I'm going to go crazy thinking about this for the next three weeks.
No way this curve is -9 or -8. If many of us thought the "real" LR sections were weird today, how do you think the test takers who had those sections as their experimental felt? Same for LG. I think the higher number of test takers and the higher number of people who don't prep for this thing (had a lot in my testing center today talking about feeling good if they got a 150!) helps keep the curve stable.
I'd really like to know what the raw score will be for 160. I was prepping with Raw Scores in the 83-87 range consistently, mostly buoyed by games, but got screwed today. RC was about average (22-23), and I probably missed about the same number of questions I normally do for total LR (39-41), but LG screwed me. I panicked on the last two games because I took so much time finishing the first two games which I'm pretty sure I got right. Depending on my guesses, I'd say (16-19). I feel my raw is somewhere around 72, but could be in the mid-80's I figure that something like a 157-164 depending on where this curve comes down. Thank God league bowling is starting up or I'm going to go crazy thinking about this for the next three weeks.
No way this curve is -9 or -8. If many of us thought the "real" LR sections were weird today, how do you think the test takers who had those sections as their experimental felt? Same for LG. I think the higher number of test takers and the higher number of people who don't prep for this thing (had a lot in my testing center today talking about feeling good if they got a 150!) helps keep the curve stable.
- DearCan
- Posts: 302
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:13 am
Re: Curve Discussion
You clearly didn't read the rest of the thread.St.Remy wrote:Except that last test was a -12...DearCan wrote:The curves on the last two tests has been -14 and I'm honestly hoping for that. Probably won't get it but it doesn't hurt to hope.
- KevinP
- Posts: 1322
- Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:56 pm
Re: Curve Discussion
True... but from what I've read, they are usually equated in advance. A couple of years in advance since experimental sections seem to show up a couple years later from what I've read of people who took the test years back and had the same experimental section for their real one.ND'10 wrote:Isn't how hard the test is only one input into forming the curve? Unless I'm mistaken doesn't it rely in large part on the number of takers? If a large number of well, mediocre, test takers decided to take the LSAT because, say, they don't think they're going to get jobs in this still tight economy... couldn't that make an easy/average test get an average/generous curve?
Sucks if 3 years from now, all the people driven to the LSAT by the economy make the curves -20 with ridiculously easy questions.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login