Curve Discussion

[balzern]

Voice your thoughts on the curve and give reason why.

[KevinP]

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]

I would be happy with an average curve.

[r2b2ct]

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.

[littlepixie11]

-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

[Sinra]

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]

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.

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.

[KevinP]

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.

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.

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.

[Sinra]

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.

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.

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.

[DearCan]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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!

[Sinra]

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.

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.

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.

December FELT like that though. my head was fried after that test. I should have canceled.

[LogicGamez]

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.

June was -12+1 question removed and Dec was -14.

I'd give someone 10:1 odds that it's either -11 or -12.

[OrdinarilySkilled]

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]

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.

June was -12+1 question removed and Dec was -14.

I'd give someone 10:1 odds that it's either -11 or -12.

Ah, my bad. I just saw that a raw score of 87 on both tests got you a 170.

[cowgirl_bebop]

Im hoping for a -11 or above, but -10 also seems feasible. If its -14 I would LEAP for joy, like, literally...

[Sinra]

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.

June was -12+1 question removed and Dec was -14.

I'd give someone 10:1 odds that it's either -11 or -12.

Ah, my bad. I just saw that a raw score of 87 on both tests got you a 170.

That would be absolutely glorious.

[KevinP]

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.

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.

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.

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!

TLSers thought the curve was less generous than it really is.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=99063

[tazmolover]

I just consulted my hotline psychic. She said it would be a -15 curve.

EVERYONE GET READY FOR THE PARTYBOAT!!!!

[St.Remy]

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.

Except that last test was a -12...

[littlepixie11]

Not sure if this helps, but here are the score trends for recent tests.
--ImageRemoved--
from lsat blog

[ND'10]

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]

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.

[DearCan]

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.

Except that last test was a -12...

You clearly didn't read the rest of the thread.

[KevinP]

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?

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.

Sucks if 3 years from now, all the people driven to the LSAT by the economy make the curves -20 with ridiculously easy questions.