Curve for October 2010? Forum

[anstud06]

Thoughts on how many wrong for a 175? 170? 168?

[incompetentia]

Welcome to Curve Discussion Thread #20 for October 2010! Step right up

[sidhesadie]

I'm hoping for -23 because I'm pretty sure I completely bombed the LG section.

Yes, I know that won't really happen.

[mm202]

I'm hoping for -23 because I'm pretty sure I completely bombed the LG section.

Yes, I know that won't really happen.

ditto.

[niederbomb]

-11 for PT 61.

-10 for the nondisclosed test.

Shoot me if I'm right. I need a -14 curve real bad.

[kkklick]

Honestly -11 sounds about right. This test on a comparison with June was definately easier. By how much I don't know, but the June curve I found to be EXTREMELY forgiving. (I got 27 wrong for a 160, people with 20 wrong still scored a 164). I don't think that will happen on this test. I see a log jam in the scores ranging from 160-170.

a -9, or -10 would be a complete disaster. My personal wish would be to see a -12 like June.

[Sandro]

-11 with a dream of -12, nightmare of -10

[incompetentia]

I still stand by -10 as my guess. I really don't think this one merited a -11 but I wouldn't be surprised with a -11.

[kkklick]

I still stand by -10 as my guess. I really don't think this one merited a -11 but I wouldn't be surprised with a -11.

I would be with you, its jsut I do see a lot of people who are questioning their performance. Even so, -10 seems like that is what it will be. However if you go back to PT 57 (hard june test with an even harsher curve) followed by a less difficult october test (58) with a -11 curve. But if its -9 like PT 55, I'll be in hibernation until december

[PinkFloydPerson]

I looked at my friends June 2010 test.. she got -12 and scored 170.. I think oct. was more difficult. I took the June one timed as a practice. Odd people say it is harder.

[Remnantofisrael]

real test = perceived as harder.

[cinefile 17]

I took both tests, and I think it's harder to determine which one was actually more difficult. The TLS consensus seems to be that the June test was harder.

However, the only people who would know this are the people who have taken both, and they would naturally have an easier overall experience (because it's their second time taking it).

Overall, I think this test was slightly easier (but once again, it might be because it was my second time). I don't think it was much easier though. They were hard in different areas.

I wouldn't be surprised with anything between a -10 and a -12. I would be super surprised by anything more or less than that. I'm predicting a -11.

[kkklick]

real test = perceived as harder.

+1

Especially the LG, tons of people were thrown off by the mulch game and the photographers/assistants game. When I re-did the June test a month ago for prep I got a 168 whereas I got 160 on the real thing. PT and real are 2 completely different beasts.

[Cmoss]

real test = perceived as harder.

When I re-did the June test a month ago for prep I got a 168 whereas I got 160 on the real thing. PT and real are 2 completely different beasts.

Hated hearing it

[DrackedaryMaster]

This may not mean anything in the end, and I'm sure someone else probably already pointed this out but at least it gives me somehing to do while I battle PT withdrawl syndrome. At least I hope the raw score pattern holds up.

Okay, after looking at the raw score charts, I noticed some very consistent data between the June and October LSATs and the magical 170/160 thresholds. Between the two tests, the raw score needed to get 170 on the October test has not been higher than (1) more correct answer choice in over 16 YEARS from the June test. Most of the time, the raw score requirements either stayed the same or went down for the October test. In the rare cases it went up, the lowest raw score required to hit 170/160 never went up by more than 1, except in 1992 and 1994 for 170 hopefuls and 1999 for 160 hopefuls) December, on the other hand has some pretty wild swings. But it looks like the pattern for June and Sept/Oct has held consistent except for the noted exceptions.

Based on this, I think it is somewhat probable that the raw score required to hit 170 will be no higher than 88. This means the curve should be no harsher than -13, or (-12 if a question gets thrown out). Otherwise, it will be the first time in 16 years that this raw score trend between June and September/October will have been broken.

[Patriot1208]

I don't understand why people keep making threads that are already made. For god sakes the there are two within like 8 spots of this one, WTF are you people doing.

[kkklick]

This may not mean anything in the end, and I'm sure someone else probably already pointed this out but at least it gives me somehing to do while I battle PT withdrawl syndrome. At least I hope the raw score pattern holds up.

Okay, after looking at the raw score charts, I noticed some very consistent data between the June and October LSATs and the magical 170/160 thresholds. Between the two tests, the raw score needed to get 170 on the October test has not been higher than (1) more correct answer choice in over 16 YEARS from the June test. Most of the time, the raw score requirements either stayed the same or went down for the October test. In the rare cases it went up, the lowest raw score required to hit 170/160 never went up by more than 1, except in 1992 and 1994 for 170 hopefuls and 1999 for 160 hopefuls) December, on the other hand has some pretty wild swings. But it looks like the pattern for June and Sept/Oct has held consistent except for the noted exceptions.

Based on this, I think it is somewhat probable that the raw score required to hit 170 will be no higher than 88. This means the curve should be no harsher than -13, or (-12 if a question gets thrown out). Otherwise, it will be the first time in 16 years that this raw score trend between June and September/October will have been broken.

This is very interesting indeed. I mean I felt the October test was easier, but I'm not accounting for all the psychological factors that played into it (like experience). The June LSAT when I re-did it, didn't seem half as hard as it was for me on test day. While a -13 would be epic and amazing, I highly doubt that it will happen. -12 maybe, a big maybe, but my gut feeling still stands with -11.

[niederbomb]

-12 maybe, a big maybe, but my gut feeling still stands with -11.

Yes, 59 and 60 were anomalies due to extra killer logic gamez (and RC). But -11 would be more in keeping with the pattern established before PT 59. See PT 58, 57, and 56.

But -12 would be WONDERFUL! That way, even in my worst case scenario, I'd still have a 170.

[hjag]

This may not mean anything in the end, and I'm sure someone else probably already pointed this out but at least it gives me somehing to do while I battle PT withdrawl syndrome. At least I hope the raw score pattern holds up.

Okay, after looking at the raw score charts, I noticed some very consistent data between the June and October LSATs and the magical 170/160 thresholds. Between the two tests, the raw score needed to get 170 on the October test has not been higher than (1) more correct answer choice in over 16 YEARS from the June test. Most of the time, the raw score requirements either stayed the same or went down for the October test. In the rare cases it went up, the lowest raw score required to hit 170/160 never went up by more than 1, except in 1992 and 1994 for 170 hopefuls and 1999 for 160 hopefuls) December, on the other hand has some pretty wild swings. But it looks like the pattern for June and Sept/Oct has held consistent except for the noted exceptions.

Based on this, I think it is somewhat probable that the raw score required to hit 170 will be no higher than 88. This means the curve should be no harsher than -13, or (-12 if a question gets thrown out). Otherwise, it will be the first time in 16 years that this raw score trend between June and September/October will have been broken.

I noticed this same, exact trend, which is why I'm guessing a -12 for a 170. The -13 curve for June 2010 was unusually generous, so I'm not going to bet on a -14 (thought I would love that).

[kkklick]

This may not mean anything in the end, and I'm sure someone else probably already pointed this out but at least it gives me somehing to do while I battle PT withdrawl syndrome. At least I hope the raw score pattern holds up.

Okay, after looking at the raw score charts, I noticed some very consistent data between the June and October LSATs and the magical 170/160 thresholds. Between the two tests, the raw score needed to get 170 on the October test has not been higher than (1) more correct answer choice in over 16 YEARS from the June test. Most of the time, the raw score requirements either stayed the same or went down for the October test. In the rare cases it went up, the lowest raw score required to hit 170/160 never went up by more than 1, except in 1992 and 1994 for 170 hopefuls and 1999 for 160 hopefuls) December, on the other hand has some pretty wild swings. But it looks like the pattern for June and Sept/Oct has held consistent except for the noted exceptions.

Based on this, I think it is somewhat probable that the raw score required to hit 170 will be no higher than 88. This means the curve should be no harsher than -13, or (-12 if a question gets thrown out). Otherwise, it will be the first time in 16 years that this raw score trend between June and September/October will have been broken.

I noticed this same, exact trend, which is why I'm guessing a -12 for a 170. The -13 curve for June 2010 was unusually generous, so I'm not going to bet on a -14 (thought I would love that).

June was -12. 87/99 = 170

[JJDancer]

This may not mean anything in the end, and I'm sure someone else probably already pointed this out but at least it gives me somehing to do while I battle PT withdrawl syndrome. At least I hope the raw score pattern holds up.

Okay, after looking at the raw score charts, I noticed some very consistent data between the June and October LSATs and the magical 170/160 thresholds. Between the two tests, the raw score needed to get 170 on the October test has not been higher than (1) more correct answer choice in over 16 YEARS from the June test. Most of the time, the raw score requirements either stayed the same or went down for the October test. In the rare cases it went up, the lowest raw score required to hit 170/160 never went up by more than 1, except in 1992 and 1994 for 170 hopefuls and 1999 for 160 hopefuls) December, on the other hand has some pretty wild swings. But it looks like the pattern for June and Sept/Oct has held consistent except for the noted exceptions.

Based on this, I think it is somewhat probable that the raw score required to hit 170 will be no higher than 88. This means the curve should be no harsher than -13, or (-12 if a question gets thrown out). Otherwise, it will be the first time in 16 years that this raw score trend between June and September/October will have been broken.

Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly but Sept 2009 required 90/101 for a 170. Same with June 2009. Oct 2008 required 91/100 for a 170.

[JJDancer]

This may not mean anything in the end, and I'm sure someone else probably already pointed this out but at least it gives me somehing to do while I battle PT withdrawl syndrome. At least I hope the raw score pattern holds up.

Okay, after looking at the raw score charts, I noticed some very consistent data between the June and October LSATs and the magical 170/160 thresholds. Between the two tests, the raw score needed to get 170 on the October test has not been higher than (1) more correct answer choice in over 16 YEARS from the June test. Most of the time, the raw score requirements either stayed the same or went down for the October test. In the rare cases it went up, the lowest raw score required to hit 170/160 never went up by more than 1, except in 1992 and 1994 for 170 hopefuls and 1999 for 160 hopefuls) December, on the other hand has some pretty wild swings. But it looks like the pattern for June and Sept/Oct has held consistent except for the noted exceptions.

Based on this, I think it is somewhat probable that the raw score required to hit 170 will be no higher than 88. This means the curve should be no harsher than -13, or (-12 if a question gets thrown out). Otherwise, it will be the first time in 16 years that this raw score trend between June and September/October will have been broken.

I noticed this same, exact trend, which is why I'm guessing a -12 for a 170. The -13 curve for June 2010 was unusually generous, so I'm not going to bet on a -14 (thought I would love that).

Oct 2008: - 9 . . (91/100 credited)
Dec 2008: -11 . . (89/100)
June 2009: -11 . . (90/101)
Sept 2009: - 11 . . (90/101)
Dec 2009: - 13 and -14 . . (87-88/101)
June 2010: -11 and -12 . . (87-88/99)

[Ragged]

If no questions get thrown out, I'm predicting -10 curve. 175/170 being 96/91. My reasoning is that LG and RC was alot easier than June. (i.e. June had mulch and interns for LG and horrible zoning passage for RC). Even though October LR was more difficult which will help the curve, its not enough to overpower easy LG/RC.


I feel like I'm most probably in a 93-98 range.

[kkklick]

If no questions get thrown out, I'm predicting -10 curve. 175/170 being 96/91. My reasoning is that LG and RC was alot easier than June. (i.e. June had mulch and interns for LG and horrible zoning passage for RC). Even though October LR was more difficult which will help the curve, its not enough to overpower easy LG/RC.


I feel like I'm most probably in a 93-98 range.

I do think -10 is a realistic possibility, -9 would never happen. The LG was definately easier, but I disagree at RC bein easier. The african passage is on par with the zoning passage. Either way, this LR was one of the most decieving/tricky that I've seen, and I feel for the most part people would have struggled as bit. Also even though LG was easy, people still made mistakes, myself included.

I'm willing to bet the house on a -11.

[Sandro]

Was LG easier? Maybe for us - we have seen a billion logic games. Aren't the questions determined difficulty by how many "normal" people miss them? I wouldn't say these LGs were a walk in the park with all the hypos and opportunity for missed rules for your average test taker. Same with RC - I thought the African passage was a lil rough and the other 3 okay, but it seems like our opinions are skewed to some degree....

I dont know much but it seems that if a question were to trick X many more of the testers who are scoring 140s and 150s, it would be shifted towards the difficult category - the test takers relative scoring level has little to do with it.