December 2010 Initial Reactions

[iwanta170]

I've noticed that people on these forums have had a tendency of underestimating the curve for the past few tests.

Almost no one thought it would be as high as 14 in December 2009.

Food for thought

[BlueDiamond]

I'm pretty sure that specific scores are tied to percentages. They can't just decide that the crop of test-takers was weak and decide that only .5% get 170+.

That was my point above... I think at least.. Doesn't the LSAT curve work on the entire pool of test takers? So the more "undedicated" people that take the test the better it is for most people on TLS pretty much. I like to think in my head the number of people who are truly dedicated and truly want to attend law school stays about the same and that the economy is spurring the others to take it.. would that not help the curve? (I've also left the possibility open that I'm a total idiot.. which is more likely the case)

[Cpwilson]

I think there should be a forum just for people who choked/bombed. I'm getting tired of hearing from people who are retaking their 173 and are upset because they had to guess on one LG question.

[SilverE2]

I think there should be a forum just for people who choked/bombed. I'm getting tired of hearing from people who are retaking their 173 and are upset because they had to guess on one LG question.

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.com

This is top law schools goddamnit.

[postn0bills]

dooooooooooooooom.

[rso11]

Okay my brain is absolute mush right now...can someone who had 2 RC remind me which was which?

[redsoxfan2495]

I'm pretty sure that specific scores are tied to percentages. They can't just decide that the crop of test-takers was weak and decide that only .5% get 170+.

That was my point above... I think at least.. Doesn't the LSAT curve work on the entire pool of test takers? So the more "undedicated" people that take the test the better it is for most people on TLS pretty much. I like to think in my head the number of people who are truly dedicated and truly want to attend law school stays about the same and that the economy is spurring the others to take it.. would that not help the curve? (I've also left the possibility open that I'm a total idiot.. which is more likely the case)

I don't think you're an idiot, I agree with you.

[Cpwilson]

I think there should be a forum just for people who choked/bombed. I'm getting tired of hearing from people who are retaking their 173 and are upset because they had to guess on one LG question.

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.com

This is top law schools goddamnit.

-1

[EvanC]

Worst first LSAT I think you could ever take. October was tenth pt ever and I got a 166. Not canceling, but only bc where I'm going only looks at your best score so even if I don't get in this year bc of this test I'll be fine next year. At least now I know what it's like to take it in these conditions. I completely choked and am thinking below a 160.

Jewett was abysmal but lichenography wasn't. First LR seemed a little more tiresome than usual. LG was a monster. Last LR was pretty straightforward. This was much more difficult than PT61 IMO. See you guys in February.

[jtoppe2]

I'm pretty sure that specific scores are tied to percentages. They can't just decide that the crop of test-takers was weak and decide that only .5% get 170+.

That was my point above... I think at least.. Doesn't the LSAT curve work on the entire pool of test takers? So the more "undedicated" people that take the test the better it is for most people on TLS pretty much. I like to think in my head the number of people who are truly dedicated and truly want to attend law school stays about the same and that the economy is spurring the others to take it.. would that not help the curve? (I've also left the possibility open that I'm a total idiot.. which is more likely the case)

I don't think you're an idiot, I agree with you.

while i agree that this is how it should be, all of the LSATs have the "curve" predetermined. if it were the case that the curve were determined by how test-takers performed, then everybody would take the test in february since only idiots take the test in february!

[joebloe]

Hey, TLSers... count another one killed by LG. Screwed up my timing and thoroughly completed the first 2 games, like half of game 3 and more or less randomly guessed on the rest. Killed my mood for the rest of the test, and I'd been feeling really spry through most of it: got a good parking spot, was smiling, chatting up the proctors during the break (sweet old ladies), feeling focused. The realization that I had an exp LG when I hit the real LG really hurt too. And in practice I'd been doing damn good on LG; if this isn't an outlier LG, then LG is just gonna keep getting harder.

I feel good about my other sections though. Otherwise I'd definitely cancel. Not 100% in all other sections (the literature RC passage specifically; I had to make snap decisions on all the questions rather than a thorough read), but I feel good. The other RC passages were fairly easy reads for me, and enjoyable subject matter, so I think that helped a bit. Finished both LR handily. In practice, I usually finish LG with 5 minutes to spare... ah well.

I just feel dumb at this point though; I can't even remember the questions or how many there were. To everyone who blew it on the LG, you've got my empathy; hopefully at worst it'll cost you some grant dollars. Everyone who says they had -0, congrats, you're a better logician than I. However the scores come out, I'm just glad it's OVER.

[Cpwilson]

I don't understand why I just can't do logic games. I'm good at everything else, but no matter how much I practice, I still suck at them.

[Jader]

edit bot scary

[RPK34]

For those who are curious, they determine the difficulty of the test before it is administered and compare it to the original LSAT (back in like 1993). This is how they figure out the curve.

[vhtlau]

i can't remember which LR section had the stars with it....was there a q on rap music with it??

[Rawlberto]

It seems that window panes killed many test takers... including myself. June here I come!

[BlueFeathers]

Real RC: Medical Illustrations/Jewett/Lichen on Rocks/Teeth and Agricultural (order not correct)
Real LG: Utilities/GlassWindows/Employees at conference/ i forgot what it was about

From what everyone else is saying though the easy 25LR section I had is exp? That sucks because I thought one of the 26's was very hard...

I got the utilities but I totally checked out on the conference and got like 2 right on the stain glassed windows.

I was feeling all confident after the first LG then we get back from break and it's like "huh?" I was very slow to start because I couldn't wrap my head around seeing the LG section again. But I know I got the first game and the last one.

I feel REALLY good about the LR and RC though. REALLY good so hopefully....praying....

[bartleby]

Fuck, now I remember babies and ladders and if that is confirmed real, I am confirmed fucked.

[SchopenhauerFTW]

.

[BlueDiamond]

I'm pretty sure that specific scores are tied to percentages. They can't just decide that the crop of test-takers was weak and decide that only .5% get 170+.

That was my point above... I think at least.. Doesn't the LSAT curve work on the entire pool of test takers? So the more "undedicated" people that take the test the better it is for most people on TLS pretty much. I like to think in my head the number of people who are truly dedicated and truly want to attend law school stays about the same and that the economy is spurring the others to take it.. would that not help the curve? (I've also left the possibility open that I'm a total idiot.. which is more likely the case)

I don't think you're an idiot, I agree with you.

while i agree that this is how it should be, all of the LSATs have the "curve" predetermined. if it were the case that the curve were determined by how test-takers performed, then everybody would take the test in february since only idiots take the test in february!

That's a little disheartening on its own.. What if the almighty one who predetermines the curve thought theLG's were easy! I literally feel like anyone who was able to work through those is now pretty much set. I'd feel so much better with like a -1 or -2 on LG.. instead I guessed on about 5 and probably got 2 or 3 more wrong on top of it... Hello Class of 2015! My new question is February or June?... hmmm

[bartleby]

LR (26) First Q: Babies and Ladders (made me lol) -- Confirmed REAL -- Thought this one was incredibly easy. One question about Mars early on was the only one that gave me trouble, but when I went back with my 9 minutes to spare I found the answer easily. If I got more than 2 wrong Ill honestly be shocked. 0-1 quite certainly.

RC (27): Earthquakes and Lichens, Jewlett, and Ancient Tooth Decay. It was tough, particularly the first passage; but I really felt confident with all of my answers. 2-3 wrong, I guess. Which is pretty average. Every once in a while I get hit with 4 or 5 wrong out of nowhere but I really don't see that happening this time.

LR (26): THIS RAPED ME. I've tested 1-3 on LR since day one (started studying a month ago) with at least 5 min to spare and this took me for a ride. I was hoping and praying that this was experimental. Turns out I was right.

LR (26): Same as first section-- Stars question I believe--Extremely happy with my performance here, and I smiled as I went through the Stars question because I knew it was one of the more difficult ones in the 20-23 range I usually get wrong. and I found it to be super easy. 0-2 wrong; will be shocked if more than 3
In LR in general I found the Parallel Reasoning, which I almost always fuck up, to be easy than usual.

Logic Games (23):
Game 1: Cake. 0 Wrong.
Game 2 (Stained Glass): Very tough, I made one weak shot in the dark inference I didn't have time to prove rigorously, but it made the last few questions flow nicely--maybe too nicely. 0-2 wrong here, I guess.
Game 3: Completely guessed on three of them, pretty sure I fucked up another. With approx 42% chance I got one of the guess right im thinking 2-4 wrong here; More likely 4 than 2 though--hoping for just 3.
Game 4: Super Cake. 0 Wrong. Glad I pulled myself away from staring at Game 3 to do this one in like 5 minutes.

On the curve. December LSAT averages at 11.75 wrong for a 170. Given that, plus the difficulty of the games, plus 102 I'm saying 14, definitely 13 or above. On the other hand I felt that LR was extremely easy, so maybe not 14.

I'm holding true to 8-14 wrong so anywhere from a 168/9 to a 173/4. Which is exactly where I was PTing.


If the curve is weaker than -13, I'm burning something down.

I had the same distribution. Are you sure the second LR had 26?

There was 100% an LR exp with 26 but I'm sure there was one with 25 also.

[dh22]

I did AWESOME on the LG!!! Then, I realized it was experimental, then I cried during the real one.

[Cpwilson]

God it hurts to sit down after those logic games.

[Moral_Midgetry]

I don't understand why I just can't do logic games. I'm good at everything else, but no matter how much I practice, I still suck at them.

I'm thinking this probably just because I'm upset but I'd rather generally suck balls at LG than ace them in practice and get slayed on the real deal (like yours truly, for the second official LSAT in a row (sick + miss bubble the first time)). It was especially heart breaking after finishing the exp LG section with enough time to check my answers and thinking I'm on the way to a 170. Noticing the next page contained a bunch of text thinking RC or LR. Enter Stained Glass and Conference games, hello mediocrity.

[SageD]

My practice tests are mostly 175+.

I would be surprised if I got any wrong on the two arguments section, I think I got at most one wrong on the reading comprehension.

Made two almost-guesses and 10 complete-fucking guesses on LG.

Guess I'll be cancelling. So much for law school next year.