Should cancel or wait since this was a hard test? Forum

[zephyr36]

I'm just wondering if the curve really will be something like -15 since this is the hardest test in quite a long time (perhaps ever?). I got a 166 in October, and I was hoping to push it to a 170, but I had to blind guess 2 on LR and ran out of time on LG with one blank (and definitely had trouble with the middle two games) I average -5 on RC, -4/-5 on LR (both sections), and -2 on the newest games.

I'm just wondering if anyone is deciding to not cancel in the hopes that the curve will be generous.

[2Serious4Numbers]

i'm sure some ppl are, but i wouldn't bank on a -15+ due to percieved difficulty. its really your call if you think you did better or not based on a "normal" curve.. best of luck to you and you may just have done better than you think, you never know.

[2014]

I think the best curve you can really count on is -11, so judge that accordingly. You could make an argument for anywhere down to -15 maybe (extremely doubtful) but LSAC is not rational with their curve choices.

[confusedlawyer]

I think the best curve you can really count on is -11, so judge that accordingly. You could make an argument for anywhere down to -15 maybe (extremely doubtful) but LSAC is not rational with their curve choices.

-11? Not a chance in hell, I don't know what world you are living in. The complaints about LG on this test are 10x that of June, not to mention June's LR was much easier, with RC the same difficulty. -12 or better. My guess is -13, but -14 I feel is likely.

[Attorney]

I would base cancellation decisions on a normal curve. While I agree this was a very hard test, there are no guarantees of an unusually generous curve and you could be setting yourself up for disappointment. LSAC makes questionable curves sometimes... just as the October curve was overly generous for a normal test, the December curve could be unduly harsh (normal) for a hard test.

The more I think about it, it could be a very cold January for many hoping for a 170 or 175. People in the "mid-range" will be fine.

[glitter178]

I think the best curve you can really count on is -11, so judge that accordingly. You could make an argument for anywhere down to -15 maybe (extremely doubtful) but LSAC is not rational with their curve choices.

Incorrect. The curve is based on how test takers score, in order that only 1% of test takers will score a 170 or higher. It's in no way random or subjective.

[zephyr36]

I think the best curve you can really count on is -11, so judge that accordingly. You could make an argument for anywhere down to -15 maybe (extremely doubtful) but LSAC is not rational with their curve choices.

Incorrect. The curve is based on how test takers score, in order that only 1% of test takers will score a 170 or higher. It's in no way random or subjective.

I think it's slightly higher than 1%. 170 is not the 99th percentile.

[sundance95]

I think the best curve you can really count on is -11, so judge that accordingly. You could make an argument for anywhere down to -15 maybe (extremely doubtful) but LSAC is not rational with their curve choices.

Incorrect. The curve is based on how test takers score, in order that only 1% of test takers will score a 170 or higher. It's in no way random or subjective.

Actually, you are incorrect. First, 170 is set as the top 2% target. Also, the curve is based on how test takers scored when the sections were given as experimentals. So more than 2% can score at or higher than 170. This has happened in the past; I know for a fact that top 2% for June 2010 was set at 171.

[joebloe]

[...] The more I think about it, it could be a very cold January for many hoping for a 170 or 175. People in the "mid-range" will be fine.

Absolutely the feeling I'm getting. The next few weeks are going to be brutal. But I'm not canceling... I feel pretty confident that I'll achieve the basic goals I set out before I got corrupted by TLS' rather high standards.

[2014]

I think the best curve you can really count on is -11, so judge that accordingly. You could make an argument for anywhere down to -15 maybe (extremely doubtful) but LSAC is not rational with their curve choices.

Incorrect. The curve is based on how test takers score, in order that only 1% of test takers will score a 170 or higher. It's in no way random or subjective.

Rather than say they aren't rational, I should have said their logic has yet to be discovered.

All we know is that as Sundance said above, it is equated based on the performance on the experimentals.

I still have enough faith in TLS' overall perception to believe that the test was significantly more difficult than an average test which would make it somewhere around -11, which is why I said you can probably count on that if you want a number to count on.

[confusedlawyer]

I think the best curve you can really count on is -11, so judge that accordingly. You could make an argument for anywhere down to -15 maybe (extremely doubtful) but LSAC is not rational with their curve choices.

Incorrect. The curve is based on how test takers score, in order that only 1% of test takers will score a 170 or higher. It's in no way random or subjective.

Rather than say they aren't rational, I should have said their logic has yet to be discovered.

All we know is that as Sundance said above, it is equated based on the performance on the experimentals.

I still have enough faith in TLS' overall perception to believe that the test was significantly more difficult than an average test which would make it somewhere around -11, which is why I said you can probably count on that if you want a number to count on.

I could fully see people messing up these sections as they appeared as experimentals. Every section minus RC seemed more more difficult than the average consistent with the past few years. -13 watch.