-15 curve almost guaranteed Forum

[SchopenhauerFTW]

I agree. I think the people who normally score in the 160's are probably going to have to worry the most for this test. Would love to see your analysis on # of questions correct for the 160s....

Maybe I'll just post the stats themselves and let people speculate some more.

From LSATBlog -> http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/ls ... score.html

170 Curve







160 Curve





FWIW October 1992 was the last test with 102 questions.

[SrLaw]

For those who do not want to rescroll October 92 was a -11 curve for a 170.

[Nonok]

For those who do not want to rescroll October 92 was a -11 curve for a 170.

Hmm. That sucks!

[kkklick]

Haha it wont be a -11, that's for sure.

[Sandro]

Haha it wont be a -11, that's for sure.

Because a -15 curve has been all but guaranteed.....

[iwanta170]

For some reason, the December 2010 exam as a whole reminded me a lot of the PrepTest with the birds in the forest (shrieks, wrens, etc). I took that one a few weeks before the real deal. That test had a -14 curve

[Sandro]

For some reason, the December 2010 exam as a whole reminded me a lot of the PrepTest with the birds in the forest (shrieks, wrens, etc). I took that one a few weeks before the real deal. That test had a -14 curve

well atleast on those LG you had some concrete rules/not laws to go off of instead of "If x then which of these could be true?" x 5

[kkklick]

Haha it wont be a -11, that's for sure.

Because a -15 curve has been all but guaranteed.....

lol those 2 guys, anonimby who comes up with nonsense threads and the other guy who does nothing but talk about statistics in LR questions.

[robotclubmember]

-13 curve is my prediction. I would say -14 is more likely than -12 and -15 is more likely than -11.

Pretty much what I think, maybe a smidge more generous. -14 as prediction, -13 close behind, then -15 and -12 way behind. Then -11 with a 0.01% chance and -16 clocking in at 0.001%.

With 102 questions? That means you have to get 89 correct for a 170! Or 88 with a -14! That is rough man, that low of a curve makes a high question test harder, not easier. I am going with OP on this one, -15 for real.

Lol.

I think it's cute when people fail to recognize that adding one to the numerator of an expression and adding one to the denominator of an expression are actually two different things.

In other words, adding one additional question to the number of questions you took does not mean that for things to be equal you should be allowed to get one extra question wrong. In fact, the opposite is probably truer.

Typical -14 Curve: 87/101 = 86.1% correct
Hypothetical PT62 -14 Curve: 88/102 = 86.2% correct
"Guaranteed" PT62 -15 Curve: 87/102 = 85.2% correct

So because there was an extra question, you think that means you can get an extra 1% wrong and still get a 170? That's insane logic considering there has only been one time the LSAC has allowed a 170 with under 86% correct, and far more often has required test takers to get 90%+ for a 170.

Lol, I'm done speculating on curve, it's almost here anyway. Some will argue "but we had less time," but I'd say the questions were slightly easier, and two 26Q LR sections is really not a big deal. Either way, the curve is determined by information we do not have access to, determined with metrics not fully known to us, so I lol at the conclusion that -15 is guaranteed because there was an extra question.

[jblev1]

-13 curve is my prediction. I would say -14 is more likely than -12 and -15 is more likely than -11.

Pretty much what I think, maybe a smidge more generous. -14 as prediction, -13 close behind, then -15 and -12 way behind. Then -11 with a 0.01% chance and -16 clocking in at 0.001%.

With 102 questions? That means you have to get 89 correct for a 170! Or 88 with a -14! That is rough man, that low of a curve makes a high question test harder, not easier. I am going with OP on this one, -15 for real.

Lol.

I think it's cute when people fail to recognize that adding one to the numerator of an expression and adding one to the denominator of an expression are actually two different things.

In other words, adding one additional question to the number of questions you took does not mean that for things to be equal you should be allowed to get one extra question wrong. In fact, the opposite is probably truer.

Typical -14 Curve: 87/101 = 86.1% correct
Hypothetical PT62 -14 Curve: 88/102 = 86.2% correct
"Guaranteed" PT62 -15 Curve: 87/102 = 85.2% correct

So because there was an extra question, you think that means you can get an extra 1% wrong and still get a 170? That's insane logic considering there has only been one time the LSAC has allowed a 170 with under 86% correct, and far more often has required test takers to get 90%+ for a 170.

Lol, I'm done speculating on curve, it's almost here anyway. Some will argue "but we had less time," but I'd say the questions were slightly easier, and two 26Q LR sections is really not a big deal. Either way, the curve is determined by information we do not have access to, determined with metrics not fully known to us, so I lol at the conclusion that -15 is guaranteed because there was an extra question.

Yes, but the curve is determined by the percentile of scorers in the range for the past 3 years, not by the amount correct.

[kkklick]

The extra question came in the LR section, so we have have to look at it from 3 different perspectives.

170+ scorers finish LR rather quickly, the extra question would have a normal distribution.
160-170 - About 25% or so may not finish the section on time leading them to guess one more question than they would have needed to.
159 or less - Thses people are unlikely to finish LR on time, so the guessing of an extra question would affect the curve for these scorers.

What I am trying to say is I dont believe the extra question will play a factor at all in changing the curve for 165+ scorers, but for those scoring less than 160 the curve could be affected.

[robotclubmember]

With 102 questions? That means you have to get 89 correct for a 170! Or 88 with a -14! That is rough man, that low of a curve makes a high question test harder, not easier. I am going with OP on this one, -15 for real.

Lol.

I think it's cute when people fail to recognize that adding one to the numerator of an expression and adding one to the denominator of an expression are actually two different things.

In other words, adding one additional question to the number of questions you took does not mean that for things to be equal you should be allowed to get one extra question wrong. In fact, the opposite is probably truer.

Typical -14 Curve: 87/101 = 86.1% correct
Hypothetical PT62 -14 Curve: 88/102 = 86.2% correct
"Guaranteed" PT62 -15 Curve: 87/102 = 85.2% correct

So because there was an extra question, you think that means you can get an extra 1% wrong and still get a 170? That's insane logic considering there has only been one time the LSAC has allowed a 170 with under 86% correct, and far more often has required test takers to get 90%+ for a 170.

Lol, I'm done speculating on curve, it's almost here anyway. Some will argue "but we had less time," but I'd say the questions were slightly easier, and two 26Q LR sections is really not a big deal. Either way, the curve is determined by information we do not have access to, determined with metrics not fully known to us, so I lol at the conclusion that -15 is guaranteed because there was an extra question.

Yes, but the curve is determined by the percentile of scorers in the range for the past 3 years, not by the amount correct.

I made it clear that I'm not suggesting the amount correct determines the curve, all I did was point out a quick statistical analysis, not to support any conclusion of mine, but to undermine the soundness of this -15 junk. An extra question means a lot less than you seem to think. And what you said is not actually true either, it's determined through the experimental section performance. Actually, your sentence doesn't even mean anything. "percentile of scorers in the range for the past 3 years?" What range? What percentile? This is a nonsense statement.

[SchopenhauerFTW]

Lol.

I think it's cute when people fail to recognize that adding one to the numerator of an expression and adding one to the denominator of an expression are actually two different things...

What an incredibly douchey and condescending/funny and lol-worthy comment.

[iceland]

Lol.

I think it's cute when people fail to recognize that adding one to the numerator of an expression and adding one to the denominator of an expression are actually two different things.

In other words, adding one additional question to the number of questions you took does not mean that for things to be equal you should be allowed to get one extra question wrong. In fact, the opposite is probably truer.

Typical -14 Curve: 87/101 = 86.1% correct
Hypothetical PT62 -14 Curve: 88/102 = 86.2% correct
"Guaranteed" PT62 -15 Curve: 87/102 = 85.2% correct

So because there was an extra question, you think that means you can get an extra 1% wrong and still get a 170? That's insane logic considering there has only been one time the LSAC has allowed a 170 with under 86% correct, and far more often has required test takers to get 90%+ for a 170.

Lol, I'm done speculating on curve, it's almost here anyway. Some will argue "but we had less time," but I'd say the questions were slightly easier, and two 26Q LR sections is really not a big deal. Either way, the curve is determined by information we do not have access to, determined with metrics not fully known to us, so I lol at the conclusion that -15 is guaranteed because there was an extra question.

I lol with you! I like loling!

[akili]

Guys, it's almost guaranteed.

/thread

[WhatSarahSaid]

I think it's cute when people fail to recognize that adding one to the numerator of an expression and adding one to the denominator of an expression are actually two different things...

How often does this happen to you? Do you walk down the street and stumble into people trying to convince you that 4/5 equals 5/6?

[Attorney]

How often does this happen to you? Do you walk down the street and stumble into people trying to convince you that 4/5 equals 5/6?

I feel ya, Robot. If I had a nickel...

[iceland]

I think it's cute when people fail to recognize that adding one to the numerator of an expression and adding one to the denominator of an expression are actually two different things...

How often does this happen to you? Do you walk down the street and stumble into people trying to convince you that 4/5 equals 5/6?

[robotclubmember]

Lol.

I think it's cute when people fail to recognize that adding one to the numerator of an expression and adding one to the denominator of an expression are actually two different things...

What an incredibly douchey and condescending/funny and lol-worthy comment.

Sorry brah.

[robotclubmember]

I lol with you! I like loling!

lolool

[WhatSarahSaid]

In other words, adding one additional question to the number of questions you took does not mean that for things to be equal you should be allowed to get one extra question wrong.

I would absolutely be in favor of a 200-question LSAT with a -112 or so curve.

[well-hello-there]

Yes, but the curve is determined by the percentile of scorers in the range for the past 3 years, not by the amount correct.

The curve on any given LSAT is determined by the performance of the test takers who had pieces of that test as their experimental sections.
The percentile that you see associated with your LSAT score is derived from the score distribution of all LSAT takers over the past 3 years.

[KevinP]

So because there was an extra question, you think that means you can get an extra 1% wrong and still get a 170? That's insane logic considering there has only been one time the LSAC has allowed a 170 with under 86% correct, and far more often has required test takers to get 90%+ for a 170.

Actually,
Feb '97, PTs 7, 9, 17, 23, 27 all gave the test taker the ability to score a 170 with under 86% correct.

Edit: Decided against sounding like a d-bag.

[SchopenhauerFTW]

Lol.

I think it's cute when people fail to recognize that adding one to the numerator of an expression and adding one to the denominator of an expression are actually two different things...

What an incredibly douchey and condescending/funny and lol-worthy comment.

Sorry brah.

No problem broseph. I simply thought to myself 'wow what a jerk comment, but how does this differ from how I react to the mistakes of others?'

[robotclubmember]

So because there was an extra question, you think that means you can get an extra 1% wrong and still get a 170? That's insane logic considering there has only been one time the LSAC has allowed a 170 with under 86% correct, and far more often has required test takers to get 90%+ for a 170.

Actually,
Feb '97, PTs 7, 9, 17, 23, 27 all gave the test taker the ability to score a 170 with under 86% correct.

Edit: Decided against sounding like a d-bag.

Oh shi-

OK. It still hasn't happened in over a decade and that was a different era of test-takers, before the days of TLS and established prep methods like PowerScore, etc.

In my defense, I wake and baked this morning.