jblev1 wrote: Attorney wrote:
SrLaw wrote:-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.
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.