Top Law Schools

HeavenWood wrote:

bigkahuna2020 wrote:

HeavenWood wrote:
The post doesn't look clever enough to be a flame, so why not?

Again with the "a flame" thing. It is trolling. Anyway, I am not worried about troll or not. It is still irritating

LOL relax. You're only pleasing the troll by reacting to it.

I feel like we have threadjacked his trolling thread

-6 curve?

bigkahuna2020 wrote:

HeavenWood wrote:

bigkahuna2020 wrote:

HeavenWood wrote:
The post doesn't look clever enough to be a flame, so why not?

Again with the "a flame" thing. It is trolling. Anyway, I am not worried about troll or not. It is still irritating

LOL relax. You're only pleasing the troll by reacting to it.

I feel like we have threadjacked his trolling thread

-6 curve?

I don't want to be mean. I did much better than expected in October, and don't feel like sacrificing all my karma.

bigkahuna2020 wrote:

HeavenWood wrote:
The post doesn't look clever enough to be a flame, so why not?

Again with the "a flame" thing. It is trolling. Anyway, I am not worried about troll or not. It is still irritating

This is a serious question on my part, I am not trolling at all. I don't know how it works, but I assume with a 102 question test, if a 101 question test gave a -14, and the 102 question test is harder, they would do a -15. You need the same amount correct that way, but I do not know if it works for the amount you get right or the amount you miss, how they determine the score, so...

I honestly doubt it'll be a -15 curve, the LG section was hard but I'm wondering how that affects people who normally miss a lot on the LG section anyway.

That said, I would have gladly taken October's test w/ a -9 curve than this test w/ a -15 curve. FML for canceling my October test.

kls120 wrote:isn't he the guy who believes he could possibly have gotten 170 with scoring 146 on his first time and yet studying lsat for 20 hrs?

Yeah if i only missed 15 questions, and I was PT ing in the 167 range, but I bombed on the LG, and I may have done better on the RC than usual, so...

anonymiB wrote:

bigkahuna2020 wrote:

HeavenWood wrote:
The post doesn't look clever enough to be a flame, so why not?

Again with the "a flame" thing. It is trolling. Anyway, I am not worried about troll or not. It is still irritating

This is a serious question on my part, I am not trolling at all. I don't know how it works, but I assume with a 102 question test, if a 101 question test gave a -14, and the 102 question test is harder, they would do a -15. You need the same amount correct that way, but I do not know if it works for the amount you get right or the amount you miss, how they determine the score, so...

What question? The title of the thread is "-15 curve almost guaranteed". It doesn't seem like you need any convincing.

HeavenWood wrote:
I don't want to be mean. I did much better than expected in October, and don't feel like sacrificing all my karma.

I did much worse. As our karma balances, feel free to practice some Schadenfruede.

3|ink wrote:

anonymiB wrote:

bigkahuna2020 wrote:

HeavenWood wrote:
The post doesn't look clever enough to be a flame, so why not?

Again with the "a flame" thing. It is trolling. Anyway, I am not worried about troll or not. It is still irritating

This is a serious question on my part, I am not trolling at all. I don't know how it works, but I assume with a 102 question test, if a 101 question test gave a -14, and the 102 question test is harder, they would do a -15. You need the same amount correct that way, but I do not know if it works for the amount you get right or the amount you miss, how they determine the score, so...

What question? The title of the thread is "-15 curve almost guaranteed". It doesn't seem like you need any convincing.

Well, it turned into a question when I realized I did not know if they score you by how many you miss or how many you get correct, sounds the same but when a test has more questions that changes things a little.

anonymiB wrote:

bigkahuna2020 wrote:

HeavenWood wrote:
The post doesn't look clever enough to be a flame, so why not?

Again with the "a flame" thing. It is trolling. Anyway, I am not worried about troll or not. It is still irritating

This is a serious question on my part, I am not trolling at all. I don't know how it works, but I assume with a 102 question test, if a 101 question test gave a -14, and the 102 question test is harder, they would do a -15. You need the same amount correct that way, but I do not know if it works for the amount you get right or the amount you miss, how they determine the score, so...

What? There is no difference between a 101 and 102 question test in difficulty. Sections are separately timed and orthogonal.

bigkahuna2020 wrote:

anonymiB wrote:

bigkahuna2020 wrote:

HeavenWood wrote:
The post doesn't look clever enough to be a flame, so why not?

Again with the "a flame" thing. It is trolling. Anyway, I am not worried about troll or not. It is still irritating

This is a serious question on my part, I am not trolling at all. I don't know how it works, but I assume with a 102 question test, if a 101 question test gave a -14, and the 102 question test is harder, they would do a -15. You need the same amount correct that way, but I do not know if it works for the amount you get right or the amount you miss, how they determine the score, so...

What? There is no difference between a 101 and 102 question test in difficulty. Sections are separately timed and orthogonal.

They do take a little longer, and difficulty is not the issue but scoring, does one more question added to the test change the curve?

anonymiB wrote:does one more question added to the test change the curve?

Possibly, but it really depends on the question. A really easy question will change it by .1 points or so down in the middle, but there are no fractional curves so in reality a really easy question has about a 10% chance to bump the curve up by 1 in the middle. A really hard question will change it by .60 or maybe .70, but in actuality a 60% or 70% chance to bump the curve up by 1 in the middle.

Of course, we talk here of the curve @ 170, so the easy question will change that by exactly 0 every time whereas a really hard question has maybe a 50/50 chance or a little less of bumping it up by 1. Everything depends on the probability of a person missing the question who scores in the 170 range.

Attorney wrote:

anonymiB wrote:does one more question added to the test change the curve?

Possibly, but it really depends on the question. A really easy question will change it by .04 points or so down in the middle, but there are no fractional curves so in reality a really easy question has about a 4% chance to bump the curve up by 1 in the middle. A really hard question will change it by .60 or so, but in actuality a 60% or 70% chance to bump the curve up by 1 in the middle.

Of course, we talk here of the curve @ 170, so the easy question will change that by exactly 0 every time whereas a really hard question has maybe a 50/50 chance or a little less of bumping it up by 1. Everything depends on the probability of a person missing the question who scores in the 170 range.

Very nice, now that I think about it this answers my question on how many you get right or how many you miss, it is relative to the curve, so the question was nonsense. Thank you for your posts.

anonymiB wrote:

Attorney wrote:

anonymiB wrote:does one more question added to the test change the curve?

Possibly, but it really depends on the question. A really easy question will change it by .04 points or so down in the middle, but there are no fractional curves so in reality a really easy question has about a 4% chance to bump the curve up by 1 in the middle. A really hard question will change it by .60 or so, but in actuality a 60% or 70% chance to bump the curve up by 1 in the middle.

Of course, we talk here of the curve @ 170, so the easy question will change that by exactly 0 every time whereas a really hard question has maybe a 50/50 chance or a little less of bumping it up by 1. Everything depends on the probability of a person missing the question who scores in the 170 range.

Very nice, now that I think about it this answers my question on how many you get right or how many you miss, it is relative to the curve, so the question was nonsense. Thank you for your posts.

Much welcome!

Attorney wrote:

anonymiB wrote:

Attorney wrote:

anonymiB wrote:does one more question added to the test change the curve?

Possibly, but it really depends on the question. A really easy question will change it by .04 points or so down in the middle, but there are no fractional curves so in reality a really easy question has about a 4% chance to bump the curve up by 1 in the middle. A really hard question will change it by .60 or so, but in actuality a 60% or 70% chance to bump the curve up by 1 in the middle.

Of course, we talk here of the curve @ 170, so the easy question will change that by exactly 0 every time whereas a really hard question has maybe a 50/50 chance or a little less of bumping it up by 1. Everything depends on the probability of a person missing the question who scores in the 170 range.

Very nice, now that I think about it this answers my question on how many you get right or how many you miss, it is relative to the curve, so the question was nonsense. Thank you for your posts.

Much welcome!

Still think it will be -15, my opinion, due to the challenge of the LG and the massive amount of misses on that section. Some people who scored perfects on PT will miss 10 on that one, so the scores are going to be no joke. And 10 questions spread across the other sections, which weren't free rides to begin with, will go a long way, and in the case you lose the 10 you would have got right on the LG to begin with...its a weird issue for those expecting a perfect LG score.

If you miss a few out of each section normally, or you are like me and miss 6/26 on each section, you go in expecting a big score, and a -10 to add makes the other sections -3 less each...23/26 on LR is a hard thing to do for someone who hasn't spent months preparing. So -6, -6, -8 and then an unfortunate -10 on one section, makes a big difference. 167 down to 162, or changes a possible 170 with some luck to a possible 158 with extra misses or nervousness on test day.

I am up in the air about it, so I am assuming -15 for the extra question and one tough game.

Attorney wrote:

anonymiB wrote:

Attorney wrote:

anonymiB wrote:does one more question added to the test change the curve?

Possibly, but it really depends on the question. A really easy question will change it by .04 points or so down in the middle, but there are no fractional curves so in reality a really easy question has about a 4% chance to bump the curve up by 1 in the middle. A really hard question will change it by .60 or so, but in actuality a 60% or 70% chance to bump the curve up by 1 in the middle.

Of course, we talk here of the curve @ 170, so the easy question will change that by exactly 0 every time whereas a really hard question has maybe a 50/50 chance or a little less of bumping it up by 1. Everything depends on the probability of a person missing the question who scores in the 170 range.

Very nice, now that I think about it this answers my question on how many you get right or how many you miss, it is relative to the curve, so the question was nonsense. Thank you for your posts.

Much welcome!

Might I ask where you got the info from?

anonymiB wrote:Might I ask where you got the info from?

There's a PDF or two about this on the LSAC site that people have posted a few times, but really this is the same across all IRT-based examinations. For a more general view, start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Item_response_theory

Attorney wrote:

anonymiB wrote:Might I ask where you got the info from?

There's a PDF or two about this on the LSAC site that people have posted a few times, but really this is the same across all IRT-based examinations. For a more general view, start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Item_response_theory

Oh ty

InLikeFlint wrote:

anonymiB wrote:Because there are 102 questions, were there 102 last December? If there are 101 and the curve is -14 to get to 170, you will need to add 1 to make it equal. I don't think they will do this though, since the extra question benefits the test taker. The curve will therefore need to be set at -15 to stop scores from degenerating too quickly, that is my logic behind it. So, -15 it is

The reasoning above assumes which of the following:

(a). That every test taker will get the "extra" question wrong.
(b). That the other 101 questions were of similar difficulty to the test from last December.
(c). All of the above.

This. Plus, LSAC knows what they're doing when they make their tests, so that the test is never supposed to be EXACTLY what you expect. Otherwise, you wouldn't see thousands of posts right after every test arguing that the test was much harder than usual and that the curve will be more generous than usual. There's a good chance you probably also did better than you think. I didn't take the December test but I sat for the October test and there was many an argument for a -14 curve, which clearly did not happen... I also did much better than I thought, despite talk of odd LR sections, which was and is my worst section.

anonymiB wrote:Still think it will be -15, my opinion, due to the challenge of the LG and the massive amount of misses on that section. Some people who scored perfects on PT will miss 10 on that one, so the scores are going to be no joke. And 10 questions spread across the other sections, which weren't free rides to begin with, will go a long way, and in the case you lose the 10 you would have got right on the LG to begin with...its a weird issue for those expecting a perfect LG score.

If you miss a few out of each section normally, or you are like me and miss 6/26 on each section, you go in expecting a big score, and a -10 to add makes the other sections -3 less each...23/26 on LR is a hard thing to do for someone who hasn't spent months preparing. So -6, -6, -8 and then an unfortunate -10 on one section, makes a big difference. 167 down to 162, or changes a possible 170 with some luck to a possible 158 with extra misses or nervousness on test day.

I am up in the air about it, so I am assuming -15 for the extra question and one tough game.

Sounds like you should have just canceled your score.

well-hello-there wrote:

anonymiB wrote:Still think it will be -15, my opinion, due to the challenge of the LG and the massive amount of misses on that section. Some people who scored perfects on PT will miss 10 on that one, so the scores are going to be no joke. And 10 questions spread across the other sections, which weren't free rides to begin with, will go a long way, and in the case you lose the 10 you would have got right on the LG to begin with...its a weird issue for those expecting a perfect LG score.

If you miss a few out of each section normally, or you are like me and miss 6/26 on each section, you go in expecting a big score, and a -10 to add makes the other sections -3 less each...23/26 on LR is a hard thing to do for someone who hasn't spent months preparing. So -6, -6, -8 and then an unfortunate -10 on one section, makes a big difference. 167 down to 162, or changes a possible 170 with some luck to a possible 158 with extra misses or nervousness on test day.

I am up in the air about it, so I am assuming -15 for the extra question and one tough game.

Sounds like you should have just canceled your score.

I already have a 146 from taking the test completely cold, so I figured I couldn't do worse. If I have to I will take my 3rd time, and study well for it so I can get a, hopefully, near perfect score.

anonymiB wrote:

well-hello-there wrote:

anonymiB wrote:Still think it will be -15, my opinion, due to the challenge of the LG and the massive amount of misses on that section. Some people who scored perfects on PT will miss 10 on that one, so the scores are going to be no joke. And 10 questions spread across the other sections, which weren't free rides to begin with, will go a long way, and in the case you lose the 10 you would have got right on the LG to begin with...its a weird issue for those expecting a perfect LG score.

If you miss a few out of each section normally, or you are like me and miss 6/26 on each section, you go in expecting a big score, and a -10 to add makes the other sections -3 less each...23/26 on LR is a hard thing to do for someone who hasn't spent months preparing. So -6, -6, -8 and then an unfortunate -10 on one section, makes a big difference. 167 down to 162, or changes a possible 170 with some luck to a possible 158 with extra misses or nervousness on test day.

I am up in the air about it, so I am assuming -15 for the extra question and one tough game.

Sounds like you should have just canceled your score.

I already have a 146 from taking the test completely cold, so I figured I couldn't do worse. If I have to I will take my 3rd time, and study well for it so I can get a, hopefully, near perfect score.

Your posts make me laugh. Thanks for that.

T6Hopeful wrote:Otherwise, you wouldn't see thousands of posts right after every test arguing that the test was much harder than usual and that the curve will be more generous than usual. I didn't take the December test but I sat for the October test and there was many an argument for a -14 curve, which clearly did not happen.

You don't see thousands of posts after every test arguing that the test was harder than usual.

I took October before cancelling and as a general rule, everyone thought it was fairly easy. I predicted a -9 curve and was obviously wrong, but I wasn't too far from the consensus of around -11 then. Hardly anyone was saying -14 for October. About as many people saying -16 for December, I guess.

And yes, I probably should have just kept my October score. I felt inadequately prepared for LG, but went -0, -1, -0 on LR LR RC as it turns out. I knew I had a lot of trouble with LG and that's why I cancelled to study... but then the December LG was so much harder than October that it probably didn't help me at all. Whoops!

As people kept saying after the October test (again, perceived to be easy at the time) the trend lately has been for hard tests in June and December then easy tests in February and October. Hopefully PS 63 keeps to this trend.

Attorney wrote:

T6Hopeful wrote:Otherwise, you wouldn't see thousands of posts right after every test arguing that the test was much harder than usual and that the curve will be more generous than usual. I didn't take the December test but I sat for the October test and there was many an argument for a -14 curve, which clearly did not happen.

You don't see thousands of posts after every test arguing that the test was harder than usual.

I took October before cancelling and as a general rule, everyone thought it was fairly easy. I predicted a -9 curve and was obviously wrong, but I wasn't too far from the consensus of around -11 then. Hardly anyone was saying -14 for October. About as many people saying -16 for December, I guess.

And yes, I probably should have just kept my October score. I felt inadequately prepared for LG, but went -0, -1, -0 on LR LR RC as it turns out. I knew I had a lot of trouble with LG and that's why I cancelled to study... but then the December LG was so much harder than October that it probably didn't help me at all. Whoops!

As people kept saying after the October test (again, perceived to be easy at the time) the trend lately has been for hard tests in June and December then easy tests in February and October. Hopefully PS 63 keeps to this trend.

Really? Sorry, maybe I exaggerated a bit, but I could've sworn I saw arguments from everything from -9 to -14, with as many arguments for the higher end as the lower end. Personally, I thought I bombed RC and was pleasantly surprised to see I only went -9 across the 5 sections (and would've been -8 if I didn't for whatever reason forget to bubble in the last answer of a section). I guess my point was though, that the curve, from what I recall of recent tests, tends to be more generous than people think. Then again, I could be wrong.

T6Hopeful wrote:Really? Sorry, maybe I exaggerated a bit, but I could've sworn I saw arguments from everything from -9 to -14, with as many arguments for the higher end as the lower end. Personally, I thought I bombed RC and was pleasantly surprised to see I only went -9 across the 5 sections (and would've been -8 if I didn't for whatever reason forget to bubble in the last answer of a section). I guess my point was though, that the curve, from what I recall of recent tests, tends to be more generous than people think. Then again, I could be wrong.

I don't know if that point is true or false, but if it's true for this test then it'd have to be like a -15 or -16. Not that I'd complain.

T6Hopeful wrote:(and would've been -8 if I didn't for whatever reason forget to bubble in the last answer of a section)

Oh God, now I'm going to dream that I did this. Glad it worked out so well for you anyway! I assuredly would have been below -9 across all sections, it's impossible for me to know what I got on the LG because I had no idea what I was doing but it was probably around a -10 to -12 out of 23 on that one section alone.

Then again, I predict that I missed more than that -11 to -13 on PS 62 anyway.
Cancellation fail.

Attorney wrote:

T6Hopeful wrote:Really? Sorry, maybe I exaggerated a bit, but I could've sworn I saw arguments from everything from -9 to -14, with as many arguments for the higher end as the lower end. Personally, I thought I bombed RC and was pleasantly surprised to see I only went -9 across the 5 sections (and would've been -8 if I didn't for whatever reason forget to bubble in the last answer of a section). I guess my point was though, that the curve, from what I recall of recent tests, tends to be more generous than people think. Then again, I could be wrong.

I don't know if that point is true or false, but if it's true for this test then it'd have to be like a -15 or -16. Not that I'd complain.

T6Hopeful wrote:(and would've been -8 if I didn't for whatever reason forget to bubble in the last answer of a section)

Oh God, now I'm going to dream that I did this. Glad it worked out so well for you anyway! I assuredly would have been below -9 across all sections, it's impossible for me to know what I got on the LG because I had no idea what I was doing but it was probably around a -10 to -12 out of 23 on that one section alone.

Then again, I predict that I missed more than that -11 to -13 on PS 62 anyway.
Cancellation fail.

Thanks, I'm very with the way my cycle is turning out, although I'm still hoping it'll get even better. I guess maybe it was just that I saw many more people on both June and October waiting threads (I took both, should've canceled June but stuck it out, seems like there's been no effect on my cycle because of a large enough jump) unjustifiably hoping for a big curve, whereas the more reasoned people would say "calm down, it wasn't nearly that bad." Of course, people are attracted to false hope when they think they just bombed an important test

Regarding the October exam: yeah, I actually hit right near the top of my PT range (highest I ever tested was a 174, and I got a 172) and I was very, very happy to say the least. I went -3RC, -5LR (this is where I missed that last question, which I did actually have the correct answer to, but didn't bubble it in), -0LG, and -1LR. In the end, that one point would really be helping my cycle right now, but it's far from the end of the world. Honestly, I think I was just a little rushed at that point and intent on NOT raising any misconduct flags, so may have done too quick of a scan in verifying my bubbles. Luckily, the LSAT testing phase is over forever for me (unless something drastic happens where I have to retake it after my scores expire in 5 years)