Feb 2011 Curve Poll

[cmob]

I killed the games for the month prior to the test, getting -0 or -1 and always having time left over. On the real deal, I didn't finish; I guessed on probably 3-4.

I finished the RC, but felt like some of my answers might as well have been guesses.

I feel like i destoryed LR, having time left over and feeling confident in pretty much all of my answers.

In short, thought LG and RC were each harder than average (however slightly) and LR was easier than average.

Anyone feel the same?

No idea what to think about my score and/or the test's cruve. I guessed -11?

Yes. Both LR sections I had an average of 8 minutes left over... it was amazing to be able to spend 4 minutes for every iffy question I had. With that, a 20% chance of nailing a hard one right turns to 50% pretty easily.

LG and RC had maybe 2 hard sections each, and I'll concede a couple points to misses in those sections. Total, my estimated missed point spread is -6 to -12. This had to be -11 or -12 just by UNESCO's weird format, Prescrip and Descrip Language RC fuxed with my head, and the games weren't as conventional as the 15 preps I took. Here's to 170+.

[VTOrange19]

Can someone explain exactly how the "undisclosed" test idea works? I know that means the LSAC will not show the grade equivalences and the little chart with the score, but is the score all you get? I would assume that from seeing your score sheet and/or score report, you would be able to conjure up the curve through enough "I got a _ _ _ and missed _ _ questions" conversations.

I felt really, really good about this one compared to December, but if I did poorly, will I not even receive the satisfaction of looking over what I did wrong?? And also, why is it like this for just February?

[cmob]

Can someone explain exactly how the "undisclosed" test idea works? I know that means the LSAC will not show the grade equivalences and the little chart with the score, but is the score all you get? I would assume that from seeing your score sheet and/or score report, you would be able to conjure up the curve through enough "I got a _ _ _ and missed _ _ questions" conversations.

I felt really, really good about this one compared to December, but if I did poorly, will I not even receive the satisfaction of looking over what I did wrong?? And also, why is it like this for just February?

They actually don't even disclose your score. Instead they put a vague adjective in place of your score, like "meh" or "lol?". Then you apply with that score.

On the real, I believe its score + item response report. Theoretically, if you get a 170 you could do the math on that one.

[benito]

haha funny I'd be very upset to get a meh......but no they really don't give you shit, just a score and a percentile thats it.....you won't know how many you missed or in what sections you won't be able to calculate the curve

[acadec]

I killed the games for the month prior to the test, getting -0 or -1 and always having time left over. On the real deal, I didn't finish; I guessed on probably 3-4.

I finished the RC, but felt like some of my answers might as well have been guesses.

I feel like i destoryed LR, having time left over and feeling confident in pretty much all of my answers.

In short, thought LG and RC were each harder than average (however slightly) and LR was easier than average.

Anyone feel the same?

No idea what to think about my score and/or the test's cruve. I guessed -11?

I feel the same as every part of this post except I only guessed on 2 LG and guessed -12. Good luck!

[510Chicken]

haha funny I'd be very upset to get a meh......but no they really don't give you shit, just a score and a percentile thats it.....you won't know how many you missed or in what sections you won't be able to calculate the curve

...Although it might be possible to know the minimum possible curve best on score reports (although that really only serves to eliminate curves less than -10, which are already unlikely).

[benito]

Yeah actually if we see that there are no 178's or 176's that would give us a pretty good idea

[gggrra]

I feel like tests with 101 questions tend to have -11 (or greater) curves. Since it seems like LG was harder than average I'll go with a -12.

[unc0mm0n1]

I feel like tests with 101 questions tend to have -11 (or greater) curves. Since it seems like LG was harder than average I'll go with a -12.

I said -13 because I'm optomistic. I'd love an epic -15 though.

[RackBall]

As is often discussed post-LSATs, I do realize that the equating is done pre-test BUT...

I thought the general theory was that Feb test-takers were of a lower overall caliber (I'm including myself in this) -- we're comprised mostly of desperate people who shat the bed in December OR people that haven't researched the Law School admission process closely enough OR those who are bored in their senior year of college and think they'll just take a crack at it.

Wouldn't this mean that it would be a pretty standard -13/-14 for a 170 and then easier to get a 155/160/165 than on a December/October/June test?

[RackBall]

After posting, I do realize that most TLSers don't particularly care about the 155/160/165... it's all about the 170.

Same boat tough!

[gggrra]

As is often discussed post-LSATs, I do realize that the equating is done pre-test BUT...

I thought the general theory was that Feb test-takers were of a lower overall caliber (I'm including myself in this) -- we're comprised mostly of desperate people who shat the bed in December OR people that haven't researched the Law School admission process closely enough OR those who are bored in their senior year of college and think they'll just take a crack at it.

Wouldn't this mean that it would be a pretty standard -13/-14 for a 170 and then easier to get a 155/160/165 than on a December/October/June test?

Feel like you kinda answered your own question. The Feb test takers aren't the ones "setting the curve" because of the equating, so it doesn't matter that Feb test takers are of lower caliber.

[kulshan]

.

[cmob]

As is often discussed post-LSATs, I do realize that the equating is done pre-test BUT...

I thought the general theory was that Feb test-takers were of a lower overall caliber (I'm including myself in this) -- we're comprised mostly of desperate people who shat the bed in December OR people that haven't researched the Law School admission process closely enough OR those who are bored in their senior year of college and think they'll just take a crack at it.

Wouldn't this mean that it would be a pretty standard -13/-14 for a 170 and then easier to get a 155/160/165 than on a December/October/June test?

Common misconception. The performance of a specific administration is not a variable in the LSAT curve. It is calculated by LSAC from the performances of prior year's experimental sections (at least part of it is). In this way, a 170 performance is always a 170, no matter when you took it.

[RackBall]

Cheers for the responses.

I haven't taken a Maths class since secondary school. The exact nature of 'equating' will probably remain a mystery to me.

[handlesthetruth]

As is often discussed post-LSATs, I do realize that the equating is done pre-test BUT...

I thought the general theory was that Feb test-takers were of a lower overall caliber (I'm including myself in this) -- we're comprised mostly of desperate people who shat the bed in December OR people that haven't researched the Law School admission process closely enough OR those who are bored in their senior year of college and think they'll just take a crack at it.

Wouldn't this mean that it would be a pretty standard -13/-14 for a 170 and then easier to get a 155/160/165 than on a December/October/June test?

Common misconception. The performance of a specific administration is not a variable in the LSAT curve. It is calculated by LSAC from the performances of prior year's experimental sections (at least part of it is). In this way, a 170 performance is always a 170, no matter when you took it.

here's to hoping whoever took the damn UNECUS (sp?) passage as an experimental sucked big ones on it

[gggrra]

As is often discussed post-LSATs, I do realize that the equating is done pre-test BUT...

I thought the general theory was that Feb test-takers were of a lower overall caliber (I'm including myself in this) -- we're comprised mostly of desperate people who shat the bed in December OR people that haven't researched the Law School admission process closely enough OR those who are bored in their senior year of college and think they'll just take a crack at it.

Wouldn't this mean that it would be a pretty standard -13/-14 for a 170 and then easier to get a 155/160/165 than on a December/October/June test?

Common misconception. The performance of a specific administration is not a variable in the LSAT curve. It is calculated by LSAC from the performances of prior year's experimental sections (at least part of it is). In this way, a 170 performance is always a 170, no matter when you took it.

here's to hoping whoever took the damn UNECUS (sp?) passage as an experimental sucked big ones on it

tbh, I thought the RC was fairly easy... and reading about all the people freaking out about the UNESCO passage has really made me question my performance.

I thought the LR and RC sections were easier than average (but maybe the UNESCO passage threw people off?), but the LG was harder than average.

[handlesthetruth]

.

[gggrra]

The LG is what makes me feel terrible about looking at my score....i finished with 5 minutes to go and got -1/-0 for about the final 8 PTs...and then on this one didn't get done. (guessed on 3 or4!!!) wtf.
I dind't think they were hard I guess, just time consuming.

RC no idea i guess. thought all but the comparitive passage was fine but guessed a lot on that one.

LR was easy for me.

who knows!!!??? im losing it.

Yea I had to guess on 2 and guesstimate on 3 for the LG. I also kinda messed up on the first game because I missed one line, which caused me to spend much more time on it than I should have. I'm glad my games came last though so it couldn't mess with my head...

[spaghetticat]

the games just slay me. my general diagram wasn't working for the first game so i brute forced my way through that one, skipped the last questions of games 1, 2 and 3, then guessed on the last 3 questions of game 4. so i know i got at least 6 wrong off the bat, and who knows what else i fucked up in addition to those, arrrrrrrggggggggggghhhhhh

[unc0mm0n1]

Don't mean to sound like a jerk but I'm so glad I'm not the only one who messed up on the games I'm normally a -0 or-1, the most I've gotten in my last 8 practice tests is -2. But I had to basically make an educated guess on the last two and I didn't feel so good about a total of four on the last game. I had plenty of time I just hit a wall. I'm so glad it was my last section.

[suspicious android]

Cheers for the responses.

I haven't taken a Maths class since secondary school. The exact nature of 'equating' will probably remain a mystery to me.

You seem like a pleasant guy, so I'm glad no one's yelling at you. But I have to say, reading your post gave me a huge WTF?? moment. It was basically "I know the LSAT is standardized and all the tests are equated but... the February test is easier to get a 170, right?"

Anyway, the equating process means that all LSATs are equated back to the very first modern LSAT given in 1991. Not to be precisely the same difficulty, but just so that a given level of performance on any test will (theoretically) give you the same score on any LSAT. Some LSATs are objectively easier than others, so that's why the scale is different from test to test. For such an "easy" test, the scale is tighter so that X scorer should get close to the same score on a hard test. There is absolutely NOT an effort to make the median score of a February test equal the median score for a June preptest; in fact on LSAC's website they have data showing that February consistently has a lower median score than June, which has the highest median score (the difference is about 4 points if I recall correctly). The whole point of a standardized test is to compare individual test takers to the entire population of test-takers, not just those taking the same test on the same day.

[benito]

u know I feel the same way about this UNESCO passage as I do about the dec stained glass game....this isn't me getting on my intellectual high horse I fully agree that they were not easy by any means but in neither case do I think they were even the hardest game/passage of the section....that conferences deal in december had more stuff going on and I forgot what it was about but there was another passage on febs RC that i thought was harder. Am I alone on that?

[cmob]

u know I feel the same way about this UNESCO passage as I do about the dec stained glass game....this isn't me getting on my intellectual high horse I fully agree that they were not easy by any means but in neither case do I think they were even the hardest game/passage of the section....that conferences deal in december had more stuff going on and I forgot what it was about but there was another passage on febs RC that i thought was harder. Am I alone on that?

UNESCO was weird because of the format, but it was almost easier because one of the passages was so succinct (trying not to disclose too much). This made it easier to find bad answers. I think you're talking about the prescriptive/descriptive language; that was a bitch because the perspectives were all jumbled together in the paragraphs. I think I had a few minutes at the end and legitimately could not figure out one of the questions because the passage was so confusing. Other two passages = easy.

[suspicious android]

UNESCO was weird because of the format, but it was almost easier because one of the passages was so succinct (trying not to disclose too much). This made it easier to find bad answers. I think you're talking about the prescriptive/descriptive language; that was a bitch because the perspectives were all jumbled together in the paragraphs. I think I had a few minutes at the end and legitimately could not figure out one of the questions because the passage was so confusing. Other two passages = easy.

UNESCO was fairly easy to read, passage B was especially straightforward, as you noted. However, I think two of the questions were really difficult. On RC the difficulty can lie in either the passage or the Q's. I don't know about prescriptivism/descriptivism, I feel like that one might vary a lot in difficulty depending on how familiar one is with that topic. Being a bit of a grammar/linguist nerd myself, I was really comfortable with all the points being made in the pasage.