Inappropriate June 2012 Curve Forum

[RodionRaskolnikov]

my sense tell me nothing what so ever would happen to curve
but secretly wish for extra favor

+1 lol but worth discussing. If I were on LSAC curve making committee, I'd change it.

[TERS]

Testmakers should come on these forums for new content. The underlying structure of the ice analogy seems eerily familiar.

But the test isn't supposed to be easy.

[bdeebs]

Testmakers should come on these forums for new content. The underlying structure of the ice analogy seems eerily familiar.

But the test isn't supposed to be easy.

XD

[RodionRaskolnikov]

I think this thread just went downhill. I'm guessing some people didn't understand the analogies.

[Clearly]

Lol people still seem mad that LSAC actually gave more room for logic games. Lol just lol at thinking this somehow means you deserve a more lenient curve. Wishful thinking.

Why would it be wishful thinking? I don't see the necessary relationship between more space and easier LG section.

It's wishful thinking to tell yourself LSAC will somehow compensate you for its own favor in removing a functional impediment. Are you going to ask for more points if they switch to a thicker paper that erases better and allow for highlighting?

I think you missed the point. The point isn't simply that they gave us more room. It's that they unexpectedly gave us more room. With each previous tests, except for the one where they introduced the comparative reading passage, test takers had to deal with the same amount of rigor on the test. Sure, there were surprises. Perhaps they may get a linear game, perhaps they may get a grouped or even hybrid. Perhaps they may have a passage about british law, or maybe about tax law internationally. Who knows? But, every test provided those twists, meaning that those surprises were carried over with every new test. However, this June test added a big surprise with the added space in LG section. It's not the added space itself that we're looking at. It's what it did. The added surprise and fluster it gave makes it more challenging in that respect than the previous test.

Now, if you just look at it from an added-space point of view. The added space does not make the games any easier. After all, the previously alotted space was sufficient enough to answer the questions in under 8 minutes per game (for those who knew how to deal with them). So giving more space to do what one can do in the originally alotted space made no difference. It's like if you were given a 10 by 10 foot table at which you were to do the test, which is sufficient amount of room, but then were given a 20X20 table. This 20X20 table would not make the LSAT you're taking any easier. But the sudden change of testing rooms in order for you to change the table would provide an unexpected fluster and surprise that would negatively affect your test taking when compared to you being left alone at that same room and at that same table.

We demand a retake! This time, with more rigor!

[humbugger]

This whole thread made me lol.

Get a hobby, man! How many times have you read The Brothers Karamozov? Maybe one more wouldn't hurt.

[Micdiddy]

I spent a solid 4 minutes laughing at the poster saying how more space was negative in any way. Then I saw who it was. Waste of my time.

[ajaxconstructions]

lol no

[DonnaDraper]

What could you have done with more space that you couldn't have done with the previously alotted space? Use it for more hypotheticals and waste time? Isn't that another negative effect? No one needed that much space. It's like being given a 5 by 5 foot table to do the LSAT and then being unexpectedly moved to a different room and given a 10 by 10 foot table. Wow. We got extra room to do the LSAT guys. Does that make the LSAT you're taking any easier? No.

Go back to PT 62 Game #1 and then tell me more space is a disadvantage.

[arkansawyer]

I can't wait until Rodion gets his 147 and blames it on all the extra space.

[052220151]

Why would it be wishful thinking? I don't see the necessary relationship between more space and easier LG section.

It's wishful thinking to tell yourself LSAC will somehow compensate you for its own favor in removing a functional impediment. Are you going to ask for more points if they switch to a thicker paper that erases better and allow for highlighting?

I think you missed the point. The point isn't simply that they gave us more room. It's that they unexpectedly gave us more room. With each previous tests, except for the one where they introduced the comparative reading passage, test takers had to deal with the same amount of rigor on the test. Sure, there were surprises. Perhaps they may get a linear game, perhaps they may get a grouped or even hybrid. Perhaps they may have a passage about british law, or maybe about tax law internationally. Who knows? But, every test provided those twists, meaning that those surprises were carried over with every new test. However, this June test added a big surprise with the added space in LG section. It's not the added space itself that we're looking at. It's what it did. The added surprise and fluster it gave makes it more challenging in that respect than the previous test.

Now, if you just look at it from an added-space point of view. The added space does not make the games any easier. After all, the previously alotted space was sufficient enough to answer the questions in under 8 minutes per game (for those who knew how to deal with them). So giving more space to do what one can do in the originally alotted space made no difference. It's like if you were given a 10 by 10 foot table at which you were to do the test, which is sufficient amount of room, but then were given a 20X20 table. This 20X20 table would not make the LSAT you're taking any easier. But the sudden change of testing rooms in order for you to change the table would provide an unexpected fluster and surprise that would negatively affect your test taking when compared to you being left alone at that same room and at that same table.

We demand a retake! This time, with more rigor!

I don't understand you folks. The extra space is a luxury. LG is my strongest section, not because I learned how to do them without the extra space, but because I know how the games function. The LG section is literally the exact same every year. Advanced linear, linear, grouping, circular, etc. Once you know how to do a certain game it doesn't matter if they are talking about trains, musical performances or ninjas on the roof. The game is the exact same. I saw the added space and said "cool, my diagrams don't have to be erased".

If you are one of the folks that got flustered by the extra space then you deserve to be penalized for letting your nerves get to you. One, because it was a luxury they gave you. And two, because this particular set of games were fucking easy.

[KevinP]

The mathematical models that LSAC uses are based on IRT (Item Response Theory). When items are pretested, IRT is used to obtain estimates of parameters such item difficulty, guessability, and discriminating power (ability of item to distinguish between more/less able test takers). LSAC uses something known as item parameter calibration to obtain accurate characteristics of these parameters.

When items are actually used on a test (operational), the responses are also used for improving parameter estimation. However, if there is a noticeable difference ("drift") between pretested items and operational items, the responses cannot be pooled in order to improve parameter estimation. This difference is known as parameter drift.

In the case that LSAC finds questions that do not fit the expected distribution, LSAC will adjust the scale (one of the methods they use for adjusting the conversion scale is throwing out questions that do not follow the expected distribution). LSAC is very good at what they do, and it is very unlikely that the extra space would have caused enough people's responses to deviate from the expected distribution. This isn't as if LSAC just assumed giving extra space would produce no change. Rather, they use mathematical models for detecting such a difference and adjusting to it. I'm almost certain that the extra space won't produce a more lenient curve though.

[052220151]

Sorry that I quoted all of you guys. That post was directed at Rodion and the rest of the complainers.

[Noblesse_Oblige]

I don't think that the extra space will factor in for a generous curve. However I will say this - that shit threw me off.

I for one thought "Fuck yeah! More space! but thinking back, I realized that looking back and forth slowed me down a bit. So I can see where these people are coming from. If enough people bitch to LSAC then LSAC might adjust the curve, especially since it was biased against people who are left handed. They won't adjust the curve though, because people are too afraid of their scores being delayed to complain.

[Bildungsroman]

I don't think that the extra space will factor in for a generous curve. However I will say this - that shit threw me off.

I for one thought "Fuck yeah! More space! but thinking back, I realized that looking back and forth slowed me down a bit. So I can see where these people are coming from. If enough people bitch to LSAC then LSAC might adjust the curve, especially since it was biased against people who are left handed. They won't adjust the curve though, because people are too afraid of their scores being delayed to complain.

Even a ton of complaints would change nothing about this curve, because LSAC only has to accommodate the genuinely disabled and not people too stupid to handle extra space.

[shifty_eyed]

[RodionRaskolnikov]

The mathematical models that LSAC uses are based on IRT (Item Response Theory). When items are pretested, IRT is used to obtain estimates of parameters such item difficulty, guessability, and discriminating power (ability of item to distinguish between more/less able test takers). LSAC uses something known as item parameter calibration to obtain accurate characteristics of these parameters.

When items are actually used on a test (operational), the responses are also used for improving parameter estimation. However, if there is a noticeable difference ("drift") between pretested items and operational items, the responses cannot be pooled in order to improve parameter estimation. This difference is known as parameter drift.

In the case that LSAC finds questions that do not fit the expected distribution, LSAC will adjust the scale (one of the methods they use for adjusting the conversion scale is throwing out questions that do not follow the expected distribution). LSAC is very good at what they do, and it is very unlikely that the extra space would have caused enough people's responses to deviate from the expected distribution. This isn't as if LSAC just assumed giving extra space would produce no change. Rather, they use mathematical models for detecting such a difference and adjusting to it. I'm almost certain that the extra space won't produce a more lenient curve though.

Finally a relevant and perfect post! This is what I was looking for. I knew there had to be a way for them to readjust the curve. It was necessary. Otherwise, it would be too obvious that it was flawed! And I agree with the bolded.

[RodionRaskolnikov]

Hahaha omg. The trolls from the waiting thread are coming here. I knew it was only a matter of time before they got bored talking about cuddling otters and moved on to ruining other, more serious posts.

[ookoshi]

Joe: I did poorly on the logic games section of the LSAT this past week. The logic games section included more white space than normal. Therefore, I performed poorly because LSAC changed the test format to include more white space.

Which of the following represents the logical flaw in Joe's reasoning?

A. He assumes that because there is a correlation between the extra white space and his performance, that there must be a causal relationship, without accounting for other possible causes.

[amf728]

As a lefty, the extra space completely threw me off. Normally with everything on one page, I can see the setup and the conditions for each question. Because the conditions were on one page and some questions were on another page, I had to keep moving my arm to uncover my master setup. Did anyone else find this to be a problem?

[VasaVasori]

.

[TheThriller]

Just have to wait until one of the children of those on the LSAC committee take the Lsat so they can ensure a good curve

[fronkman]

I had to lol at rodion's whole "theres always been plenty of room" schtick. Seriously , I write large when I'm in a hurry and it took practice to learn to conserve space on pts. When I saw all that room, I went nuts and just splooged diagrams and hypos everwhere, it was awesome. TBF I'm right handed and had a large table to work on which helped.

[sjwest]

I'm pretty much just going to sum up my feelings, most of which have been mentioned before, and hope the trolls leave well enough alone.

1) The extra space threw me off. Doing my initial diagram on the left page then having the visual disconnect from the left to the right page took extra time, and I feel had a negative impact on my performance.

2) I recognize the majority of people probably praised their various gods that they had extra space.

3) If you think of an experimental section as an actual experiment, the one variable that is being tested is the only thing that should change (the questions). Everything else is a control and should remain the same test to test. If not, then you can't be sure that the difference from one experiment to another is based entirely on the questions themselves. Just Scientific Method 101 here.

4) The fact that something else changed COULD be a valid concern for the LSAC. Do I think they're going to take it into consideration? Maybe a little. Do I think I'm going to get an extra 3 point curve in my favor? Hell no.

[maxmartin]

The mathematical models that LSAC uses are based on IRT (Item Response Theory). When items are pretested, IRT is used to obtain estimates of parameters such item difficulty, guessability, and discriminating power (ability of item to distinguish between more/less able test takers). LSAC uses something known as item parameter calibration to obtain accurate characteristics of these parameters.

When items are actually used on a test (operational), the responses are also used for improving parameter estimation. However, if there is a noticeable difference ("drift") between pretested items and operational items, the responses cannot be pooled in order to improve parameter estimation. This difference is known as parameter drift.

In the case that LSAC finds questions that do not fit the expected distribution, LSAC will adjust the scale (one of the methods they use for adjusting the conversion scale is throwing out questions that do not follow the expected distribution). LSAC is very good at what they do, and it is very unlikely that the extra space would have caused enough people's responses to deviate from the expected distribution. This isn't as if LSAC just assumed giving extra space would produce no change. Rather, they use mathematical models for detecting such a difference and adjusting to it. I'm almost certain that the extra space won't produce a more lenient curve though.

bingo, it is about the performance of majority people and weather this performance fits the expectation of LSAC or not. Maybe majority people performed better than the expectation because of the extra space, so the curve will be tighter