June 2010 CURVE Predictions Forum

[notreallyalawyer]

-11 at the very least. LG was ridiculously hard. Ive never seen a game like the last one.

wrong. definitely not a new format. there are plenty of hybrid games. look at you LG bible. There's a whole chapter devoted to them, I think. Yes, hypothetical questions are time consuming but only that and not automatically more difficult. And, usually (and it was the case here) the more hypotheticals you have to draw, the more likely you will be able to use one or more of them on later questions.

[notreallyalawyer]

Difficulty is a subjective quality, thus my first claim is not necessarily false. And again, the mere fact that a game may exist in a similar structure as the last game does not make my second claim false. You've used faulty logic. Your claims have been dismissed.

This is why this board is so annoying. I wasn't going to court with you... I was simply saying that I think your incredibly wrong to assert that at the very least this is a -11, and that I find it unbelievable that a person such as yourself hasn't seen a game very close to (aka "like") that one in terms of premises, set up, and questions. I'm sure you'll get the chance to get technical with your arguments one day, but in the meantime can't you just accept that this entire thread is just a bunch of guys and gals completely bullshitting random curve estimates to pass the time (and that includes me)?

well said and thank you. too many people on here think they're on law and order.

[KantStopTheRock]

well said and thank you. too many people on here think they're on law and order.

You're out of line. The curve will be -11.

[Albatross]

-11 at the very least. LG was ridiculously hard. Ive never seen a game like the last one.

wrong. definitely not a new format. there are plenty of hybrid games. look at you LG bible. There's a whole chapter devoted to them, I think. Yes, hypothetical questions are time consuming but only that and not automatically more difficult. And, usually (and it was the case here) the more hypotheticals you have to draw, the more likely you will be able to use one or more of them on later questions.

Wrong? How can a subjective statement be necessarily wrong?

[Albatross]

Im not sure that's correct. Seeing as how they only allow so many percentage of people score a certain score, I feel that the scale cannot be predetermined. They would also have to have a fairly close prediction of how many people were taking the test I think.

This is not the case. The score range for a given test is not necessarily the score range for a different test. June and October/September tests have a higher median (about 2 points) than the other tests (with February having the lowest median of all). This means on certain tests, more than half of all scorers will score above the median for the LSAT in general. They don't predetermine the % of people who get a certain score.

I was under the impression that a 172 was always the top ~99% of test takers for a certain test. And for every test, if you scored a 172, you are in the ~99%. But now that I think about it, if you were to assume that every test taker got the exact same raw score, then they would not be able to assign correct scores under my hypothesis. Maybe I'm not right.

[suspicious android]

I was under the impression that a 172 was always the top ~99% of test takers for a certain test. And for every test, if you scored a 172, you are in the ~99%. But now that I think about it, if you were to assume that every test taker got the exact same raw score, then they would not be able to assign correct scores under my hypothesis. Maybe I'm not right.

Percentiles shift a bit from year to year. For instance, 172 is actually like a 98.7 or something like that, whereas back in the day it was a straight 99th percentile. 170 used to be 97th percentile, now it's 97.5 (rounding up to 98), which is why some prep companies used to not accept 170 scorers but now do.

[3|ink]

-20 for a 170

[Albatross]

-20 for a 170

I will give up sex for a year + go to church every Sunday AND Wednesday for the next year as well if this were the case (Keep that in mind, God).

[WestOfTheRest]

-20 for a 170

I will give up sex for a year + go to church every Sunday AND Wednesday for the next year as well if this were the case (Keep that in mind, God).

I'd probably give up my left testie for a -14, I don't want to get into what I would do for a -20.

[Albatross]

-20 for a 170

I will give up sex for a year + go to church every Sunday AND Wednesday for the next year as well if this were the case (Keep that in mind, God).

I'd probably give up my left testie for a -14, I don't want to get into what I would do for a -20.

I would too. Maybe we could start some kind of testicle cancer foundation. We might not get a -14 curve, but what a hell of a soft that would be.

[Ragged]

-20 for a 170

Wouldn't want that. It would make 175 worthless.

[zworykin]

-20 for a 170

Wouldn't want that. It would make 175 worthless.

No it wouldn't, the test is equated. A 175 is a 175 Of course, I doubt we'll ever see an LSAT that's so difficult it earns a -20... but remember, back in the early '90s it wasn't uncommon to see a -15 or even -16 (the 175s on those were around -8 to -10).

[Ragged]

-20 for a 170

Wouldn't want that. It would make 175 worthless.

No it wouldn't, the test is equated. A 175 is a 175 Of course, I doubt we'll ever see an LSAT that's so difficult it earns a -20... but remember, back in the early '90s it wasn't uncommon to see a -15 or even -16 (the 175s on those were around -8 to -10).

I know. But if there was 2000 people with a 175+ applying to Harvard it would suck.

[zworykin]

-20 for a 170

Wouldn't want that. It would make 175 worthless.

No it wouldn't, the test is equated. A 175 is a 175 Of course, I doubt we'll ever see an LSAT that's so difficult it earns a -20... but remember, back in the early '90s it wasn't uncommon to see a -15 or even -16 (the 175s on those were around -8 to -10).

I know. But if there was 2000 people with a 175+ applying to Harvard it would suck.

No doubt. Hmm. The average number of takers for the June LSAT is around 25,000. So 2,000 people would put us at the 92nd percentile. That's normally, what--164, 165? That would have to be either the most ridiculously poorly equated LSAT ever, or the most incredibly gifted+neurotic group of takers ever.

Of course that's assuming your "2000 people" are all from this test. We can expect something like 160,000 people to take the test this year--call 1/4 of them retakers, so 120,000 people. 2,000 would then be 98.33 percentile, which is usually something like a 170-171, so that would still be a pretty crazy cycle. 175 is about 99.7 generally, so there ought to be more like 350-400 people with that score.

Of course, that's not counting people applying with scores from previous years...

(Yes, I know you aren't being serious. Neither am I. I'm just bored and in the mood to play with ridiculous hypotheticals. )

[Bildungsroman]

-20 for a 170

Wouldn't want that. It would make 175 worthless.

No it wouldn't, the test is equated. A 175 is a 175 Of course, I doubt we'll ever see an LSAT that's so difficult it earns a -20... but remember, back in the early '90s it wasn't uncommon to see a -15 or even -16 (the 175s on those were around -8 to -10).

I know. But if there was 2000 people with a 175+ applying to Harvard it would suck.

The LSAT curve is designed to keep the percentiles associated with each score roughly the same from year to year. LSAC wouldn't curve a test to make a 175 go from being 99.7th percentile to the 98th percentile or lower.

[Ragged]

Wouldn't want that. It would make 175 worthless.

No it wouldn't, the test is equated. A 175 is a 175 Of course, I doubt we'll ever see an LSAT that's so difficult it earns a -20... but remember, back in the early '90s it wasn't uncommon to see a -15 or even -16 (the 175s on those were around -8 to -10).

I know. But if there was 2000 people with a 175+ applying to Harvard it would suck.

No doubt. Hmm. The average number of takers for the June LSAT is around 25,000. So 2,000 people would put us at the 92nd percentile. That's normally, what--164, 165? That would have to be either the most ridiculously poorly equated LSAT ever, or the most incredibly gifted+neurotic group of takers ever.

Of course that's assuming your "2000 people" are all from this test. We can expect something like 160,000 people to take the test this year--call 1/4 of them retakers, so 120,000 people. 2,000 would then be 98.33 percentile, which is usually something like a 170-171, so that would still be a pretty crazy cycle. 175 is about 99.7 generally, so there ought to be more like 350-400 people with that score.

Of course, that's not counting people applying with scores from previous years...

(Yes, I know you aren't being serious. Neither am I. I'm just bored and in the mood to play with ridiculous hypotheticals. )

I would still take my 175 and then wait it out for like 3 years until the numbers came back to normal. Then I'd also have WE but would be forced to delay LS. So it would be a win-win-lose.

[Ragged]

The LSAT curve is designed to keep the percentiles associated with each score roughly the same from year to year. LSAC wouldn't curve a test to make a 175 go from being 99.7th percentile to the 98th percentile or lower.

I was referring to the joke about the -20 curve.

[3|ink]

The LSAT curve is designed to keep the percentiles associated with each score roughly the same from year to year. LSAC wouldn't curve a test to make a 175 go from being 99.7th percentile to the 98th percentile or lower.

I was referring to the joke about the -20 curve.

Joke?

[zworykin]

The LSAT curve is designed to keep the percentiles associated with each score roughly the same from year to year. LSAC wouldn't curve a test to make a 175 go from being 99.7th percentile to the 98th percentile or lower.

I was referring to the joke about the -20 curve.

Joke?

[Albatross]

-20 for a 170

Wouldn't want that. It would make 175 worthless.

No it wouldn't, the test is equated. A 175 is a 175 Of course, I doubt we'll ever see an LSAT that's so difficult it earns a -20... but remember, back in the early '90s it wasn't uncommon to see a -15 or even -16 (the 175s on those were around -8 to -10).

I know. But if there was 2000 people with a 175+ applying to Harvard it would suck.

Maybe for those going to Harvard. I hear adcomms at schools out of the T14 supply hookers, liquor, and HBO for those students scoring 175 or higher (granted that you stay in the top 1/3 of your class).

[Ragged]

The LSAT curve is designed to keep the percentiles associated with each score roughly the same from year to year. LSAC wouldn't curve a test to make a 175 go from being 99.7th percentile to the 98th percentile or lower.

I was referring to the joke most plausible prediction about the -20 curve.

Joke?

Fixt.

[notreallyalawyer]

well said and thank you. too many people on here think they're on law and order.

You're out of line. The curve will be -11.

truth hurts. -9

[am060459]

well said and thank you. too many people on here think they're on law and order.

You're out of line. The curve will be -11.

truth hurts. -9

how is that the truth? how can u claim something to be true when you have NO idea what its going to be. please choose words wisely.

[3|ink]

well said and thank you. too many people on here think they're on law and order.

You're out of line. The curve will be -11.

truth hurts. -9

how is that the truth? how can u claim something to be true when you have NO idea what its going to be. please choose words wisely.

I think it would be inappropriate to take any of these postings seriously. Sarcasm isn't easy to express via internet.

[theZeigs]

well said and thank you. too many people on here think they're on law and order.

You're out of line. The curve will be -11.

truth hurts. -9

A -9 (or less) curve has only happened 6 times since the modern LSAT was started: SPA, 12, 15, 48 (-8 curve), Free June '07 (-8 curve), 55. I don't think that the test was necessarily "easy" enough to warrant this curve, but my judgment is definitely clouded by adrenaline and emotion. It is interesting to note that a few early tests had a harsh curve, then a huge break, than a bunch of recent tests (3/3 split). It wouldn't be surprising to see a -9 curve. I am going to check the curve before my score (see this thread: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=120718 ), so if I see -8 or -9, I can go into the score check with low hopes (and hopefully be pleasantly surprised).

BTW, who the eff said it got easier to wait for your score after 10 days, what a load of crap.