December 2010 Curve Prediction Poll Forum

[testmachine45]

both those questions were easy

funny, this is someone who said october was easy and december was easy, but had to retake october. doesn't add up.

I never said october was easy. I said it was hard.

That's funny cause October was easy for everyone.

Whats ur PT Average? HUH?

[ren2011]

Oh no it's getting aggressive! Remember, well-hello-there, you don't have to tell them ANYTHING! lol

[well-hello-there]

you're just still mad about the shrooming comment I made at the top of page 3 on this thread in response to you thinking that the stained glass windows game was the first one of the LG section.

[3|ink]

Wasn't it eventually determined that the October test was actually hard? Wasn't it a -13 curve?

[FlanSolo]

I'm all for tempering predictions based on the inherent subjectivity of all of this, but I think it's reasonably safe to say the December LGs were harder than the October LRs. There's been almost unanimous complaining about the December LG section, and while there was certainly some fretting about October LRs, there hasn't been anything approaching this level of consensus regarding the difficulty.

Even if it's true that the December LG and October LR were of comparable difficulty, my guess is that a harder LG section tilts the curve more than a hard LR because the scoring on a hard section of LG can be so erratic. For example, I typically get -3 on LG, but on October I got -14 (for a variety of reasons, mostly panic). On LR I usually average about -2, but on a even a very difficult section never do worse than -5.

[well-hello-there]

There's been almost unanimous complaining about the December LG section, and while there was certainly some fretting about October LRs, there hasn't been anything approaching this level of consensus regarding the difficulty.

I remember an October LR panic thread that went on for a LONG time and was eventually deleted by the Mods because people were basically re-printing LR questions word for word. That thread was quite unanimous.

[3|ink]

There's been almost unanimous complaining about the December LG section, and while there was certainly some fretting about October LRs, there hasn't been anything approaching this level of consensus regarding the difficulty.

I remember an 50+ October LR panic thread that went on for a LONG time and [were] eventually deleted by the Mods because people were basically re-printing LR questions word for word. [Those] thread [were] quite unanimous.

[well-hello-there]

my guess is that a harder LG section tilts the curve more than a hard LR because the scoring on a hard section of LG can be so erratic. For example, I typically get -3 on LG, but on October I got -14 (for a variety of reasons, mostly panic). On LR I usually average about -2, but on a even a very difficult section never do worse than -5.

I agree that a harder LG would tilt the curve more than a hard LR but IMO the rest of the october test was harder than the rest of the december test.

[testmachine45]

my guess is that a harder LG section tilts the curve more than a hard LR because the scoring on a hard section of LG can be so erratic. For example, I typically get -3 on LG, but on October I got -14 (for a variety of reasons, mostly panic). On LR I usually average about -2, but on a even a very difficult section never do worse than -5.

I agree that a harder LG would tilt the curve more than a hard LR but IMO the rest of the october test was harder than the rest of the december test.

This is so wrong. It's like saying the world is flat in a physical sense.

[ren2011]

Hard LGs screw with people significantly. You might miss one LR, or a few RC because they're difficult, but get confused over an LG and you're instantly at a -6.

[FlanSolo]

Hard LGs screw with people significantly. You might miss one LR, or a few RC because they're difficult, but get confused over an LG and you're instantly at a -6.

Right. Throw in the fact that there were 102 questions and that's how you go from -12 on October to -14 on December.

[testmachine45]

Hard LGs screw with people significantly. You might miss one LR, or a few RC because they're difficult, but get confused over an LG and you're instantly at a -6.

The other reason well-hello-there's proclamations and declarations of ease w/r/t to the Dec 2010 LSAT are ridiculous is because the vast majority of people believe this curve to be in the 12,13,14 range, indicating it was at least as hard as October whose curve was -12 and who most people thought would be in the -10 range. What was your PT avg, well-hello-there???huh??

[testmachine45]

Hard LGs screw with people significantly. You might miss one LR, or a few RC because they're difficult, but get confused over an LG and you're instantly at a -6.

The other reason well-hello-there's proclamations and declarations of ease w/r/t to the Dec 2010 LSAT are ridiculous is because the vast majority of people believe this curve to be in the 12,13,14 range, indicating it was at least as hard as October whose curve was -12 and who most people thought would be in the -10 range. What was your PT avg, well-hello-there???huh??

Do you know I failed this test? Do you have any idea how smart I am? This was a -15 curve.

[3|ink]

Hard LGs screw with people significantly. You might miss one LR, or a few RC because they're difficult, but get confused over an LG and you're instantly at a -6.

The other reason well-hello-there's proclamations and declarations of ease w/r/t to the Dec 2010 LSAT are ridiculous is because the vast majority of people believe this curve to be in the 12,13,14 range, indicating it was at least as hard as October whose curve was -12 and who most people thought would be in the -10 range. What was your PT avg, well-hello-there???huh??

This argument assumes:

a.) People are not more likely to vote for a forgiving curve than an unforgiving curve after taking a test they are anxious about.
b.) The opinions of TLSers are representative of the vast majority of people who took December's LSAT.
c.) The predicted range of difficulty is a reliable indicator of the curve.
d.) Michael Bay sucks.
e.) All of the above.

[ren2011]

Hard LGs screw with people significantly. You might miss one LR, or a few RC because they're difficult, but get confused over an LG and you're instantly at a -6.

The other reason well-hello-there's proclamations and declarations of ease w/r/t to the Dec 2010 LSAT are ridiculous is because the vast majority of people believe this curve to be in the 12,13,14 range, indicating it was at least as hard as October whose curve was -12 and who most people thought would be in the -10 range. What was your PT avg, well-hello-there???huh??

Yes, but basing curve predictions on this forum is risky. I mean, someone pointed out in another thread that the "best" test takers generally take June/Oct tests, not Dec. And the people who aren't freaking out about the test aren't likely to be on here, giving us an unrepresentative sample.

[well-hello-there]

December isn't even in the top 25 hardest LG sections. June 2009 with the Mauve dinosaurs and the awards in different quarters was way way harder and that curve is a -11 out of 101 questions.

[ren2011]

This argument assumes:

a.) People are not more likely to vote for a forgiving curve than an unforgiving curve after taking a test they are anxious about.
b.) The opinions of TLSers are representative of the vast majority of people who took December's LSAT.
c.) The predicted range of difficulty is a reliable indicator of the curve.
d.) Michael Bay sucks.
e.) All of the above.

This.

[well-hello-there]

Do you know I failed this test? Do you have any idea how smart I am? This was a -15 curve.

This made me laugh because it is something I would say!
edit. Not because I think I'm smarter than somebody else but just to one-up somebody. Because there's no arguing with that one.

[kkklick]

December 2010 isn't even in the top 25 hardest LG sections. June 2009 with the Mauve dinosaurs and the awards in different quarters was way way harder and that curve is a -11 out of 101 questions.

PT 57 games was tough, in comparison I agree this was similar if not easier. But still tough, definately would not say it's not in the top 25, you're pushing it.

[testmachine45]

December 2010 isn't even in the top 25 hardest LG sections. June 2009 with the Mauve dinosaurs and the awards in different quarters was way way harder and that curve is a -11 out of 101 questions.

LMAO. A game that is all plug and chug and that is the 5th section? Aer you kdding? Versus mere deductions?

[3|ink]

LMAO. A game that is all plug and chug and that is the 5th section? Aer you kdding? Versus mere deductions?

This assumes:

a.) It was the 5th section for everybody.

[albusdumbledore]

Do you know I failed this test? Do you have any idea how smart I am? This was a -15 curve.

This made me laugh because it is something I would say!

The Logic games were hard, but I thought overall this was an easier test than Dec. 09 (which I also took for real). I think -13, but the 102 thing is weird so I'm not sure.

[well-hello-there]

PT 57 games was tough, in comparison I agree this was similar if not easier. But still tough, definately would not say it's not in the top 25, you're pushing it.

okay, i'm exaggerating. it's not even in the top 20.

[2014]

well hello there, I'm right there with you thinking that the games on December were doable, I finished them, but you have to consider that many of the posters here, just like you have seen basically every games section available, and even if a section matched your skill set better, you might not be representative of the whole. Given the reaction to this games section, I think it has to be in the top 10 most difficult when considered across the whole population of test takers. If high scorers didn't finish it, which many if not most did not based on TLS posters, and medium to low scorers didn't even make it to the third game (anecdotal evidence) then I would say on the whole you are looking at a very difficult section even if you disagree.

Also, you have only named one section so far, PT 57, that is more difficult than this one. I think you would have to stretch to name 4 more, much less 19 more. While none of the games on PT 62 individually were as rough as Dinos or Snakes and Lizards, the section as a whole was a time drain for most people and people are talking about the section as a whole being hard.

[androstan]

don't forget that this was a 102 question test, though, so -12 wouldn't be as generous as you think.

a -13 would put this test on par with being a little harder than october; a -14 would be super friendly; -15 is just silly.

that said, i'd take it. i crushed everything but the games, in which i nailed the first, muscled through the second (maybe missing 1-2), and then hurried through last two, blind guessing on 5-6. was PTing at 172, and the test felt better than usual (aka 174/175) until the damn games. i think i may have -10 that section alone, hoping for no worse than -13/-14 overall and/or a generous curve to crack 170.

Wow, we are like identical LSAT takers.

I was PTing around 171. I was crushing the Dec LSAT until the games came up and I guessed on like 6. I'm hoping a couple of those guesses were right and I wasn't rushing so much on the rest of the section that I got things switched around or otherwised messed up. Also hoping I didn't get overconfident on LR/RC and walk blithely into some traps. I'm usually quite good on those sections.

With some luck I went -6/8 on LG and -4/6 on the rest on this and broke 170. Reasonable confidence limit -10 to -14. But nothing's guaranteed with that LG section. I coulda tanked it at -10 or something. I coulda fell into some traps elsewhere. I coulda gone -16 or worse :/.

I'm "predicting" a -14 curve. I think the LG were unusually challenging for people, even some people who are good at LG. I read some people who usually go -0 on LG saying they think they missed a few, and I heard some people saying they usually get -2/3 saying they had to blindly guess on 3 or so. I think that most takers in the upper 160's to lower 170's will miss a few more LG questions on this test than on most others, and that will send the curve from -11/-12 to -13/-14. Takers at the top of the curve, upper 170s, will be largely unaffected, although there is inevitably some "trickle down" as a LG -0er goes -1 or so cuz s/he had to guess on the last problem due to time on a particulary hard game. I think the curve will be -14 myself.

By the way, on a 102 question test going -12 is a better score than going -12 on a 101 question test. Taking that into account, a -14 on here isn't as crazy as some people may think, who are using their 101-question-test impressions to make their judgment. If this were a 101 question test I'd probably be saying -13 (wanting to say -13.5) but I think 102 questions pushes it over the edge firmly into -14 territory.

God I want to go to GULC, I ED'd there and it's all riding on at least breaking 170, hopefully 171/2.