On Track for the June 2010 LSAT -- Refractory Period Forum

[Marionberry]

Who said they didn't? This simple truth doesn't call into question anything I've written. The fact that you think it does simply shows that you don't understand very well how the scaled scores are determined/what they represent. Not that you really have to.

Again, a "generous curve" is only in place because a given test was statistically harder than other tests with less generous "curves."


Immaterial, really. All tests are equated to the June 1991 baseline.

*sigh*...really? Is there anything to be gained by being this contentious?

[Knock]

Who said they didn't? This simple truth doesn't call into question anything I've written. The fact that you think it does simply shows that you don't understand very well how the scaled scores are determined/what they represent. Not that you really have to.

Again, a "generous curve" is only in place because a given test was statistically harder than other tests with less generous "curves."


Immaterial, really. All tests are equated to the June 1991 baseline.

*sigh*...really? Is there anything to be gained by being this contentious?

Seriously.

---
@JasonR
What is your deal? go away; if I want to be disappointed because I got a 176 despite a -6 LR section, there's nothing wrong with that...

[Knock]

Edit: And the 176 was only because of a generous curve.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The test isn't curved, in any case. But, sticking with that terminology, a "generous curve" is only in place because the test was statistically harder than other tests with less generous "curves."

A 176 is a 176.

Alright dude, I'm not going to argue semantics...we know what I meant. And no, the older tests have much more generous curves then than the newer ones.

I just broke into taking tests in the 50's and I'm really shocked at the stinginess of the curves. I feel like the LR/ LG is about the same, but the RC is much more difficult and many questions out to trick someone not paying attention. I thought my 90 raw score was pretty good on 50/51, but it's just keeping me in the 170's. On an older test a 90 raw would put me above 172.

Yeah definitely, I completely agree. I've got a 94 raw for 176 scaled on a PT in the teens, and got a 94 raw for 172 scaled on June '07.

[JasonR]

Well of course there's nothing wrong with that, even if it is a little odd...but there is quite a bit wrong with your idea of "curves" and what have you. Again, not that it ultimately matters.

[Knock]

Well of course there's nothing wrong with that, even if it is a little odd...but there is quite a bit wrong with your idea of "curves" and what have you. Again, not that it ultimately matters.

I don't know what personal experience you actually have from taking the PT's, but from taking 46+ PT's, I can tell you from personal experience that not all tests are curved equally.

And like I said, it's not the score on some PT that I care about, it's the process of getting it, and learning. I don't think there is anything odd about being disappointed in getting my worst LR section in nearly two months.

[JasonR]

I don't know what personal experience you actually have from taking the PT's, but from taking 46+ PT's, I can tell you from personal experience that not all tests are curved equally.

I guess I'll keep beating this dead horse: that's just utterly incorrect. What exactly do you think statistical equating is?

The fact that your individual performance varies from test to test doesn't mean anything. The process of equating ensures that, for the test-taking aggregate, a given score represents the same level of performance on every LSAT. Your "personal experience" alone by definition fails to provide enough information for you to make a judgment about whether or not all tests are "curved" equally.

[Knock]

I don't know what personal experience you actually have from taking the PT's, but from taking 46+ PT's, I can tell you from personal experience that not all tests are curved equally.

I guess I'll keep beating this dead horse: that's just utterly incorrect. What exactly do you think statistical equating is?

The fact that your individual performance varies from test to test doesn't mean anything. The process of equating ensures that, for the test-taking aggregate, a given score represents the same level of performance on every LSAT. Your "personal experience" alone by definition fails to provide enough information for you to make a judgment about whether or not all tests are "curved" equally.

Don't tell me it's incorrect until you've actually taken a significant sample of tests. A 175 from a test in the 50's is much different from a 175 on a much earlier PT.

[JasonR]

I don't know what personal experience you actually have from taking the PT's, but from taking 46+ PT's, I can tell you from personal experience that not all tests are curved equally.

I guess I'll keep beating this dead horse: that's just utterly incorrect. What exactly do you think statistical equating is?

The fact that your individual performance varies from test to test doesn't mean anything. The process of equating ensures that, for the test-taking aggregate, a given score represents the same level of performance on every LSAT. Your "personal experience" alone by definition fails to provide enough information for you to make a judgment about whether or not all tests are "curved" equally.

Don't tell me it's incorrect until you've actually taken a significant sample of tests. A 175 from a test in the 50's is much different from a 175 on a much earlier PT.

I've taken almost all of them. And the fact that some people feel that the earlier tests are easier than the later tests -- and vice versa -- is entirely fine. For the test-taking aggregate, however, the process of statistical equating ensures that a 175 is a 175, no matter the test. Individual experience isn't dispositive of anything whatsoever beyond that individual.

[Mike12188]

I don't know what personal experience you actually have from taking the PT's, but from taking 46+ PT's, I can tell you from personal experience that not all tests are curved equally.

I guess I'll keep beating this dead horse: that's just utterly incorrect. What exactly do you think statistical equating is?

The fact that your individual performance varies from test to test doesn't mean anything. The process of equating ensures that, for the test-taking aggregate, a given score represents the same level of performance on every LSAT. Your "personal experience" alone by definition fails to provide enough information for you to make a judgment about whether or not all tests are "curved" equally.

Don't tell me it's incorrect until you've actually taken a significant sample of tests. A 175 from a test in the 50's is much different from a 175 on a much earlier PT.

+1 I got a 176 on PT 20 when I'm really hovering around 168-172 on PTs in the 50s...the newer tests are much more harsh

[JasonR]

I don't know what personal experience you actually have from taking the PT's, but from taking 46+ PT's, I can tell you from personal experience that not all tests are curved equally.

I guess I'll keep beating this dead horse: that's just utterly incorrect. What exactly do you think statistical equating is?

The fact that your individual performance varies from test to test doesn't mean anything. The process of equating ensures that, for the test-taking aggregate, a given score represents the same level of performance on every LSAT. Your "personal experience" alone by definition fails to provide enough information for you to make a judgment about whether or not all tests are "curved" equally.

Don't tell me it's incorrect until you've actually taken a significant sample of tests. A 175 from a test in the 50's is much different from a 175 on a much earlier PT.

+1 I got a 176 on PT 20 when I'm really hovering around 168-172 on PTs in the 50s...the newer tests are much more harsh

See above.

[honestabe84]

I don't know what personal experience you actually have from taking the PT's, but from taking 46+ PT's, I can tell you from personal experience that not all tests are curved equally.

I guess I'll keep beating this dead horse: that's just utterly incorrect. What exactly do you think statistical equating is?

The fact that your individual performance varies from test to test doesn't mean anything. The process of equating ensures that, for the test-taking aggregate, a given score represents the same level of performance on every LSAT. Your "personal experience" alone by definition fails to provide enough information for you to make a judgment about whether or not all tests are "curved" equally.

Don't tell me it's incorrect until you've actually taken a significant sample of tests. A 175 from a test in the 50's is much different from a 175 on a much earlier PT.

Since the test is supposedly "curved" or "equated" (or whatever), it makes sense that the test might be harder now that LSAT prep is now a billion dollar industry. I seriously doubt that law applicants 10 years ago were anywhere near as prepared for the LSAT as are the ones today.

[Knock]

Heading to the library to take PT 55...will reply when I get back.

[JasonR]

I don't know what personal experience you actually have from taking the PT's, but from taking 46+ PT's, I can tell you from personal experience that not all tests are curved equally.

I guess I'll keep beating this dead horse: that's just utterly incorrect. What exactly do you think statistical equating is?

The fact that your individual performance varies from test to test doesn't mean anything. The process of equating ensures that, for the test-taking aggregate, a given score represents the same level of performance on every LSAT. Your "personal experience" alone by definition fails to provide enough information for you to make a judgment about whether or not all tests are "curved" equally.

Don't tell me it's incorrect until you've actually taken a significant sample of tests. A 175 from a test in the 50's is much different from a 175 on a much earlier PT.

Since the test is supposedly "curved" or "equated" (or whatever), it makes sense that the test might be harder now that LSAT prep is now a billion dollar industry.

Here I go being contentious again. That actually makes no sense whatsoever. The equating process means that variations in overall ability among groups of test-takers don't impact scores. This is precisely because the test is equated and not curved.

The effect of more prepared test-takers has simply been that a greater percentage of people are getting 170s now than in the past.

[Knock]

Don't tell me it's incorrect until you've actually taken a significant sample of tests. A 175 from a test in the 50's is much different from a 175 on a much earlier PT.[/quote]




Since the test is supposedly "curved" or "equated" (or whatever), it makes sense that the test might be harder now that LSAT prep is now a billion dollar industry.[/quote]

Here I go being contentious again. That actually makes no sense whatsoever. The equating process means that variations in overall ability among groups of test-takers don't impact scores. This is precisely because the test is equated and not curved.

The effect of more prepared test-takers has simply been that a greater percentage of people are getting 170s now than in the past.[/quote]

We understand the test is equated not curved. No one cares. If I want to use the term curved instead of equated I will. Go away. This thread isn't about discussing the equating of the LSAT.

[JasonR]

We understand the test is equated not curved.

That's nice. You still obviously don't understand what that actually means.

[honestabe84]

Since the test is supposedly "curved" or "equated" (or whatever), it makes sense that the test might be harder now that LSAT prep is now a billion dollar industry.[/quote]

Here I go being contentious again. That actually makes no sense whatsoever. The equating process means that variations in overall ability among groups of test-takers don't impact scores. This is precisely because the test is equated and not curved.

Ok, well lets assume, for argument sake, that 15 years ago that no one prepped whatsoever - Basically everyone took the test cold. Today (and for the past several years), people are studying 3 + months and bringing their score up 10-15 points. Even though the LSAT is equated and uses past administrations to determine the "curve", wouldn't it be more difficult to get a high score score on the current test? Because before, the test "equated" past administrations that were filled with unprepared test takers, but today it equates an entire new group of ultra prepared test takers.

I'm no expert on how everything works, I'm just curious.

[Marionberry]

Here I go being [strike]contentious[/strike] a tool again. That actually makes no sense whatsoever. The equating process means that variations in overall ability among groups of test-takers don't impact scores. This is precisely because the test is equated and not curved.

The effect of more prepared test-takers has simply been that a greater percentage of people are getting 170s now than in the past.

fixed

You have effectively demonstrated that you are smarter than everyone else, and we appreciate that. Now will you go away?

[Marionberry]

On a different note, I have noticed what seems to be a a characteristic of some of the newer logic games. They use values like rank (1st place, 2nd place, 3rd place) or the "most low priced" to kind of confuse you. If you're conscious of it you can easily do the gamesm but if I forget I find myself making dumb mistakes. Like game 4 from PT53, with schools ranked 1, 2, 3 and highest/lowest ranked. It's a simple concept, but definitely one that can trip you up if there are two different ways of desribing the same value used in a game, Or, maybe thta's just me.

[honestabe84]

On a different note, I have noticed what seems to be a a characteristic of some of the newer logic games. They use values like rank (1st place, 2nd place, 3rd place) or the "most low priced" to kind of confuse you. If you're conscious of it you can easily do the gamesm but if I forget I find myself making dumb mistakes. Like game 4 from PT53, with schools ranked 1, 2, 3 and highest/lowest ranked. It's a simple concept, but definitely one that can trip you up if there are two different ways of desribing the same value used in a game, Or, maybe thta's just me.

No, I definitely agree. I was making many stupid mistakes, but now I read and diagram CAREFULLY. It seems to have really helped.

[JasonR]

Here I go being [strike]contentious[/strike] a tool again. That actually makes no sense whatsoever. The equating process means that variations in overall ability among groups of test-takers don't impact scores. This is precisely because the test is equated and not curved.

The effect of more prepared test-takers has simply been that a greater percentage of people are getting 170s now than in the past.

fixed

You have effectively demonstrated that you are smarter than everyone else, and we appreciate that. Now will you go away?

Not sure about "now." Sorry.

[JasonR]

Since the test is supposedly "curved" or "equated" (or whatever), it makes sense that the test might be harder now that LSAT prep is now a billion dollar industry.

Here I go being contentious again. That actually makes no sense whatsoever. The equating process means that variations in overall ability among groups of test-takers don't impact scores. This is precisely because the test is equated and not curved.

Ok, well lets assume, for argument sake, that 15 years ago that no one prepped whatsoever - Basically everyone took the test cold. Today (and for the past several years), people are studying 3 + months and bringing their score up 10-15 points. Even though the LSAT is equated and uses past administrations to determine the "curve", wouldn't it be more difficult to get a high score score on the current test? Because before, the test "equated" past administrations that were filled with unprepared test takers, but today it equates an entire new group of ultra prepared test takers.

I'm no expert on how everything works, I'm just curious.

I have a to leave in a few minutes, but I'll find a couple of more thorough explanations later on.

[Knock]

Holy shit. Talk-Story was every bit as difficult as it was made out to be. I would definitely say that passage was much much much more difficult than Riddled Basins, and probably the hardest one I've done.

[Marionberry]

Yeah, that passage definitely sucked. Especially the question about an analogy of making a fabric out of different cloths or whatever. How did you do? I think I missed a couple on that passage when I took it a couple of weeks ago. I have done the riddled basins, yet. That's gonna be the exp section on saturday's test.

[Knock]

Yeah, that passage definitely sucked. Especially the question about an analogy of making a fabric out of different cloths or whatever. How did you do? I think I missed a couple on that passage when I took it a couple of weeks ago. I have done the riddled basins, yet. That's gonna be the exp section on saturday's test.

Haven't graded it yet. Posting from my phone in between sections 3 and 4. I'll let you know in like an hour. How did you do on it? I think I got the fiber question...I think I picked up what they were getting at, but it was definitely a what the fuck question lol. We'll see though, I may very well have been tricked and missed it.

[Marionberry]

I don't remember how I did on that section, I think I did low 170s on 55. I ended up getting the cloth question right, but it was still suck.