The Official September 2014 Study Group Forum

[blacklungz]

Hey all. Long time lurker, and I've decided to create an account and ask a few questions regarding my study strategy for the September LSAT. I'm currently enrolled in a Testmasters course and have been doing all the homework (just recently started incorporating timing into the HW). I've taken only two five-section-PTs. I'm currently missing 6 on RC, 7 on each LR and I'm nearing perfection on LG. However, in untimed conditions, I'm getting 1-2 misses in LR and 2-3 misses in RC. I feel as though my fundamentals are pretty sound but it's just a matter of taking it under timed conditions. I plan on taking about 10-12 additional PTs before actual test day.

A few questions:
(1) Is a 170+ realistically attainable?
(2) Should I be focusing on completing all of my Testmasters HW, or just really focus on the harder questions at the end of the HW sections only?
(3) What can I do other than PTs to work on my timing? Drilling certain sections? Timing my homework more frequently?

Thanks for any advice in advance!

[cavalier2015]

correct me if im wrong, but doesn't a higher curve mean high difficulty? shouldn't we hoping for a lower curve so the exam is easier (granted easier exam = need more concentration to not get tricked)

[ilikebaseball]

correct me if im wrong, but doesn't a higher curve mean high difficulty? shouldn't we hoping for a lower curve so the exam is easier (granted easier exam = need more concentration to not get tricked)

usually yes. but difficulty for some doesnt mean difficulty for everyone. Difficult often just means different. As in, something we havent seen before. In june, that game was a freakin piece of cake. You could've completed that in literally 5 minutes. However, it was "different" and foreign to anything we had ever seen, so people freaked out and flunked it. The difficulty may stem in the LR section, but you may be a natural at LR.

From the PT's I've taken (minus 55, holy shit that was rough) the test always seems to even out in some way. If there were 2 hard games, then one of the LR sections might be a breeze, or there may be easy passages, etc.

[jmjm]

correct me if im wrong, but doesn't a higher curve mean high difficulty? shouldn't we hoping for a lower curve so the exam is easier (granted easier exam = need more concentration to not get tricked)

not always.
pt-72 >> pt-71 on a raw score difficulty scale imo even though the curve was harsher in pt-72.

[ilikebaseball]

either way though, I think I'd rather have a difficult test with a -14 curve than an easier test with -9 but that's just me.

[lsatkillah]

.

[Gray]

.

[bound]

^^source?

if this turns out to be true, i'm going to hate sitting in my exam room and taking a fucking hard test.

i'm hoping a for easier LG than junes.

but on a serious note, don't bother with speculation.

no source other than the people I study with. They evaluated the trends and said that the September curve is likely to be 13 or 14. Less people take the test in September, and this one is more than likely gonna be even less than Sep 2013.

So no real credibility, just fun to talk about

Does less people usually indicate an easier curve?

Absolutely not. The "curve" is based on the difficulty level of the test.

[HRomanus]

Study enough, fall behind at work.

Not study enough, catch up at work.

Broke up with a girl yesterday so I could focus on LSAT.

#YOLO

[joeisreallycool]

Stupid question: when you all talk about the curves being -14, what exactly does that mean? Does that mean I can get 14 wrong and still get a 180?

[Toby Ziegler]

Stupid question: when you all talk about the curves being -14, what exactly does that mean? Does that mean I can get 14 wrong and still get a 180?

You can get 14 wrong and get s 170.
ETA: The curve is how many you can miss and still get a 170.

[joeisreallycool]

Stupid question: when you all talk about the curves being -14, what exactly does that mean? Does that mean I can get 14 wrong and still get a 180?

You can get 14 wrong and get s 170.
ETA: The curve is how many you can miss and still get a 170.

Thanks. So the curve doesn't affect anything beyond 170? Say if I'm sitting at a 169 and I only needed 2 more questions right, a -14 curve would carry me to 170 but not overboard, even though I essentially have -12 more points the curve gives me?

[Gray]

.

[Learn_Live_Hope]

either way though, I think I'd rather have a difficult test with a -14 curve than an easier test with -9 but that's just me.

Ohhhh yeah. Me too. Although I'm obviously not hoping for a WTF LG or a brutal RC.

I'd really rather not come out of this test feeling mentally eviscerated. That's my only wish right now.

+1

[Blockofcheese]

Study enough, fall behind at work.

Not study enough, catch up at work.

Broke up with a girl yesterday so I could focus on LSAT.

#YOLO

Feeling the same way. Work/study balance is something I can't get a handle on ATM. On top of that, I was diagnosed with Lupus this week and have to undergo some lengthy medical tests next week. I'm less concerned about the tests, and more concerned about the fact that I'm going to lose the one day that I have a solid 8-12 hours to study for tests that will most likely wipe my energy levels out for the whole day.

I just keep telling myself it could be worse. At least it's not September 14th

[bound]

Stupid question: when you all talk about the curves being -14, what exactly does that mean? Does that mean I can get 14 wrong and still get a 180?

You can get 14 wrong and get s 170.
ETA: The curve is how many you can miss and still get a 170.

Thanks. So the curve doesn't affect anything beyond 170? Say if I'm sitting at a 169 and I only needed 2 more questions right, a -14 curve would carry me to 170 but not overboard, even though I essentially have -12 more points the curve gives me?

I think it's more complicated than that - people talk about "the curve" in terms of a 170, but that's just a simple way of judging it. The scale is always a bit different. Take a look at the sheet in your PTs that translates the raw score into a scaled score - sometimes there is no raw score that will translate into a 177, or something random like that.

It can also depend on the total number of Qs ( A 102 question test and a 99 question test will have a different "curve" regardless of difficulty)

This is just my understanding, and I'm no expert! Someone correct me if this is totally off base.

All of that is true. I also think the term "curve" is a little misleading, because I'm 99% that its predetermined.

[Toby Ziegler]

Exactly what Bound said. That's why they do experimental sections -- to help establish what the curve will be.

[Gray]

.

[schmelling]

.

[Gray]

.

[Toby Ziegler]

I have a hard time believing the scale is predetermined since the scaled score is supposed to remain consistent with percentile ranks. I always assumed they scored everyone's test to determine their raw score and once the scores assembled themselves on a bell curve, they applied the appropriate scaled score such applies to the correct percentile in raw score. They may have an idea based on experimentals or prior testing of how this will turn out, but I highly doubt they would be able to ensure that a 170 is the 97.4 percentile every time without employing similar methodology to the one stated above.

This would indicate that the number of questions one needs to get correct for a certain scaled score actually does have an inverse relationship with the overall difficulty of the test.

That does not mean that a certain scale is equally beneficial or detrimental to every single test taker, only that it produces the same curve consistently. I have always thought, for example, that somebody with extremely high accuracy who simply reads too slow to get through all the questions no matter the difficulty would benefit highly from a "forgiving" curve, but obviously accuracy does not exist in a bubble independent of timing for nearly anyone.

A percentile rank is also reported for each LSAT score, reflecting the percentage of candidates scoring below your reported test score. The percentile for a score is based on the distribution of scores for the three-year period prior to the year in which the score is reported. Examine your report for further details.

It's most certainly determined in advance. There's a whole explanation on LSAC's website.

I was just looking for this. You're a quick one!

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.

[schmelling]

.

[Gray]

.

[schmelling]

.