Guess the forever unknowable curve to the Feb 10 LSAT Forum

[februaryftw]

This may be a silly question, but after the release, how willl we know what the curve was?

We won't. The only thing anyone will know will be their scaled score (165, 170 etc.). The one way we might know is if they release the test years down the road.

[februaryftw]

About the results of the poll, I'm a little surprised at how tough people found the exam, but I think we have enough results to suggest that people found the exam difficult.

The mean, median, and mode for the poll thus far is -12, which would have to be considered a pretty loose or lenient curve (Dec 09 notwithstanding). Maybe it is wishful thinking after a -14 in December, but for December's - 14 exam the general guesses were in the -11 range.

[monkeyboy]

About the results of the poll, I'm a little surprised at how tough people found the exam, but I think we have enough results to suggest that people found the exam difficult.

The mean, median, and mode for the poll thus far is -12, which would have to be considered a pretty loose or lenient curve (Dec 09 notwithstanding). Maybe it is wishful thinking after a -14 in December, but for December's - 14 exam the general guesses were in the -11 range.

Yeah, this poll along with the other poll would seem to suggest that this exam was at least slightly more difficult than an average administration. The polls asked the question a bit differently, but they yielded the same result. While many people who simply had a bad day are more likely to rate an average test as being more difficult or much more difficult (-13 curve) than average, the same can be said for those who had a good day rating an exam as relatively or very easy (-9 curve). It would seem that TLSers are generally saying that the test was tough, as you mentioned above. As you also mentioned above, people were erring on the conservative side when guessing at the curve of the December exam. I conservatively chose option the -11 above, but I kind of believe that it was a bit harder than that. I think the games were only slightly easier than December while RC was probably slightly more difficult. I, like many other TLSers, am probably very wary of giving myself the benefit of the doubt. I had trouble with the test, but I would attribute that to other factors relating to me and my performance before blaming the difficulty level of the exam first.

[whitman]

Maybe it is wishful thinking after a -14 in December, but for December's - 14 exam the general guesses were in the -11 range.
About the results of the poll, I'm a little surprised at how tough people found the exam, but I think we have enough results to suggest that people found the exam difficult.

The mean, median, and mode for the poll thus far is -12, which would have to be considered a pretty loose or lenient curve (Dec 09 notwithstanding). Maybe it is wishful thinking after a -14 in December, but for December's - 14 exam the general guesses were in the -11 range.

I think this is it. The -14 is affecting our guesses perhaps more than we realize. I bet it's more like a -10 or -11 even though Logic Games were a bitch.

[Pricer]

I think the -14 in December is throwing people off as well. If the curve had been -11 in December, I bet there would be a lot more people selecting that option for the February test that instead chose -12 or -13.

[monkeyboy]

Maybe it is wishful thinking after a -14 in December, but for December's - 14 exam the general guesses were in the -11 range.
About the results of the poll, I'm a little surprised at how tough people found the exam, but I think we have enough results to suggest that people found the exam difficult.

The mean, median, and mode for the poll thus far is -12, which would have to be considered a pretty loose or lenient curve (Dec 09 notwithstanding). Maybe it is wishful thinking after a -14 in December, but for December's - 14 exam the general guesses were in the -11 range.

I think this is it. The -14 is affecting our guesses perhaps more than we realize. I bet it's more like a -10 or -11 even though Logic Games were a bitch.

I don't know about that, simply because I took the December exam and this test seemed to be close in level of difficulty. I doubt a -10 is possible. -11 is probably it, but -12 isn't crazy.

Those who took in December should weigh in with their thoughts on a comparison between the two.

[imisscollege]

Maybe it is wishful thinking after a -14 in December, but for December's - 14 exam the general guesses were in the -11 range.
About the results of the poll, I'm a little surprised at how tough people found the exam, but I think we have enough results to suggest that people found the exam difficult.

The mean, median, and mode for the poll thus far is -12, which would have to be considered a pretty loose or lenient curve (Dec 09 notwithstanding). Maybe it is wishful thinking after a -14 in December, but for December's - 14 exam the general guesses were in the -11 range.

I think this is it. The -14 is affecting our guesses perhaps more than we realize. I bet it's more like a -10 or -11 even though Logic Games were a bitch.

RC was tough too, though. No? Especially to finish on time.

[dynomite]

Those who took in December should weigh in with their thoughts on a comparison between the two.

Although I'm not really sure how this impacts the curve, I took 59 as a PT and found it to be slightly harder than Feb -- LR was harder, but LG was pretty simple and RC was average. For Feb 10, I found LR and LG about average and RC easier than normal.

(I'll add, however, that I seem to be in the minority on thinking RC was easy, especially because it appeared so late on the test for many)

[monkeyboy]

Those who took in December should weigh in with their thoughts on a comparison between the two.

Although I'm not really sure how this impacts the curve, I took 59 as a PT and found it to be slightly harder than Feb -- LR was harder, but LG was pretty simple and RC was average. For Feb 10, I found LR and LG about average and RC easier than normal.

(I'll add, however, that I seem to be in the minority on thinking RC was easy, especially because it appeared so late on the test for many)

You may be right. I had RC late and I was tired as all get out, so I probably just thought it was harder due to my fatigue level.

[whitman]

I took the December and February tests, but it's hard to compare because I was definitely more prepared when February came around. I hadn't taken any practice tests later than maybe PT 2x. I thought the LR was about the same, RC was easier in February, and I can't compare LG's because I was more prepared this time. However, I think they were just as hard because I had been hitting -0 leading up to Feb. and still had to guess on 4.

[raperez129]

About the results of the poll, I'm a little surprised at how tough I, like many other TLSers, am probably very wary of giving myself the benefit of the doubt. I had trouble with the test, but I would attribute that to other factors relating to me and my performance before blaming the difficulty level of the exam first.

Ditto this. I did 59 as a PT, and it wasn't too bad to me. It was one of my higher scores. I though this one was significantly harder. I think I'd be satisfied with an 11/12. *fingerscrossed*

[Pricer]

Those who took in December should weigh in with their thoughts on a comparison between the two.

Although I'm not really sure how this impacts the curve, I took 59 as a PT and found it to be slightly harder than Feb -- LR was harder, but LG was pretty simple and RC was average. For Feb 10, I found LR and LG about average and RC easier than normal.

(I'll add, however, that I seem to be in the minority on thinking RC was easy, especially because it appeared so late on the test for many)

You may be right. I had RC late and I was tired as all get out, so I probably just thought it was harder due to my fatigue level.

I have noticed that the primary complaints about RC being hard have been self-attributed to having it late in the test.

I'm a little different, though. I found RC hard because the passages were some of the most boring I have read so far. I cannot think of a single passage from the PTs that I have done that even compare to two of them. The one about the feminist (or was she even a feminist?) was simply ridiculous. The author used terrible analogies and completely failed to prove any point IMO. And the one about the languages combined two completely unrelated language origination topics that I did not care about simply to confuse me and make me care even less. I found it very hard to follow these two passages compared to passages in the PTs. There was nothing hard about the language or structure, I just felt that they were so heavily flawed and failed to prove anything they claimed to prove that it was hard to pick up on the subtleties the questions asked for.

[monkeyboy]

Those who took in December should weigh in with their thoughts on a comparison between the two.

Although I'm not really sure how this impacts the curve, I took 59 as a PT and found it to be slightly harder than Feb -- LR was harder, but LG was pretty simple and RC was average. For Feb 10, I found LR and LG about average and RC easier than normal.

(I'll add, however, that I seem to be in the minority on thinking RC was easy, especially because it appeared so late on the test for many)

You may be right. I had RC late and I was tired as all get out, so I probably just thought it was harder due to my fatigue level.

I have noticed that the primary complaints about RC being hard have been self-attributed to having it late in the test.

I'm a little different, though. I found RC hard because the passages were some of the most boring I have read so far. I cannot think of a single passage from the PTs that I have done that even compare to two of them. The one about the feminist (or was she even a feminist?) was simply ridiculous. The author used terrible analogies and completely failed to prove any point IMO. And the one about the languages combined two completely unrelated language origination topics that I did not care about simply to confuse me and make me care even less. I found it very hard to follow these two passages compared to passages in the PTs. There was nothing hard about the language or structure, I just felt that they were so heavily flawed and failed to prove anything they claimed to prove that it was hard to pick up on the subtleties the questions asked for.

Pricer, I might agree with you. Like I said, I attribute my poor performance or perceived poor performance on RC to my fatigue level at the time, but the material we read was uber boring, to the nth degree.

[primusux]

Wow, so you're telling me we don't get the image of our answer sheet nor the credited/non-credited items in our IRR? What happens if their machine reads an eraser mark incorrectly on your scantron? And all this time I thought non-disclosed just meant we don't get to see the exam booklet.
How does it hurt them to provide the letter answers?

[februaryftw]

Wow, so you're telling me we don't get the image of our answer sheet nor the credited/non-credited items in our IRR? What happens if their machine reads an eraser mark incorrectly on your scantron? And all this time I thought non-disclosed just meant we don't get to see the exam booklet.
How does it hurt them to provide the letter answers?

If you think you misbubbled or are unsure of your erasings I am pretty sure you can still get it handscored--you just ask for it blind, as it were.

[bgdddymtty]

I thought the rule about curve is base on how people did on the previous LSAT. Considering September 2009 was the most taken, in term of numbers, it is reasonable to assume a lot of people took it cold and thus the mean was tanked. As a result, people in December benefited from the curve.

I'm all but certain this is wrong. It would be incredibly capricious, and it would entirely defeat the purpose of scaling scores.

[tomwatts]

I thought the rule about curve is base on how people did on the previous LSAT. Considering September 2009 was the most taken, in term of numbers, it is reasonable to assume a lot of people took it cold and thus the mean was tanked. As a result, people in December benefited from the curve.

I'm all but certain this is wrong. It would be incredibly capricious, and it would entirely defeat the purpose of scaling scores.

As I understand it, the scaling is not from one test administration to the next; it's over the course of years. What happens at one test date doesn't much change things, but if something happens at three or four consecutive test dates, that might affect the development of the test a year or two later.

[imisscollege]

I thought the rule about curve is base on how people did on the previous LSAT. Considering September 2009 was the most taken, in term of numbers, it is reasonable to assume a lot of people took it cold and thus the mean was tanked. As a result, people in December benefited from the curve.

I'm all but certain this is wrong. It would be incredibly capricious, and it would entirely defeat the purpose of scaling scores.

As I understand it, the scaling is not from one test administration to the next; it's over the course of years. What happens at one test date doesn't much change things, but if something happens at three or four consecutive test dates, that might affect the development of the test a year or two later.

I have heard that too but I just don't see how it makes sense.

[tikiman6]

I am reasonably sure curves are made post-test to make the scores adhere to the percentiles to which they correspond....

[RickyRoe]

What will the curve be for those who took make-up tests?

[lawschoollll]

I am reasonably sure curves are made post-test to make the scores adhere to the percentiles to which they correspond....

Nope. Someone makes this assertion in about 50% of the threads on this forum, but it still doesn't make it true... I'd guess even Wikipedia-ing "LSAT" would confirm this but I'm too lazy to do it myself.

[uganik]

I am reasonably sure curves are made post-test to make the scores adhere to the percentiles to which they correspond....

I wish....

The score curve is based on test takers previous performance on these sections from numerous previous administrations where these sections were experimental. Apparently each one of these same sections were experimental on more than one, and possibly several LSATs. As a result, LSAC is in possession of a significant amount of performance data to allow them to establish a relatively accurate curve.

-14..........I pray, is an accurate curve for this administration.

[imisscollege]

I am reasonably sure curves are made post-test to make the scores adhere to the percentiles to which they correspond....

I wish....

The score curve is based on test takers previous performance on these sections from numerous previous administrations where these sections were experimental. Apparently each one of these same sections were experimental on more than one, and possibly several LSATs. As a result, LSAC is in possession of a significant amount of performance data to allow them to establish a relatively accurate curve.

-14..........I pray, is an accurate curve for this administration.

Does that mean that there is a chance that people could have already seen these sections

[bgdddymtty]

Does that mean that there is a chance that people could have already seen these sections

It's pretty well guaranteed. The reason there's an experimental section on each student's LSAT is so LSAC can test (and curve) questions for future exams.

[imisscollege]

Does that mean that there is a chance that people could have already seen these sections

It's pretty well guaranteed. The reason there's an experimental section on each student's LSAT is so LSAC can test (and curve) questions for future exams.

another question---many people have time issues with the lsat so if they go straight through (args for example) there is a good chanec that they will miss questions at the end, even if they are easy. any idea about how this is dealt with?