Was Oct. test considered easy, average, or hard? Forum

[JacobH]

Average RC, easy LG, harder LR.

6/10 on the hard scale, 5 being medium.

[androstan]

Most of you are out of your minds.

While some may say it was "easy", that does not necessarily mean they would score higher. With the LG, there were SO MANY hypo's that performance on the LG will be as low as it's ever been. The LR had enough curveballs to trick a bunch, as well as some formidable difficult questions.

Additionally, with all of these students taking the LSAT who have not prepared and are only taking the test of the economy - scores will be down. If the curve is lower than -12, I'll be shocked and I'll completely eat crow. However, I'd be just as shocked if the curve was lower than -14.

I am certain that it will be -15 and we are in a trend that will lead to a -20, within the next 5 years.

In five years will all Tier 1 and 2 schools then have a median LSAT of around 168?[/quote]


Math fail

[incompetentia]

I say a surprising -13 curve for the October 2010 test!

not out of the question according to some guy on here who had way too much free time and analyzed the curve as it relates to every June/Oct test since the start.

I repeatedly posted discrediting evidence but he never responded to me.

As for the test itself, LG 5.5/10 (maybe? I'm bad at handicapping LG because my score usually stays constant), LR 5/10, RC 4/10. Nothing too extremely easy/difficult in my opinion but fairly average. I agree with the 4.5 somebody else tossed out

[DrackedaryMaster]

I say a surprising -13 curve for the October 2010 test!

not out of the question according to some guy on here who had way too much free time and analyzed the curve as it relates to every June/Oct test since the start.

I repeatedly posted discrediting evidence but he never responded to me.

As for the test itself, LG 5.5/10 (maybe? I'm bad at handicapping LG because my score usually stays constant), LR 5/10, RC 4/10. Nothing too extremely easy/difficult in my opinion but fairly average. I agree with the 4.5 somebody else tossed out

Sorry about that. It is a valid point with the issue of more questions appearing on Oct rather than June as it has not happened in over a decade. Although I have nothing to back it up, I think the number of questions on each LSAT is irrelevant, which sounds strange when discussing the curve. My best guess is that LSAT could just as well come up with a 20 or 30 question test and determine the number of correct answers that would be equivalent to a 170 taker with a test containing 50 or 60 questions. So the fact that some LSATs have 99,100,101, or 102 shouldn't have a bearing. Can I prove this? No way. It would be nice to know if the Raw Score conversion chart for June 2010 changed any at all (other than at the 180 level) when the one question was removed, and if it didn't change other than at the top, how many additional potential questions could have been removed and still left the raw score for 170 at 87?

[incompetentia]

I say a surprising -13 curve for the October 2010 test!

not out of the question according to some guy on here who had way too much free time and analyzed the curve as it relates to every June/Oct test since the start.

I repeatedly posted discrediting evidence but he never responded to me.

As for the test itself, LG 5.5/10 (maybe? I'm bad at handicapping LG because my score usually stays constant), LR 5/10, RC 4/10. Nothing too extremely easy/difficult in my opinion but fairly average. I agree with the 4.5 somebody else tossed out

Sorry about that. It is a valid point with the issue of more questions appearing on Oct rather than June as it has not happened in over a decade. Although I have nothing to back it up, I think the number of questions on each LSAT is irrelevant, which sounds strange when discussing the curve. My best guess is that LSAT could just as well come up with a 20 or 30 question test and determine the number of correct answers that would be equivalent to a 170 taker with a test containing 50 or 60 questions. So the fact that some LSATs have 99,100,101, or 102 shouldn't have a bearing. Can I prove this? No way. It would be nice to know if the Raw Score conversion chart for June 2010 changed any at all (other than at the 180 level) when the one question was removed, and if it didn't change other than at the top, how many additional potential questions could have been removed and still left the raw score for 170 at 87?

When you converted raw scores from percentages, though, it became an issue of reconciling the absolute score with the percentage. You'd expect, between a 99-question test and a 101-question test, that the 101 would at least have a higher RAW score corresponding to 170, all else being equal. 1992 and 2005 actually (weakly) support this idea.

Either way, we're about to find out

[Ragged]

I thought overall it was much easier except for the 26 LR, which had a handful of tricky questions.

True, Ragged good luck tomorrow my friend. May the force be with you

You too man. This was quite a journey, hopefully it will end well for everyone, or atleast for me and for people I like.

[kkklick]

I thought overall it was much easier except for the 26 LR, which had a handful of tricky questions.

True, Ragged good luck tomorrow my friend. May the force be with you

You too man. This was quite a journey, hopefully it will end well for everyone, or atleast for me and for people I like.

I concur