Going to be a low curve for Dec 2010? Forum

[langdonbadger]

Also, have to consider that LG weren't that hard, and they make up half the test. However, given that it seems Lichens, Windows, and Conferences made the other half suck, you'd have to assume a decent curve for a 170. I doubt the 160 curve will be much more than average though.

[KevinP]

Since an unprecendented number of people are going back to graduate/law school and taking tests, I bet we are looking at a normal curve of -11 or so...what do you think?

The curve (technically it is equated) is based on percentiles and not on aggregates. I honestly doubt we'll see a curve as low as -11. The games absolutely murdered a majority of people. Granted the RC section and one of the LR sections were easier but the other LR section had a crapload of tricky inferences.

-13 to -15 will be the curve. You can quote me on that.*






*Results may vary.

Glad you took care of the legal obligation, because if you were wrong I would have sued your ass

I would have sued myself if I was wrong. This test was much harder than October.

[Curry]

These threads are pointless. Nobody knows what the curve will be except LSAC. All that we know is anecdotally, the test was harder than October. By how much? Nobody really knows. Stop guessing the curve. It just freaks people out.

[kkklick]

These threads are pointless. Nobody knows what the curve will be except LSAC. All that we know is anecdotally, the test was harder than October. By how much? Nobody really knows. Stop guessing the curve. It just freaks people out.

True, but how else are we supposed to pass the time?

[Curry]

These threads are pointless. Nobody knows what the curve will be except LSAC. All that we know is anecdotally, the test was harder than October. By how much? Nobody really knows. Stop guessing the curve. It just freaks people out.

True, but how else are we supposed to pass the time?

Wait? Drink? Eat? Enjoy the holidays? Read the LR bible again in prep for your retake?

[kkklick]

There's no retake in the cards, drinking, eating and sleeping comprise about 12 hours. The other 12 hours are devoted to paranoia, and I don't see it changing.

But in all seriousness I'm at work and it's extremely slow, there's not much else to do at this point.

[Curry]

There's no retake in the cards, drinking, eating and sleeping comprise about 12 hours. The other 12 hours are devoted to paranoia, and I don't see it changing.

But in all seriousness I'm at work and it's extremely slow, there's not much else to do at this point.

You HAVE to move on. Paranoia is n ot healthy.

[kkklick]

I was joking I'm not paranoid, there's nothing I can do about it now my bubbles are filled in and my score is already determined, now law school acceptance is another story.

[androstan]

As someone who took both December and October, December was noticeably more difficult even though I felt more prepared. October was a -12 curve. I'm betting on a -12 to -14 curve for it. If it's a -11, we're all doomed. Doooooooooomed.

Definately, If december was a 7/10 on the difficulty scale, December was a 9/10, a harder RC would have definately made it 10/10. People are forgetting a -14 on a 102 question test is really a -13 in terms of a 101 question test, so it's not that far of a stretch. A -11 would mean a -10 compared to October which would be bull.

This isn't strictly/rigorously true. It is true that getting -14 on a 102 question test is a stronger score than going -14 on a 101 question test. It is not generally true that -14 on a 102 question test is equivalent to a -13 on a 101 question test.

It depends. Is the 102nd question "hard"? If it's a question they expect 170ish scorers to miss, then -14 on 102 will be equivalent to -13 on 101. However, if the 102nd question is easy, and they expect all the 170 scorers to nail it, then the 170 curve would be -14 whether there are 102 questions or 101.

The majority of questions on the test are of "moderate" difficulty (geared toward the score band 145-157). Based strictly on this consideration, it seems unlikely that an extra question on the test would bring the 170 curve down a full question (-13 to -14 for instance).

On the other hand, if LSAC's goal recently has been to stratify the upper few percent of test-takers more distinctly, it would be justified to add another "difficult" question to separate i.e. the 175's from the 174's etc. This would be likely to drive the 170 curve from -13 to -14.

The latter is my opinion. I'm not a statistician or psycometrician, but my intuition tells me that some of the test conversion charts have not been ideal. Specifically, when a 175 score is impossible, that seems like a problem to me. There have been conversion charts with two impossible scores. This seems like a deficiency of the test's ability to distinguish i.e. a 175 from a 174/6. The solution is to add another difficult question that some people in this score range will miss and some will get, hopefully pushing the 174's that are really 175's up and the 176's that are really 175's down.

[3|ink]

These threads are pointless. Nobody knows what the curve will be except LSAC. All that we know is anecdotally, the test was harder than October. By how much? Nobody really knows. Stop guessing the curve. It just freaks people out.

That's the OP's objective. This is the same guy who asked if his 1/8 NA, 1/8 Jewish roots made him an underrepresented minority.

[Attorney]

This isn't strictly/rigorously true. It is true that getting -14 on a 102 question test is a stronger score than going -14 on a 101 question test. It is not generally true that -14 on a 102 question test is equivalent to a -13 on a 101 question test.

The majority of questions on the test are of "moderate" difficulty (geared toward the score band 145-157). Based strictly on this consideration, it seems unlikely that an extra question on the test would bring the 170 curve down a full question (-13 to -14 for instance).

On the other hand, if LSAC's goal recently has been to stratify the upper few percent of test-takers more distinctly, it would be justified to add another "difficult" question to separate i.e. the 175's from the 174's etc. This would be likely to drive the 170 curve from -13 to -14.

The latter is my opinion. I'm not a statistician or psycometrician, but my intuition tells me that some of the test conversion charts have not been ideal. Specifically, when a 175 score is impossible, that seems like a problem to me. There have been conversion charts with two impossible scores. This seems like a deficiency of the test's ability to distinguish i.e. a 175 from a 174/6. The solution is to add another difficult question that some people in this score range will miss and some will get, hopefully pushing the 174's that are really 175's up and the 176's that are really 175's down.

Well stated. I award you +1 to each of your LR sections.

[kkklick]

It was a hard test but I still found it tolerable and fair so I wouldn't be too upset at a -12, it would just reinforce the fact that the test could be dominated. I still think it will be -13 with an outside chance of -14. That was my initial prediction and I'm sticking to it.

[KevinP]

I just read part of the Dec. 2009 waiting thread and a lot of people thought LR was really easy and some were freaking out about a really unforgiving curve. The first LR section in Dec. 2010 contained a lot of subtle tricks that were similar to Dec. 09. I'm sticking with a -13 to 15 curve.

I'd wager more towards -14 if I had to choose a single number.

[iceland]

[kkklick]

Hard test for the majority.

[iceland]

Hard test for the majority.

Were those hard parts intolerable and/or unfair?

[kkklick]

Hard test for the majority.

Were those hard parts intolerable and/or unfair?

Well it depends on prep. If you already were shaky on LG coming in to the test you would likely have found the real section to by unfair in terms of difficulty compared to previous administrations.

[iceland]

.

[kkklick]

Well it depends on prep. If you already were shaky on LG coming in to the test you would likely have found the real section to by unfair in terms of difficulty compared to previous administrations.

Prep has nothing to do with the actual fairness of the test. Certainly, perceived fairness is a completely different thing.

The test, by definition, was fair. It had to be, because it's essentially equivalent to past tests. If a test is fair, then, it cannot be hard at the same time.

So, ultimately, any talk of the test being unfair is pure and utter nonsense.

Although I found the test fair, there's a thread with about a thousand other people who'd disagree with you. You should maybe direct that towards them http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... +reactions.

[Sandro]

There has been a trend with LSAC to have the tests follow the same level of difficulty depending on when they were given. For example, last Dec was -14 chances are this one isnt going to be a -9 or something crazy.

Go look at Dec 09 threads.. everyone thought it wasnt going to be higher than -10 or -11 and it was -14. Call me crazy but when you have tons of ppl affirming this test was harder than Oct I would say -14 is very easily attainable.

[androstan]

...Call me crazy...

Crazy.

[Attorney]

If a test is fair, then, it cannot be hard at the same time.

Hmmm...depends if you're talking about pre-curve hardness or post-curve hardness (and no, I don't care if LSAC doesn't think they are applying a "curve" as their anti-curve argument is only one of subtle semantics). This LSAT, like all LSATs, was fair.

(Except to me, because my proctors were bumbling whisperers. Also, I was cold. Additionally, I don't like being up that early. Furthermore, I don't like Logic Games and so was not pleased to see difficult ones.)

Pre-curve, PS 62 was certainly "hard" at the same time as being "fair". Only once curves are applied are the distinctions of relative difficulty blurred. Which is why this "hard" test will become non-hard when, and only when, the curve comes in at between -13 and -15.