Curve Discussion Forum

[Blumpbeef]

I'm figuring a -10. I honestly didn't think it was too hard. RC was very easy IMO. LG were ok and LR is LR. I felt more like PT 58 than 59 or 60. No way it's a -14 monster like Dec 09. That test deserved a generous curve.

Agreed, this test was easier than 59 and 60. I am guessing a -11, but we'll see what kind of cooky algorithm/method LSAC does to finally make that curve.

I'm thinking I scored a -11, and thats what I'm hoping for. RC wasn't too ridiculous, LGs were easy, although I thought the LRs were above average difficulty. Not as bad 59LR1 maybe, but harder than most other sections I've done.

[longdaysjourney]

Anyone else feel like punching Link in the face? -6 curve?

Haha. Sorry. I honestly think it was one of the easiest tests in recent memory (Is it against the LSAC terms to discuss the difficulty of the test without getting into specifics? I'm pretty sure that wasn't in the statement I wrote).

Anyway, it'll probably be -10/11

Yeah, I thought that this was probably one of the easier tests. I think it was easier than 50-60.

[incompetentia]

I agree - I didn't have 50 or 52 but the only test I found easier than this one in 50-60 -might- be 54.

I think I had a chance to be -0 for every section, but I think more likely would be...

LR1 -1 to -2
RC -1 to -3
LR2 -0 to -2
LG -0 to -1

Watch me get like a 156

[filmorejive]

I always tried to guess the curve on my PTs and was usually pretty on point. This test should be -10 -12 range, with -12 being a stretch. I'd see it get a -11 no problem.

I think personally with any curve for me my score felt around a 174-180 with a slight chance of 169-174 if i somehow fell for a few traps.

[minnbills]

I think I probably went something like:

RC -3 to -6
LR1 -4 to -6 (Depending on the experimental, I'm still not sold on the board concensus, it could be much better)
LR2 -2 to -5
LG -2 to -10 haha.

Lot of range in there, I'd be willing to bet I'm right around my PT average of 165, probably a little lower. My goal was 168 and I think it's pretty unlikely I reached that today.

[DreamShake]

I'm guessing -10 or -11 just based on recent curves and the relative ease of the test. I thought LR was fairly easy, and RC didn't seem particularly bad. LG murdered me, but that was more because I panicked than the actual difficulty of the games (hurray for misreading "oldest" as "earliest" and destroying my score). -12 to -14 would make me literally cry with joy, since I'm guessing I went somewhere between -5 to -11 overall. I'm pulling for a semi-realistic 173 on 93/101 on a -12 curve and an ED to NYU... FWIW, I thought 59 was fairly difficult and that 60 was average; this one seems much closer to 60 than 59. Didn't seem noticeably easier than any of the other 50's, though.

My predicted ranges:

LR (total): -1 to -4
RC: -0 to -3
LG: -5 to -7

[minnbills]

I have to say the test seemed way easier than what I was expecting.

[Spinozist21]

Can you guys explain this whole curve idea to me for the LSAT. A -11 means what exactly?

[Adjudicator]

Can you guys explain this whole curve idea to me for the LSAT. A -11 means what exactly?

In the local idiom, LSAT curves are measured from a score of 170. So, a -11 means that missing 11 would land you at 170.

[Spinozist21]

So the June LSAT was a -13 then? (lowest score for 170= 87).

[smithryan94]

99 questions, -12

[applepiecrust]

LG murdered me, but that was more because I panicked than the actual difficulty of the games (hurray for misreading "oldest" as "earliest" and destroying my score).

Wait, what?

Now I'm really second-guessing myself with everyone saying LG was hard. I finished LG (and experimental LG) both with 5 minutes each to spare and feeling relatively confident about -0 LG, but post-TLS browsing, I'm not so sure.

I think I killed LG, RC killed me (though others seem to have found it easy), and LR and I are on our usual grounds (total of -3 or -4 on the two sections combined).

I'm guessing a -11/-12 curve, but I have no idea how to estimate these things/relative difficulty of tests for the average test-taker.

(Watch this turn out like my SAT where I got a reverse Asian score: Writing > RC > Math, despite being most confident about math).

[policestate1234]

-10

[Blumpbeef]

LG murdered me, but that was more because I panicked than the actual difficulty of the games (hurray for misreading "oldest" as "earliest" and destroying my score).

Wait, what?

Now I'm really second-guessing myself with everyone saying LG was hard. I finished LG (and experimental LG) both with 5 minutes each to spare and feeling relatively confident about -0 LG, but post-TLS browsing, I'm not so sure.

I think I killed LG, RC killed me (though others seem to have found it easy), and LR and I are on our usual grounds (total of -3 or -4 on the two sections combined).

I'm guessing a -11/-12 curve, but I have no idea how to estimate these things/relative difficulty of tests for the average test-taker.

(Watch this turn out like my SAT where I got a reverse Asian score: Writing > RC > Math, despite being most confident about math).

Don't worry. I dominated both LGs and had enough time to double check about half of my answers. Moreover, I suck at LG normally and I had no trouble at all on this test. I'm sure it all comes down to practice + adrenaline + a good night's sleep, but for whatever reason I am completely confident about my performance on LG. RC and LR, not so much, so I'm probably going to get an "Asian" score on this test.

[DreamShake]

LG murdered me, but that was more because I panicked than the actual difficulty of the games (hurray for misreading "oldest" as "earliest" and destroying my score).

Wait, what?

Now I'm really second-guessing myself with everyone saying LG was hard. I finished LG (and experimental LG) both with 5 minutes each to spare and feeling relatively confident about -0 LG, but post-TLS browsing, I'm not so sure.

I think I killed LG, RC killed me (though others seem to have found it easy), and LR and I are on our usual grounds (total of -3 or -4 on the two sections combined).

I'm guessing a -11/-12 curve, but I have no idea how to estimate these things/relative difficulty of tests for the average test-taker.

(Watch this turn out like my SAT where I got a reverse Asian score: Writing > RC > Math, despite being most confident about math).

I think you misread what I wrote; I struggled with LG because I misread a rule and panicked when I had to throw out my diagram (twice). I didn't think the games were actually that hard--I just royally fucked myself.

[tazmolover]

LG murdered me, but that was more because I panicked than the actual difficulty of the games (hurray for misreading "oldest" as "earliest" and destroying my score).

Wait, what?

Now I'm really second-guessing myself with everyone saying LG was hard. I finished LG (and experimental LG) both with 5 minutes each to spare and feeling relatively confident about -0 LG, but post-TLS browsing, I'm not so sure.

I think I killed LG, RC killed me (though others seem to have found it easy), and LR and I are on our usual grounds (total of -3 or -4 on the two sections combined).

I'm guessing a -11/-12 curve, but I have no idea how to estimate these things/relative difficulty of tests for the average test-taker.

(Watch this turn out like my SAT where I got a reverse Asian score: Writing > RC > Math, despite being most confident about math).

I think you misread what I wrote; I struggled with LG because I misread a rule and panicked when I had to throw out my diagram (twice). I didn't think the games were actually that hard--I just royally fucked myself.

I misread rules on two games...that made me spend like 3 minutes each on just the acceptability questions...

Had to rush so hard just to finish it. Had to guess on one question but was confident on most others.

[JurisDoctorate]

.[/quote]

Don't worry. I dominated both LGs and had enough time to double check about half of my answers. Moreover, I suck at LG normally and I had no trouble at all on this test. I'm sure it all comes down to practice + adrenaline + a good night's sleep, but for whatever reason I am completely confident about my performance on LG. RC and LR, not so much, so I'm probably going to get an "Asian" score on this test.[/quote]

Define: Suck at LG normally

There's no need for any of us to posture, we will all be exposed in 9 weeks. Those games were just not that easy and some questions were pretty time consuming. You had time to double check half of your answers?

[lechic12]

The June one had a -12 curve and it wasn't that hard compared to the other tests. esp Dec. So I wouldn't be surprised if this one was a -11 or better.

[dcman06]

I never got a 170 in my practice tests, but I was consistently in the 160's though I had a test every once in awhile that landed me a 152 and a 155 there..... I just hope yesterday wasn't one of them.

What do you guys think the 160 curve/mark will be? Last few tests, it's been around the 73-74 range, June 2010/PT 60 was a 72, though that was because one question was removed from scoring. This test I think could be higher but I'm praying to God that it won't be like December 05 (-7/93 right for a 170; -21/79 right for 160)...

[Shooter]

I would expect this curve to be around -10, but I would be elated with -11 or -12.

I found Logic Games to be quite tricky (I had to make educated guesses on ~4, and I got -0 on pt60).

I also found Reading Comprehension to be pretty mentally taxing (but that was probably because my test went LR, RC, RC, LR, LG).

Logical Reasoning was, to me, about average. Definitely a few tough ones, but I finished fairly early on both (not that this is indicative of a good score).

[DrackedaryMaster]

I'm too lazy to search for everything now, but if you guys want something to do today and don't mind searching endless threads, I've come upon some interesting information. Mods hope this is okay. Not saying anything myself here, just showing what previous TLS threads already have proven by using the search button feature.

(1) The Oct 2010 RC is an "experimental" from October 2008
(2) The Oct 2010 LG is an "experimental" from February 2009
(3) One of the LRs (Journalist Q) is an "experimental" from December 2009

I have not found the other LR (could have been in an undisclosed test, but that appaently didn't stop Feb takers from griping about their LGs.

These TLS takers reactions to relief/concern may provide us with some idea of the curve. I'm also a little puzzled why there is such a short gap between the time experimentals are tested and when they become "real". I thought 2 years would be the norm as more people opt to sit out the cycle. The odds might have been good that a Dec 2009 tester that got that LR as experimental might have gotten an edge today.

[Spinozist21]

The June one had a -12 curve and it wasn't that hard compared to the other tests. esp Dec. So I wouldn't be surprised if this one was a -11 or better.

So you think this test was easier than the June test? Maybe I am just second guessing myself too much.

[littlepixie11]

The June one had a -12 curve and it wasn't that hard compared to the other tests. esp Dec. So I wouldn't be surprised if this one was a -11 or better.

So you think this test was easier than the June test? Maybe I am just second guessing myself too much.

I think that it was a bit harder, but then again, ppl here said that they didn't have a hard time with the games and I did. I also went through the other sections OK, but there were questions that made me pause and passages were lengthy. On the June, the RC was the hardest but not terrible. Also, it seems as though the curves are the most generous when the games the hardest haha

[cinefile 17]

Yeah, I don't know what's wrong with me, but I found the Games section on the June test to be a breeze. This Games section killed me. My experiences with games seems to be contrary to the general opinion.

[Ship87]

I remember after the June LSAT that lots and lots of people, me included, were freaking out over the logic games and talking about how terrible they felt. I see people having the same doubt but not on the June 2010 level. But then again, I think October probably has more retakes than June and more people on these boards who retook it so naturally they wouldn't be as nervous.

I was panicked about my June score and got a 171. Today I feel okay with my performance on Saturday but I'm also worried that my confidence is an illusion and I'll get <170 lol. Here's hoping for a -14! In all likelihood, -10.