Top Law Schools

Who took the December 2009 LSAT and can honestly claim the test deserved a -14 curve? Compare that test to tests 45, 46, or 47 (just as examples) and tell me again with a straight face that the December 09 test should have had such a generous curve.

I took the February 2010 test and was creamed. My practice tests ranged from 167 to 175, and I estimated I would get at least a 168. Far from it. I am almost certain that the February 2010 test was overly strict to compensate for the many additional high scores given out in December.

In this thread, if you want to contribute to holding LSAC accountable for their actions, post your PT average and your February 2010 LSAT score. Also participate in the poll. It is possible LSAC worms will create many fake accounts to manipulate the poll (especially the person responsible for the fake 2009 curve), so I'm going more for raw numbers. There are not that many people who took the February 2010 LSAT relative to other test dates, so if a large, raw number of people performed below what they expected, we can be pretty sure someone in LSAC ought to be FIRED.

Thank you.

Is several more than many?

I am telling you this in kindness, but calm down. This is life. Sometimes luck swings in your favor and sometimes it doesn't. Sure I wish I had taken the December test, but it was my choice not to and no one needs to be "held accountable" for it. You knew signing up for February it was undisclosed. If you need more transparency, then try a different test. LSAC is awful for lots of reasons (they are slow, rude on the phone, hold an unfair monopoly, grade conversions, blah blah) but the test and its curve are based on valid metrics.

NewtonLied wrote:Is several more than many?

Several is less than Many.

By Several, I mean a Few, somewhere around 3-4 points.

Many would be 5 or more points, which is an enormous drop on the LSAT.

jks289 wrote:I am telling you this in kindness, but calm down. This is life. Sometimes luck swings in your favor and sometimes it doesn't. Sure I wish I had taken the December test, but it was my choice not to and no one needs to be "held accountable" for it. You knew signing up for February it was undisclosed. If you need more transparency, then try a different test. LSAC is awful for lots of reasons (they are slow, rude on the phone, hold an unfair monopoly, grade conversions, blah blah) but the test and its curve are based on valid metrics.

I don't know if you did the December test, but I believe anyone who has taken many practice tests would know the December 09 curve was extraordinarily generous and extremely unusual.

lsatwizo wrote:

NewtonLied wrote:Is several more than many?

Several is less than Many.

By Several, I mean a Few, somewhere around 3-4 points.

Many would be 5 or more points, which is an enormous drop on the LSAT.

Yea, I know. I was subtly making fun of how asinine your "poll" is.

NewtonLied wrote:

lsatwizo wrote:

NewtonLied wrote:Is several more than many?

Several is less than Many.

By Several, I mean a Few, somewhere around 3-4 points.

Many would be 5 or more points, which is an enormous drop on the LSAT.

Yea, I know. I was subtly making fun of how asinine your "poll" is.

Please explain to me how the December 09 curve is justified. It isn't.

All I am really asking for is that someone from the LSAC look into the matter. There is time to do it before the June LSAT.

Good Lord, not this shit again. Is this bakemono's new handle? Go cry into your pillow or something.

lsatwizo wrote: I am almost certain that the February 2010 test was overly strict to compensate for the many additional high scores given out in December.

You're (still) clueless.

--ImageRemoved--

ROFL


this is gold.

--ImageRemoved--

Seriously, I'm sorry the test didn't work out for you. But c'mon -- what's done is done. Retake in June and go to the school of your dreams.

Similar poll here:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=109330

lsatwizo wrote:Please explain to me how the December 09 curve is justified. It isn't.

Please explain to me how the December 09 curve isn't justified, because this doesn't cut it:

• *I was creamed on the Feb LSAT.
  *For me, the Dec LSAT was way easier.
  *Therefore, my low score is not my fault.
  *Also, LSAC must be held accountable for this grave injustice (i.e. someone must be fired).

Sorry to break it to you, but your individual experience is meaningless in this context. Also, "many high scores" does not follow from "a generous curve." I scored 10 points less than my PT average on the Feb test (25 full tests, overall studying for 9 months), and never once have I had the thought that LSAC is out to get me. Get over yourself and own up to your poor performance. Arguing that LSAC would try to "compensate for high scores given in December" by penalizing a separate group of people (retakers are certainly the minority) is flatly ridiculous.

One more thing: THE LSAT IS NOT CURVED; it is equated.

**edited to specify that I took the Feb test**

This is hilarious.

For the record, I took both the 12/09 and the 02/10. My PTs averaged a 174/175, with a low of 171 and high of 178. I got "creamed" on the 12/09 test (164) and got what I feel was about right on the 02/10 test (172).

12/09 was a bitch. Bad RC, time-consuming LG, and one hard LR. The fact that I scored 10 points below my PT average even with a -14 curve makes me, personally, feel that the curve was justified.

Also, shut up. Just retake.

lsatwizo wrote:Who took the December 2009 LSAT and can honestly claim the test deserved a -14 curve? Compare that test to tests 45, 46, or 47 (just as examples) and tell me again with a straight face that the December 09 test should have had such a generous curve.

I took the February 2010 test and was creamed. My practice tests ranged from 167 to 175, and I estimated I would get at least a 168. Far from it. I am almost certain that the February 2010 test was overly strict to compensate for the many additional high scores given out in December.

In this thread, if you want to contribute to holding LSAC accountable for their actions, post your PT average and your February 2010 LSAT score. Also participate in the poll. It is possible LSAC worms will create many fake accounts to manipulate the poll (especially the person responsible for the fake 2009 curve), so I'm going more for raw numbers. There are not that many people who took the February 2010 LSAT relative to other test dates, so if a large, raw number of people performed below what they expected, we can be pretty sure someone in LSAC ought to be FIRED.

Thank you.

Quoting this hysterically idiotic post in its entirety for posterity, just in case lsatwizo/bakemono decides to delete this whiny nonsense.

Yeah, this test was difficult and undisclosed, so we'll never know where we went wrong. I scored about 10 points below my p/t average and 1 point lower than the dec. 08' test. I left feeling so good, though, I thought I didn't do great on the LG but did very well on the rest of the test. I was VERY wrong. I am disappointed but I'll get over it. If I don't get into the school I want, then I will take a class and retake the LSAT in October. I'll have to wait a year for LS but that's the breaks. I knew this was an undisclosed test, and, yes, its killing me to not know what went wrong, I took that risk.
For all you know, the Feb. curve was -12. We'll never know.

I took the Feb 10 test and did better than I expected.

Miznitic wrote:I took the Feb 10 test and did better than I expected.

Shut up, LSAC worm. We're coming for your job.

Funny that most of the people complaining about how great the december LSAT curve was didn't take the december LSAT. I took it and scored significantly below my median. I didn't study at all and in february I scored at my median. The curve is not indicative of difficulty at all.

I have reason to believe LSAC deliberately maniuplated the December 2009 curve, conversion chart, whatever you want to call it.

If you are knowledgeable about the LSAT and have taken many practice tests, you should know without any doubt the curve on the December 2009 LSAT was not right. It just wasn't.

I know there are others who feel the same way, but aren't speaking out because dummies keep vehemently attacking my post.

If I had to guess, the curve on the LSAT was about -8 when it should have been about -12.

lsatwizo wrote:I have reason to believe LSAC deliberately maniuplated the December 2009 curve, conversion chart, whatever you want to call it.

If you are knowledgeable about the LSAT and have taken many practice tests, you should know without any doubt the curve on the December 2009 LSAT was not right. It just wasn't.

I know there are others who feel the same way, but aren't speaking out because dummies keep vehemently attacking my post.

If I had to guess, the curve on the LSAT was about -8 when it should have been about -12.

If the above post is serious, what methodology did you apply to prove the biasedness of the December 2009 curve?

lsatwizo wrote:I have reason to believe LSAC deliberately maniuplated the December 2009 curve, conversion chart, whatever you want to call it.

If you are knowledgeable about the LSAT and have taken many practice tests, you should know without any doubt the curve on the December 2009 LSAT was not right. It just wasn't.

I know there are others who feel the same way, but aren't speaking out because dummies keep vehemently attacking my post.

If I had to guess, the curve on the LSAT was about -8 when it should have been about -12.

Actually it's kinda funny, I was getting laughed at for guessing at a -13 curve after december test. It was definitely the hardest test i took.

Panther7 wrote:

lsatwizo wrote:I have reason to believe LSAC deliberately maniuplated the December 2009 curve, conversion chart, whatever you want to call it.

If you are knowledgeable about the LSAT and have taken many practice tests, you should know without any doubt the curve on the December 2009 LSAT was not right. It just wasn't.

I know there are others who feel the same way, but aren't speaking out because dummies keep vehemently attacking my post.

If I had to guess, the curve on the LSAT was about -8 when it should have been about -12.

Actually it's kinda funny, I was getting laughed at for guessing at a -13 curve after december test. It was definitely the hardest test i took.

How many tests have you taken exactly? I laugh at the people who think the December 09 curve should have had a -14 curve. I really laugh.


Take tests 41 or 42 as examples and then compare it to test 59.

OP, you are a selfish, whiny douche.A lot of folks worked hard to get the scores they did in December. Don't trivilaize the accomplishments of others because you failed at the same task. The december test was hard and had a predetermined, unbiased curve. Quit whining and go try to succeed next time.