2010 curve Forum

[bartleby]

I need a -11.

[wrdoftdyretrograde]

i hear form some test prep people that its supposed to be around -13? then again whats one or two questions?....i kid.

[jr1886]

Hell, the curve might even be -7

[bartleby]

Better chance of it being -14 than -7 right...

[jarofsoup]

Does any one have a "curve trend" they can put up here. The curve has been above -10 for the last couple tests hasn't it?

[bartleby]

Does any one have a "curve trend" they can put up here. The curve has been above -10 for the last couple tests hasn't it?

Yeah, I took June and December and they were both hard as shit though.

[aesis]

59 and 60 weren't hard it was just LG that were hard in both. And 59's weren't that hard really if you made the right inference on Game 4.

I heard 59's LR was hard but I don't remember it being any harder than any other PT, and 60's LR was a breeze. Not meaning to appear pretentious but I -4'd the LR on 59 and -2'd the LR on 60 and I'd say 61 was just as if not even harder than 59's. Everything is subjective anyway so I guess it doesn't matter.

LR was hard, LG was moderate, and RC was moderate, if not on the easy side. I think a -12 curve is reasonable.

See chart here:
http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/cor ... rgeted.cfm

[Adjudicator]

59 and 60 weren't hard it was just LG that were hard in both. And 59's weren't that hard really if you made the right inference on Game 4.

I heard 59's LR was hard but I don't remember it being any harder than any other PT, and 60's LR was a breeze. Not meaning to appear pretentious but I -4'd the LR on 59 and -2'd the LR on 60 and I'd say 61 was just as if not even harder than 59's. Everything is subjective anyway so I guess it doesn't matter.

LR was hard, LG was moderate, and RC was moderate, if not on the easy side. I think a -12 curve is reasonable.

I -0'd the LR on 59 and -1 on 60, and I thought this October test was definitely trickier. -12 would be awesome.

[Lasers]

yeah, the games in 61 weren't harder, but harder to finish. i'm not great at games, but if i didn't miss copying down a rule, i would have had a -0 on the june test. for 61, i couldn't finish and had to guess on the last 3.

LR was also noticeably harder than 60 to me; and at least on par with PT 59.

i'm just hoping for something reasonable, like -11 to -12.

[incompetentia]

See chart here:
http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/cor ... rgeted.cfm

This data is VERY interesting. For those shooting for a 170, the 170 datapoint is going to be king. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that other points trend in the same direction.

For example, the -12 for PT60 translates to a -1 for 180, but the -12 for Sept '07 translates to a -4 for 180.

Those of us not looking to end up in the 166-174 range would be best served by looking at other sections to determine the curve.

[Adjudicator]

For example, the -12 for PT60 translates to a -1 for 180, but the -12 for Sept '07 translates to a -4 for 180.

Those of us not looking to end up in the 166-174 range would be best served by looking at other sections to determine the curve.

Wow, that's nuts. I had no idea it could vary so much even on the "same" curve.

[AreJay711]

Agreed the December was underestimated by some it seems, but we were lacking mauve dinosaurs in October. I'm not saying that one LR section wasn't a fairly difficult one, but I don't think it was impossible by any means. I think a lot more people were thrown by the dino game and the way it affected the rest of that section (similar to mulch game in June) than by the one LR that had maybe 2 or 3 oddball questions. I just feel like a -11 is fair, I certainly don't want it to be, but I think it is.

That dino question was easy as hell... Only 3 of them could be Mauve and 2 of those 3 couldn't be together (or something like that). Still, it proves that everyone does better or worse on different types of LG questions so any general statement about how hard any particular LG section was is pointless and , by extension, trying to guess the scale is pointless. I find the more time consuming LGs more difficult than ones that require you to make hard inferences and breeze through the answers.

[incompetentia]

Some quick thoughts on PT50-60:

For 180:
PT55 is actually the worst curve of the 11. Only -1 or -0 overall would give a 180.
Most forgiving curve belongs, not surprisingly, to 59. -3 will still give you a 180.
Upon closer inspection, though, every other year has given 180 to be a -2 curve. Fairly consistent among ALL tests, which means that a slightly easier than average test would produce slightly more 180s than in another year.

For 175:
Some test forms don't give 175 at all. However, I will note these as -x.5 to count their easiness on the same scale as the others.
-5 occurs again only in PT55. -5.5 occurs in PT52, however.
-8 for PT59 is once again ridiculous...most every other test gives either -6 or -6.5.

For 170:
PT55 as expected is the harshest curve at -9. The infamous PT59 has the -14 curve. Everything else is between 10 and 12, as has been retread many times.

For 165:
PT55 is again the worst curve, at -15.
PT59 is again the most generous, at -20. The only test at -19 is PT60. Generally, this mark seems much less difficult to reach from 56 onward (average -18.4) than from 50-55 (average -16.3). Good sign for people aiming for 165ish.

Same pattern for 160, with PT50 checking in at -23, the harshest, and -28 and -27 for 59 and 60, respectively. Notice that for 180, 175, and 170, PT60 has not been thought of as curved very generously, but it has been for 165 and 160.

It may be noted that the free test on LSAC (June '07) is a much harsher curve than any of these 11 tests, with a -1 at 180, -4 at 175, -8 at 170, -14 at 165, and -22 at 160.

So what can be gained from all this? Well, we know that 59 had a ridiculously easy curve, and that 50-55 were seen to be much easier. If the trend holds up, though, it seems like the scores needed for scores in the low 160s will continue to be closer to a -27 rather than a -23 for a 160. In addition, scores for 180 appear to be a lot more inelastic than previously thought. I guess the people who manage to get that many questions correct really don't care about the difficulty of the questions in the first place.

[Adjudicator]

Very interesting stuff, thanks for breaking it down.

[incompetentia]

As much as people will hate to hear this addendum, I've noticed a slight trend over the course of 50-60 as they relate to their testing dates.

The easiest testing date seems to be December across the board, with the 59 test somewhat skewing the data but with PT56 and even PT53 (from the 'easier' era of tests a couple years ago) with fairly generous curves.

Likewise, with 60's surprising generosity closer to 160 and 165, and 57's perceived difficulty, June appears to be a moderate test date, without any others that would qualify as either very harsh or very generous.

52 and 55 seem to curve as the most difficult, and 58 is of average difficulty before 59 and 60. October, therefore, has over the past three years been the most difficult in terms of curving. Granted, 52, 55, and 58 were not considered excessively difficult tests, but the data definitely shows some correlation between October test dates and tiny curves.

Of course, this doesn't mean that it has to stay the same. However, the numbers don't lie.

[jarofsoup]

As much as people will hate to hear this addendum, I've noticed a slight trend over the course of 50-60 as they relate to their testing dates.

The easiest testing date seems to be December across the board, with the 59 test somewhat skewing the data but with PT56 and even PT53 (from the 'easier' era of tests a couple years ago) with fairly generous curves.

Likewise, with 60's surprising generosity closer to 160 and 165, and 57's perceived difficulty, June appears to be a moderate test date, without any others that would qualify as either very harsh or very generous.

52 and 55 seem to curve as the most difficult, and 58 is of average difficulty before 59 and 60. October, therefore, has over the past three years been the most difficult in terms of curving. Granted, 52, 55, and 58 were not considered excessively difficult tests, but the data definitely shows some correlation between October test dates and tiny curves.

Of course, this doesn't mean that it has to stay the same. However, the numbers don't lie.

June has not been very nice tests, but I think there needs to be a few more dates. I took 58 it was easier. I took 60 and found it to be very hard and the most recent 61 to be much easier

[Sandro]

I'm changing my official guess to -12 with 101.

[3|ink]

I'm changing my official guess to -12 with 101.

As much as I'd like that curve, I'm sticking with -10.

[Sandro]

for me this exam was on par with June which was -12 with 99, if this stays 101 no way it would go down to -10. Im basing my prediction off of not how hard the test was for ME personally, but how inherently hard I thought the exam was. For me i could miss an entire game because i misread the rules - while i had a HARD time, it might not have been that hard.

I thought LR was genuinely tough - I'm hoping for -2/-3 on it combined, but some of these required you to make some bigger than LSAT usual brain jumps. I think you can equate the games and RC of june to october as well(I'd rather have a game with some inferences/restrictions that guide you than the hypo fest of october). No way either was substantially harder or easier.

~2 more weeks we will find out.

[Cromartie]

Although I took a different test, I would be happy to get a -11 curve.

[AreJay711]

As much as people will hate to hear this addendum, I've noticed a slight trend over the course of 50-60 as they relate to their testing dates.

The easiest testing date seems to be December across the board, with the 59 test somewhat skewing the data but with PT56 and even PT53 (from the 'easier' era of tests a couple years ago) with fairly generous curves.

Likewise, with 60's surprising generosity closer to 160 and 165, and 57's perceived difficulty, June appears to be a moderate test date, without any others that would qualify as either very harsh or very generous.

52 and 55 seem to curve as the most difficult, and 58 is of average difficulty before 59 and 60. October, therefore, has over the past three years been the most difficult in terms of curving. Granted, 52, 55, and 58 were not considered excessively difficult tests, but the data definitely shows some correlation between October test dates and tiny curves.

Of course, this doesn't mean that it has to stay the same. However, the numbers don't lie.

I heard somewhere (probably on TLS) that there is a stronger correlation between Oct compared to June than just what month it is. Specifically the Sept/Oct curve is .5 less on average than the June test that preceded it.

[confusedlawyer]

Im hoping for -11. -10 would suck but its okay. -9 ....-__-

[incompetentia]

Personally I can see this landing anywhere...enough uncertainty to swing it to a -12 and yet my gut tells me -9 is still possible.

-9: 5%
-10: 55%
-11: 30%
-12: 10%

My handicapping. I see most people leaning more toward -11 though, so...

[Sandro]

I refer you guys to the opinions of 100+ from Dec 09. They were leaning heavily towards -10/11- it came out -14

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... w=viewpoll

[incompetentia]

Could be just that we all expect it'll be -10/-11 due to groupthink