Page 1 of 2
The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:06 pm
by superw
Number 1, it was scheduled on Dec 11th, a week after the normal December day for the past 10 years, Number 2, 102 questions GTFO, Number 3, Scores will probably be released in January, past the time to many applicants want to apply to law school for the next year and still have a reasonable pool of competition and chance of acceptance, especially if you ED, Number 3, it had a ridiculously challenging LG, Number 4, it had a fishy approach to reading comprehension, Number 5, it was administered during a time when lots of people are going back to school so the applicant pool is going to be nutty which leads me to my Number 6, the curve, last year's December test had a 3 point higher curve than October's -11, and with all these other factors no one knows how high this curve could be, or low for that matter...were the other sections easier than usual or were many test takers just not prepared for those LG?
Many questions, little answers
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:19 pm
by 3|ink
Your questions are borderline whining.
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:33 pm
by androstan
superw wrote:
Many questions, little answers
Ahh yes. But sometimes, the answer to your question is a question, grasshoppah.
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:40 pm
by Attorney
superw wrote: Number 5, it was administered during a time when lots of people are going back to school so the applicant pool is going to be nutty which leads me to my Number 6, the curve, last year's December test had a 3 point higher curve than October's -11, and with all these other factors no one knows how high this curve could be
The test is curved against the people who took it as an experimental section, so Number 5 doesn't factor into it unless all or most of the test was administered experimentally in mid 2009 or later. However, the other points do seem to point to, with regard to Number 6, the curve getting into nose-bleed territory.
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:39 pm
by verklempt
Don't overlook the fact that the date was 12-11-10, the cosmic resonance of which has yet to be determined.
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:42 pm
by 2Serious4Numbers
i didn't take it, but a small part of me seriously can't wait for it to come out at -11(absolutely possible) and everyone go batshit crazy
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:44 pm
by Nonok
2Serious4Numbers wrote:i didn't take it, but a small part of me seriously can't wait for it to come out at -11(absolutely possible) and everyone go batshit crazy
That's mean!
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:09 pm
by kkklick
2Serious4Numbers wrote:i didn't take it, but a small part of me seriously can't wait for it to come out at -11(absolutely possible) and everyone go batshit crazy
No chance of anything worse than -12 and 102 questions. If it does happen I'll hold my reaction until after I see my raw score.
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:11 pm
by langdonbadger
verklempt wrote:Don't overlook the fact that the date was 12-11-10, the cosmic resonance of which has yet to be determined.
Yesssssss!
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:13 pm
by albusdumbledore
langdonbadger wrote:verklempt wrote:Don't overlook the fact that the date was 12-11-10, the cosmic resonance of which has yet to be determined.
Yesssssss!
Only a -13 curve makes sense on 12-11-10. Or maybe a -9. That would work too.
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:19 pm
by Attorney
2Serious4Numbers wrote:i didn't take it, but a small part of me seriously can't wait for it to come out at -11(absolutely possible) and everyone go batshit crazy
Noooooooooooooooo.
But seriously, I'd be pretty surprised. Looking back through the post-test reactions from other recent administrations, the test-taking people on TLS have collectively gauged the curves fairly accurately over the years. First time for everything though!
Having taken October and December, I'd be surprised if it came in at any less than -13 out of 102 questions and I expect -14 because it was easily two questions more difficult from my perspective (and most others). The shock of a -12 or -15 wouldn't last long, but a -11 or a -16 would be, to me, utterly wrong.
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:11 pm
by Sandro
Attorney wrote:2Serious4Numbers wrote:i didn't take it, but a small part of me seriously can't wait for it to come out at -11(absolutely possible) and everyone go batshit crazy
Noooooooooooooooo.
but a -16 would be, to me, utterly
wrong awesome.
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:17 pm
by pinkcamellia
Sandro777 wrote:Attorney wrote:2Serious4Numbers wrote:i didn't take it, but a small part of me seriously can't wait for it to come out at -11(absolutely possible) and everyone go batshit crazy
Noooooooooooooooo.
but a -16 would be, to me, utterly
wrong awesome.
+1
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:59 pm
by robotclubmember
2Serious4Numbers wrote:i didn't take it, but a small part of me seriously can't wait for it to come out at -11(absolutely possible) and everyone go batshit crazy
lol.
i am surprised at how many people consistently overlook how easy LR and RC were. not saying they were easy in absolute terms, but in relative terms, RC was easy, had no noguchis or hippocratic oaths or maizes, and LR wasn't a big deal either. i think the average LG score may be as much as -3 points worse in this administration than most other administrations. but i also think, on average, that the other sections were all +1 point easier each. to me, the undisputed difficulty of LG is completely offset by the slightly lower difficulty level of the other three sections, which is why i think december '10 test takers may be disappointed by the curve, given some of the exceedingly optimistic predictions that have been floated...
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:04 pm
by 3|ink
Are you guys sure you're just not thinking wishfully? -15? Come on. You have to admit that sounds fishy. Do you really think that's warranted even out of 102?
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:39 pm
by Attorney
robotclubmember wrote:i am surprised at how many people consistently overlook how easy LR and RC were.
No one is overlooking LR and RC, you're simply wrong about them being relatively easy for most. I get -0, -0, -0 on LR/RC fairly often (even though I'm terribad at LG) and while I think it's
possible that I got -0, -0 on PS 62 LR, it is not a given by any means. There were a couple more than usual that I had to think twice on.
As for RC, I can say without a doubt that I did NOT get -0 and that it was harder than most other RC sections. The one about 1800s literature that others thought was hard, I actually thought was indeed quite easy.... but lichens and dental caries were very dense and time-consuming. I actually did not even finish all of the RC and near-blind guessed at one of the dental caries questions. This is unheard of for me (but I also had some test center issues that interrupted my concentration so that was possibly part of it).
All in all, I'd say that RC was denser than usual and messed up some people's timing (including mine), the LR was average to ever-so-slightly difficult, and the LG was killer-bad-terrible-hard. It all adds up to -14 if you put a gun against my head and made me guess it. Second most likely would be -13 in my opinion, then -15, then -12, then -11, then -16. Nothing else is even remotely possible.
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:43 pm
by kkklick
I agree that RC was easier, but no way LR was easier than October's. I believe in relative terms December's LR rivals that of last decembers.
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:46 pm
by Attorney
3|ink wrote:Are you guys sure you're just not thinking wishfully? -15? Come on. You have to admit that sounds fishy. Do you really think that's warranted even out of 102?
I don't think that's really anyone's prediction. I say -14, then -13, then -15, then -12. I wouldn't be terribly shocked to see -15 but I wouldn't be terribly shocked to see -12 either.
-15 hasn't happened for a long time, but 102 questions is more rare (and more fishy) than -15. Change is underfoot at LSAC.
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:58 pm
by Sandro
Attorney wrote:3|ink wrote:Are you guys sure you're just not thinking wishfully? -15? Come on. You have to admit that sounds fishy. Do you really think that's warranted even out of 102?
Change is underfoot at LSAC.
I agree. All signs point to a definite shift in LSAC's tests, whether it be the hypo intensive LG, 102 questions, wonky LRs. They are changing the test from its 40's/early 50s form.
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:36 pm
by kkklick
Sandro777 wrote:Attorney wrote:3|ink wrote:Are you guys sure you're just not thinking wishfully? -15? Come on. You have to admit that sounds fishy. Do you really think that's warranted even out of 102?
Change is underfoot at LSAC.
I agree. All signs point to a definite shift in LSAC's tests, whether it be the hypo intensive LG, 102 questions, wonky LRs. They are changing the test from its 40's/early 50s form.
I hate to say it but I think the LSAT became too learnable. LG's were a cakewalk and LR's were easy in that they were predictable. Rc was always a crapshoot for me either way. They are definately going back to the more difficult, dark days.
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:39 pm
by $1.99
i definitely agree, having taken all of the PT's from the 20s to 60s, starting with the october 10' lsat, things seem different now.
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:24 pm
by Jeffort
kkklick wrote:Sandro777 wrote:Attorney wrote:3|ink wrote:Are you guys sure you're just not thinking wishfully? -15? Come on. You have to admit that sounds fishy. Do you really think that's warranted even out of 102?
Change is underfoot at LSAC.
I agree. All signs point to a definite shift in LSAC's tests, whether it be the hypo intensive LG, 102 questions, wonky LRs. They are changing the test from its 40's/early 50s form.
I hate to say it but I think the LSAT became too learnable. LG's were a cakewalk and LR's were easy in that they were predictable. Rc was always a crapshoot for me either way. They are definately going back to the more difficult, dark days.
You guys are going too far with this line of thought. People theorize that some type of significant permanent shift or change is happening to the test after every administration, especially when the games section is significantly easier or harder than most other tests. The balance of the difficulty within each test by section varies per test and has been randomly shifting around from one test to the next for two decades, so have the fluctuations in the score conversion charts.
After the release of the december 2005 test people were convinced it marked a permanent shift in the LSAT. The games were SUPER easy and the conversion scale was brutal (93 out of 101 for 170), plus the June and Oct 2005 tests had games sections that were super easy and brutal conversion scales. People thought hard games were a thing of the past, that games were being emphasized less and also that more generous conversion scales of -10 or more for 170 would never be seen again.
People were convinced that evil elves at LSAC were up to something sinister and freaked out about it for a long time.
There was mass hysteria!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3ZOKDmorj0#
Well, here we are 5 years later and harder games sections have surfaced again here and there as well as several slightly more generous score conversion scales: same as it has always has been with random fluctuations. It's the way the LSAT goes over the years.
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:14 am
by Attorney
Jeffort wrote:Well, here we are 5 years later and harder games sections have surfaced again here and there as well as several slightly more generous score conversion scales: same as it has always has been with random fluctuations.
I don't think it's not random at all. They completely changed things in the past and made games easier in the 40s and early 50s than they had ever been (probably to make LG prep less valuable). Now they're making big changes again and coming up with harder games that are hypothetical-dominated, a style that hasn't been as well covered in the LG prep courses. In another few years, the courses will all be coaching for LG sections like LG 61-69, and they'll completely change the LG section once again. To me, these are all purposeful changes and not the result of random chance.
I'd also add the change to 102 questions... PS 63 and 64 may not have 102, but I think they are trying it out and playing with it for now. Eventually, I think they will like it and stick with it for good to better differentiate between upper scores.
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:05 am
by therumpshaker
RC is always my strength and I thought it was on par with the last three or four exams. I found all four passages very easy to read and I had plenty of time left over at the end. For LR, usually the first ten are the easiest but not so much for Dec 10. LG was just wordier than previous exams imho. It's definitely not an ace for me, but it wasn't THAT unusual an exam. Still praying for that awesome curve!
Re: The Dec 2010 test has so many weird issues
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:41 pm
by Sandro
Attorney wrote:Jeffort wrote:Well, here we are 5 years later and harder games sections have surfaced again here and there as well as several slightly more generous score conversion scales: same as it has always has been with random fluctuations.
I don't think it's not random at all. They completely changed things in the past and made games easier in the 40s and early 50s than they had ever been (probably to make LG prep less valuable). Now they're making big changes again and coming up with harder games that are hypothetical-dominated, a style that hasn't been as well covered in the LG prep courses. In another few years, the courses will all be coaching for LG sections like LG 61-69, and they'll completely change the LG section once again. To me, these are all purposeful changes and not the result of random chance.
I'd also add the change to 102 questions... PS 63 and 64 may not have 102, but I think they are trying it out and playing with it for now. Eventually, I think they will like it and stick with it for good to better differentiate between upper scores.
The games of 40-most of 50s were so cake. What people dont realize is that one hard game is the equivalent of 4 or 5 hard LR/RC questions. Dec 10 had 2 "hard" games because both were very hypo intensive and that takes time which many people forget is the ultimate enemy on the LSAT...