Top Law Schools

Is the general consensus on here that February was an easier test than average? I ask because I felt pretty decent about it as I was leaving the test center and feel even better now. Everyone saying it was easy, though, makes me feel as though the curve is going to be ridiculous. I know we'll never know the curve, but was this test really that easy or is this just the standard post-test reaction?

Actually what you usually hear after an LSAT is people screaming about this or that section and predicting an unprecedented huge curve. This one really was not terribly difficult (although I have seen some dissenting opinions) so I share your fears. I'm sticking to the same -10 I predicted right after the test.

Obviously we'll never know the curve, but doesn't a -10 curve seem a little steep going by recent history? Starting with June 2009, the curves have been -11, -11, -12, -12, -12, and -14. Obviously you can't guess a curve based on recent history alone when each test is different, but to depart back to the days of the -10 or even harsher curves of the PTs in the 40s would seem strange.

The difficulty of this test kind of reminded me of PT 60 (June 2010). It wasn't particularly hard, but there were a couple of oddities that I think may have thrown the average test taker off (particularly the mulch game, which wasn't necessarily hard, but was a little different than the games most people are accustomed to). This exam's LG section was definitely easier than June's LG section, but I think the RC was harder, and I also think the comparative reading passage may have thrown people off a little just as the mulch game did back then.

Anyway, a -10 curve wouldn't shock me, but I'd be pretty surprised. -11 or -12 seems more likely to me (though here's hoping for another -14).

What was the curve for the test with the hard dinosour game? Was that the -14 one?

That one was -12. I remember that test pretty well. The LG section (mostly because of dinos) was pretty difficult, but I found the rest of the test to be abnormally easy. Also, though I do think the dino game was hard, I think it's developed a reputation that exaggerates its toughness. It was more time consuming than anything, and I felt like there are definitely much harder games out there.

Maybe its because it was my first time taking the real thing, but I've never had a RC section throw me like that one did. I also thought, while being easier than the December Games, the games in February were at least average difficulty. I thought both LRs were easier than usual. I think/hope -11.

SLS_AMG wrote:Obviously we'll never know the curve, but doesn't a -10 curve seem a little steep going by recent history? Starting with June 2009, the curves have been -11, -11, -12, -12, -12, and -14. Obviously you can't guess a curve based on recent history alone when each test is different, but to depart back to the days of the -10 or even harsher curves of the PTs in the 40s would seem strange.

The difficulty of this test kind of reminded me of PT 60 (June 2010). It wasn't particularly hard, but there were a couple of oddities that I think may have thrown the average test taker off (particularly the mulch game, which wasn't necessarily hard, but was a little different than the games most people are accustomed to). This exam's LG section was definitely easier than June's LG section, but I think the RC was harder, and I also think the comparative reading passage may have thrown people off a little just as the mulch game did back then.

Anyway, a -10 curve wouldn't shock me, but I'd be pretty surprised. -11 or -12 seems more likely to me (though here's hoping for another -14).

good points, I think you've changed my opinion. That and the fact that the ease of the LR sections I perceived relative to the Oct test may have had more to do with having practiced so much since then and just being better at it, rather than anything about the test itself.

benito wrote:

SLS_AMG wrote:Obviously we'll never know the curve, but doesn't a -10 curve seem a little steep going by recent history? Starting with June 2009, the curves have been -11, -11, -12, -12, -12, and -14. Obviously you can't guess a curve based on recent history alone when each test is different, but to depart back to the days of the -10 or even harsher curves of the PTs in the 40s would seem strange.

The difficulty of this test kind of reminded me of PT 60 (June 2010). It wasn't particularly hard, but there were a couple of oddities that I think may have thrown the average test taker off (particularly the mulch game, which wasn't necessarily hard, but was a little different than the games most people are accustomed to). This exam's LG section was definitely easier than June's LG section, but I think the RC was harder, and I also think the comparative reading passage may have thrown people off a little just as the mulch game did back then.

Anyway, a -10 curve wouldn't shock me, but I'd be pretty surprised. -11 or -12 seems more likely to me (though here's hoping for another -14).

good points, I think you've changed my opinion. That and the fact that the ease of the LR sections I perceived relative to the Oct test may have had more to do with having practiced so much since then and just being better at it, rather than anything about the test itself.

Convinced me too, although it may be wishful thinking...

I feel so stupid right now..... Everyone is saying this test was super easy and I agree with them for the most part but the LG section I had to make an educated guess on two questions. I normally sweep or just miss one on my practice LG. I know I probably missed those two guesses and a chance for a random miss somewhere else. It just makes me so mad because I felt so good through the first four sections and knowing LG was coming up, I felt I was surely going to get a 170 but now.....

unc0mm0n1 wrote:I feel so stupid right now..... Everyone is saying this test was super easy and I agree with them for the most part but the LG section I had to make an educated guess on two questions. I normally sweep or just miss one on my practice LG. I know I probably missed those two guesses and a chance for a random miss somewhere else. It just makes me so mad because I felt so good through the first four sections and knowing LG was coming up, I felt I was surely going to get a 170 but now.....

Uncommon1- I wouldn't feel bad about myself. From what you wrote, it seems like ur in a pretty good position to score 170+; if you missed 2 questions in each section (2+2+2+2=8) then that would basically guarantee a 170 and still leave room for leeway. If anything, you should feel confident and happy about your performance.

Best of luck.

I also predicted -10 after the test but the more I think about it the more I think it is more likely to be -11 or -12. While certainly easier than December, the LG was still difficult or at least medium historically - I would say on par with PTs 58-60 and certainly harder than any from the early 50s. I don't think the RC section was any easier than December's either, although the difficulty may have been more weighted towards one passage rather than spread out. I don't consider myself a good judge of LR, but consensus seems to be that they were on the difficult side if anything.

I think part of the reason that people may be more optimistic than usual is that so many of the people sitting in February had also taken December, which was likely the most difficult LSAT administered to date.

Before I took the test I didn't care that it was undisclosed, but now the fact that we will never know these things drives me crazy.

unc0mm0n1 wrote:I feel so stupid right now..... Everyone is saying this test was super easy and I agree with them for the most part but the LG section I had to make an educated guess on two questions. I normally sweep or just miss one on my practice LG. I know I probably missed those two guesses and a chance for a random miss somewhere else. It just makes me so mad because I felt so good through the first four sections and knowing LG was coming up, I felt I was surely going to get a 170 but now.....

yeah I too had my real LG section last and really felt like I was crushing the test until then. I had the misfortune of being sick the whole week of and it really flared up on me after the break so I also think I probably missed 3 or 4 on LG but I dont think that precludes a 170+ score at all. The rest of the test was very manageable to say the least so I wouldn't lose hope, and I certainly wouldn't feel stupid. Good luck....

Lasker wrote: I think part of the reason that people may be more optimistic than usual is that so many of the people sitting in February had also taken December, which was likely the most difficult LSAT administered to date.

I agree...this is a good theory as to why I felt so great on saturday.

benito wrote:

unc0mm0n1 wrote:I feel so stupid right now..... Everyone is saying this test was super easy and I agree with them for the most part but the LG section I had to make an educated guess on two questions. I normally sweep or just miss one on my practice LG. I know I probably missed those two guesses and a chance for a random miss somewhere else. It just makes me so mad because I felt so good through the first four sections and knowing LG was coming up, I felt I was surely going to get a 170 but now.....

yeah I too had my real LG section last and really felt like I was crushing the test until then. I had the misfortune of being sick the whole week of and it really flared up on me after the break so I also think I probably missed 3 or 4 on LG but I dont think that precludes a 170+ score at all. The rest of the test was very manageable to say the least so I wouldn't lose hope, and I certainly wouldn't feel stupid. Good luck....

Same here. I felt great about the test until reaching the last section. I finished both LR sections with about 5 minutes to spare, the RC with 2 or 3, and the experimental LG section with nearly 10! I got hung up on one of the games, can't remember what it was about, but it made me have to guess on the last three questions. Hopefully, the confidence I feel toward the rest of the test is warranted and strong LR and RC sections can compensate. I'm hoping for 171-173.

We can all agree that the past couple of year's tests were pretty hard given their curve. If those experimentals on those tests made up this Feb test, then maybe the test takers made mistakes on those experimentals because their brains were fried from the difficulty of the actual sections. This would then make the Feb admistration's curve a little better than most people are predicting. At least that is what I am hoping!

well it seems TLS has been pretty spot on with curve predictions...make a poll and find out

I felt like -12 after a day or two, mostly because of the UNESCO comparative RC passage. But now I'm guessing more like -11 because the LR wasn't bad at all

benito wrote:

unc0mm0n1 wrote:I feel so stupid right now..... Everyone is saying this test was super easy and I agree with them for the most part but the LG section I had to make an educated guess on two questions. I normally sweep or just miss one on my practice LG. I know I probably missed those two guesses and a chance for a random miss somewhere else. It just makes me so mad because I felt so good through the first four sections and knowing LG was coming up, I felt I was surely going to get a 170 but now.....

yeah I too had my real LG section last and really felt like I was crushing the test until then. I had the misfortune of being sick the whole week of and it really flared up on me after the break so I also think I probably missed 3 or 4 on LG but I dont think that precludes a 170+ score at all. The rest of the test was very manageable to say the least so I wouldn't lose hope, and I certainly wouldn't feel stupid. Good luck....

How do you know the last LG section was the real one? I mean, obviously we will never actually know for sure, but what clues made you think that? (I think I had the same test version...)

abby3211 wrote:

benito wrote:

unc0mm0n1 wrote:I feel so stupid right now..... Everyone is saying this test was super easy and I agree with them for the most part but the LG section I had to make an educated guess on two questions. I normally sweep or just miss one on my practice LG. I know I probably missed those two guesses and a chance for a random miss somewhere else. It just makes me so mad because I felt so good through the first four sections and knowing LG was coming up, I felt I was surely going to get a 170 but now.....

yeah I too had my real LG section last and really felt like I was crushing the test until then. I had the misfortune of being sick the whole week of and it really flared up on me after the break so I also think I probably missed 3 or 4 on LG but I dont think that precludes a 170+ score at all. The rest of the test was very manageable to say the least so I wouldn't lose hope, and I certainly wouldn't feel stupid. Good luck....

How do you know the last LG section was the real one? I mean, obviously we will never actually know for sure, but what clues made you think that? (I think I had the same test version...)

Well the experimental is always one of the three sections before the break......so that means if you had two LG sections or two RC sections one before the break and one after, the one before is gonna be the experimental....In these cases you do know for sure