Top Law Schools

Hi TLS. I generally lurk in the shadows, but didn't see a topic on this yet, and I really wanted to hear what you guys think about this so here I am. Personally I'd guess -10. Didn't seem much easier or harder than average. I'm hoping for a -11 or 12 but I don't think it's all that likely. I'll be pissed if it's under -9 though.

See the poll here. http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=167270

Can someone explain the curve to me? I'm not familiar with how it works. -11... What does that mean?

CaptAdams wrote:Can someone explain the curve to me? I'm not familiar with how it works. -11... What does that mean?

That refers to the number you can miss and still get a 170.

I doubt it will be anything less than -11. June was -11 and that was a much easier test.

vulpixie wrote:I doubt it will be anything less than -11. June was -11 and that was a much easier test.

I hope your right. General consensus seems to be about 11.

Last October was -12, but the average of October exams from October 2002-2009 was -10.25.

-11 for this year's October LSAT would be fairly consistent with these results for October exams.

Tests with hard games have friendly-ish curves, PT57 (dinos) was -11, PT62 (stained glass/conferences) was -14. The bikes game was definitely challenging and was followed by the moderately difficult shelves game. LR was easy, but RC was moderate (comparative was tough, 8 question Dostoevsky passage to end it).

The June test was -11, and this was harder for sure. I'm saying definitely at least -11, most likely -12.

mickeyD wrote:Tests with hard games have friendly-ish curves, PT57 (dinos) was -11, PT62 (stained glass/conferences) was -14. The bikes game was definitely challenging and was followed by the moderately difficult shelves game. LR was easy, but RC was moderate (comparative was tough, 8 question Dostoevsky passage to end it).

The June test was -11, and this was harder for sure. I'm saying definitely at least -11, most likely -12.

Why aren't you ITT Mickey? viewtopic.php?f=6&t=167270

Here's a question: When I score a practice exam, is that curved or raw numbers? I know, I have silly questions, but I'm an old guy who hasn't been in school for a while. This whole "curve" talk is really new to me.

...

paul34 wrote:Raw. The "curve" comes from how LSAC defines which raw score corresponds to which converted score.

I'm assuming by "score" you mean the initial "how many did I get right" calculation. If you mean after you've looked up your converted score on the chart, then that would be your curved/equated score.

Yes -- I've been curious if my final practice scores were curved i.e. If I got a 165 on a particular LSAT, is a curve applied?

CaptAdams wrote:

paul34 wrote:Raw. The "curve" comes from how LSAC defines which raw score corresponds to which converted score.

I'm assuming by "score" you mean the initial "how many did I get right" calculation. If you mean after you've looked up your converted score on the chart, then that would be your curved/equated score.

Yes -- I've been curious if my final practice scores were curved i.e. If I got a 165 on a particular LSAT, is a curve applied?

Yes. The curve is just what amount of questions right on any given test will give you what score. 93 right on one test may give you a 172, while on another will give you a 175.

So if you calculated that 165 using a conversion chart at the end of the test, it's curved (equated)!

zdamico wrote:Yes. The curve is just what amount of questions right on any given test will give you what score. 93 right on one test may give you a 172, while on another will give you a 175.

So if you calculated that 165 using a conversion chart at the end of the test, it's curved (equated)!

Thanks for the answer.

I'm predicting a -12 curve for this test. The LR/RC were similar to PT 58 but the games felt harder and 58 had a -11 curve.

@CaptAdams
I just wanted to point out that the LSAT isn't technically curved, it is equated. TLS colloquially uses the term curve to describe how much a person can miss an still get a 170. For example, if I say "a -11 curve" that means I can miss 11 and to get a 170.

If you want an in-depth discussion of how the raw-to-scaled conversion chart is made, here's an awesome read by LSAT blog:
--LinkRemoved--

KevinP wrote:I'm predicting a -12 curve for this test. The LR/RC were similar to PT 58 but the games felt harder and 58 had a -11 curve.

@CaptAdams
I just wanted to point out that the LSAT isn't technically curved, it is equated. TLS colloquially uses the term curve to describe how much a person can miss an still get a 170. For example, if I say "a -11 curve" that means I can miss 11 and to get a 170.

If you want an in-depth discussion of how the raw-to-scaled conversion chart is made, here's an awesome read by LSAT blog:
--LinkRemoved--

why aren't you in the waiting thread kev?

sooo... on a test with a -11 curve, what would that translate to for a 160?

msuz wrote:sooo... on a test with a -11 curve, what would that translate to for a 160?

Hard to say. Look at past results at LSATblog. Sometimes the 170 curve and the 160 curve can be way off.

Yes, the curve is not linear like that.