Estimate the difficulty of June 2013 Forum

[itachiuchiha]

I am not sure if there is an apparent pattern with the LSATs that considers how hard the previous test is, but try to put a guess on how you think the June 2013 test will be and/or how generous or brutal the scale will be.

[CardozoLaw09]

-11 curve. No particular reason why. Just a guess.

[northwood]

between 7 and 14

[mvonh001]

what exactly does the curve mean? For example if its -11, does that mean i can score a ~90 and still get a 180?? That doesnt seem right.

[toothbrush]

what exactly does the curve mean? For example if its -11, does that mean i can score a ~90 and still get a 180?? That doesnt seem right.

-11 for a 170

[Clearly]

what exactly does the curve mean? For example if its -11, does that mean i can score a ~90 and still get a 180?? That doesnt seem right.

When people around here give a -x curve they're referring to the 170 curve.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

what exactly does the curve mean? For example if its -11, does that mean i can score a ~90 and still get a 180?? That doesnt seem right.

Amount you can get wrong and get a 170.

[mvonh001]

what exactly does the curve mean? For example if its -11, does that mean i can score a ~90 and still get a 180?? That doesnt seem right.

When people around here give a -x curve they're referring to the 170 curve.

Thanks.

[Clearly]

And I'm calling tight curve. 9

[jad0re]

-10

[jcccc]

-15 hopefully

[Daily_Double]

-10

[nyjets2090]

-12, nothing crazy.

LG will have 1 weird game, but overall easier than usual.
LR will be LR, standard stuff.
I'm expecting a difficult passage on RC, dinosaurs or whales will be mentioned.

Total guesses, of course.

[wtrc]

Lately LSAC hasn't really given hard LGs. When there is a hard game (PT 68, #4), I don't see it repeated in LGs for a bit (exception of the 20s and maybe late 30s). Sooo...

LG will be cake.

LR is standard, like always.

RC will be tough.

-10 curve. With some weird distribution at the top. People here will be pissed that one question took em from a 176 to 174.

[Daily_Double]

And I'm calling tight curve. 9

Though I usually keep up with raw scores and not scaled scores, I can't remember a -9 curve on any of the PTs. Which PTs, recently, have had a -9? I still think -10 is the moneyshot, with moderate RC, one tough passage, and tough LG, one in-out ordering game, easy LR.

[Clearly]

And I'm calling tight curve. 9

Though I usually keep up with raw scores and not scaled scores, I can't remember a -9 curve on any of the PTs. Which PTs, recently, have had a -9? I still think -10 is the moneyshot, with moderate RC, one tough passage, and tough LG, one in-out ordering game, easy LR.

The average of 2002-2009 of June tests has been 10 even, so certainly at least a few of them had to be below ten. (or else ALL ten).

That said, I question how long it takes before the experimental sections of the prior year are turned into real sections. The test will undoubtedly get easier, likely in the form of a more forgiving curve, but I suspect they actually bank questions for a long time so avoid the risk of people seeing them on distant retakes.

[Daily_Double]

The test will undoubtedly get easier, likely in the form of a more forgiving curve, but I suspect they actually bank questions for a long time so avoid the risk of people seeing them on distant retakes.

It's undoubtably getting easier, at least in the form of its adherence to logic. LR has gotten more rigid, RC is becoming more similar to LR, and games are fitting strictly defined molds. That being said, last years test, June 2012 (PT 66), was one of the easiest tests I have ever taken, and its curve was -10. I don't see them making it any easier, so if we accept that the curve is a reflection of the difficult of the test, then I really don't see anything less than a -10. And if we do, then god help us. Because that will mean the separation between 180 and 175 and 175 and 170 will be a haunting number of questions.

[rebexness]

-10.

[Clearly]

The test will undoubtedly get easier, likely in the form of a more forgiving curve, but I suspect they actually bank questions for a long time so avoid the risk of people seeing them on distant retakes.

It's undoubtably getting easier, at least in the form of its adherence to logic. LR has gotten more rigid, RC is becoming more similar to LR, and games are fitting strictly defined molds. That being said, last years test, June 2012 (PT 66), was one of the easiest tests I have ever taken, and its curve was -10. I don't see them making it any easier, so if we accept that the curve is a reflection of the difficult of the test, then I really don't see anything less than a -10. And if we do, then god help us. Because that will mean the separation between 180 and 175 and 175 and 170 will be a haunting number of questions.

I'm trying to avoid section by section breakdowns because I think it's just plain subjective. A lot of students get better as they study, and save the recent tests for last, so they collectively have this idea that the test has changed drastically when, while it has changed, it hasn't really changed much. Games are just unpredictable, they'res been some weird ones recently too, zones for instance. They were plenty predictable 10 years ago too. RC I'll concede are getting harder, but that's just the natural progression of the test. The data likely showed too many bad test takers were doing disproportionately good on RC. LR is always random and always has been.

That said, the changes I'm referring to have nothing to do with less rigid logic or any of that stuff. The reality is that while test takers are down across the board, the 160-180 group is down much more then the rest. Simply put this means less skilled people are taking the experimental sections, and the experimental sections form the questions and the data that sets the curve on future tests. It's just a reality of the normal distribution equation that they will either use easier questions, or a looser curve whenever these sections get made from last years (and to an extent the prior year) experimentals.

[dr123]

this thread is fucking retarded

[nyjets2090]

And I'm calling tight curve. 9

Though I usually keep up with raw scores and not scaled scores, I can't remember a -9 curve on any of the PTs. Which PTs, recently, have had a -9? I still think -10 is the moneyshot, with moderate RC, one tough passage, and tough LG, one in-out ordering game, easy LR.

Dec 05 was pretty ridiculous, -8.

[Daily_Double]

Good points Clearlynotstefan, I hope you're right.

[NoWorries]

And I'm calling tight curve. 9

Though I usually keep up with raw scores and not scaled scores, I can't remember a -9 curve on any of the PTs. Which PTs, recently, have had a -9? I still think -10 is the moneyshot, with moderate RC, one tough passage, and tough LG, one in-out ordering game, easy LR.

The average of 2002-2009 of June tests has been 10 even, so certainly at least a few of them had to be below ten. (or else ALL ten). .

Wait, is this true? The LSATQA graph indicates otherwise.

[Clearly]

And I'm calling tight curve. 9

Though I usually keep up with raw scores and not scaled scores, I can't remember a -9 curve on any of the PTs. Which PTs, recently, have had a -9? I still think -10 is the moneyshot, with moderate RC, one tough passage, and tough LG, one in-out ordering game, easy LR.

The average of 2002-2009 of June tests has been 10 even, so certainly at least a few of them had to be below ten. (or else ALL ten). .

Wait, is this true? The LSATQA graph indicates otherwise.

I used an Lsac blog source. I'll dig it up when I'm not mobile.

[06102016]

..