Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=209392
-11 for a 170mvonh001 wrote: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.mvonh001 wrote: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 wrote: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.
Clearlynotstefan wrote:When people around here give a -x curve they're referring to the 170 curve.mvonh001 wrote: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.
jad0re wrote:-10
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.Clearlynotstefan wrote:And I'm calling tight curve. 9
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).Daily_Double wrote: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.Clearlynotstefan wrote:And I'm calling tight curve. 9
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.Clearlynotstefan wrote: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.
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.Daily_Double wrote: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.Clearlynotstefan wrote: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.
Dec 05 was pretty ridiculous, -8.Daily_Double wrote: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.Clearlynotstefan wrote:And I'm calling tight curve. 9
Wait, is this true? The LSATQA graph indicates otherwise.Clearlynotstefan wrote: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). .Daily_Double wrote: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.Clearlynotstefan wrote:And I'm calling tight curve. 9
I used an Lsac blog source. I'll dig it up when I'm not mobile.NoWorries wrote:Wait, is this true? The LSATQA graph indicates otherwise.Clearlynotstefan wrote: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). .Daily_Double wrote: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.Clearlynotstefan wrote:And I'm calling tight curve. 9