. Forum

[kimkardashian]

.

[vuthy]

Lolz.

[neprep]

I took the June 2013 LSAT and got a 163. I'm taking it again in October. I've been taking prep tests intermittently since this time one year ago (not consistently though) and reading the Powerscore Bibles on my own, and then I took a class with Blueprint in late March (which really should've started earlier now that I think about it). Anyway, I've been consistently scoring between 161-165, and I was shocked today to get a score of 171 on Prep Test 59, which I thought was very difficult. I got 22 wrong with a raw score of 89, which the provided scale told me was a 171. WTF? Really? I usually don't have issues with timing except with the games section, and here I couldn't even finish both LR sections and didn't even touch the last game (guessed all B's). Should I be happy with this 171 prep score or just call it a fluke due to a really good scale?

Those conversions speak to the difficulty of the test you took and aren't random; what the LSAC is saying is "you will get a 171 with [pretty high amount] of certainty on any test you take, based on your performance on this test given its difficulty as judged by [fancy-pants statistics using really large sample sizes]." So flukes — if they exist — have nothing to do with the "scale."

Edited for general intelligibility.

[vuthy]

Not to be a pooper of the parties here, but unless PT 59 had 111 questions, you didn't get a 171. (Sorry for lolz before. I actually thought you were trying to wind up all of us high-strung TLSers.)

[t-14orbust]

Umm, unless you're counting the experimental section it would be impossible to get a raw score of 89 having gotten 22 wrong. How many did you get wrong on the actual 4 sections? There were only 101 total actual questions in the 4 sections of PT 59. To get an 89 raw you would have to only get 12 wrong on those 4 sections combined, which means you got 10 wrong in your experimental, which is not exactly a 171-level section-score(unless you got 22 wrong on the 4 real sections. That would mean you scored a 164, right in your scoring range. Once again the LSAT has measured ability down to a tee). No offense

edit: FWIW PT59 must have been relatively difficult because -14 for a 170 is a reallly forgiving scale.

[objection_your_honor]

For over a decade the most generous curve you'll see is -14 for 170, with it generally being closer to -10. Additionally, I don't think there has ever been a test with more than 102 questions.

-22 is usually in the low to mid 160s, but I don't have PT 59 in front of me right now. So this score is probably in line with your current PT average.

[Sinatra]

Yeah, Kimmy K, -22 is a 164 for PT 59. You probably just did the math wrong or had a calculator fail. Keep at it, you're almost there!

[10052014]

.