Top Law Schools

Let's be real: LSAC screwed the pooch on this last test. The curve, though generous, did not compensate for the unusually large amount of difficult questions. They have wholly and utterly destroyed the letter "S" in LSAT. My concern for LSAC is whether or not this naive trend is going to continue? Yeah, LSAC, we get it: people are learning logic games better than ever, so what? At least compensate this fact with an easier RC. They knew people were going to flop that last game, and they fucked so many people out of good chances. Is this what can be expected in September? Have they lost all sense of duty?

I don't think you understand what the "curve" is or what standardized means. And I certainly don't know why you take issue with S=school in LSAT.

umadbro?

wahhhhh wahhhh my little tricks I learned to trick the LSAT into thinking I was a smmmwarrt boy didn't work.

The thing is...should we really be expecting to get -0 on LG everytime? I understand LSAC's decision to want us to have to think about a new scenario we haven't encountered before. Yet...this does certainly impact admissions, and honestly, if the LSAT is getting harder, wont it take a few cycles for law schools to adjust their medians? It does seem a bit unfair, especially for those amidst a change in difficulty (if there is such a trend happening, of course)

trexjake32 wrote:Let's be real: LSAC screwed the pooch on this last test. The curve, though generous, did not compensate for the unusually large amount of difficult questions. They have wholly and utterly destroyed the letter "S" in LSAT. My concern for LSAC is whether or not this naive trend is going to continue? Yeah, LSAC, we get it: people are learning logic games better than ever, so what? At least compensate this fact with an easier RC. They knew people were going to flop that last game, and they fucked so many people out of good chances. Is this what can be expected in September? Have they lost all sense of duty?

how did they destroy "school"

pls elaborate

someone tl;dr what actually happened please? So the LG section was harder than usual?

they destroyed the school?
scooooooped

malleus discentium wrote:they destroyed the school?

He must think it means standardized

Sorry, I didn't think that one through. They destroyed the notion that the LSAT is standarized. They didn't destroy school.

I'm curious to see what a neutral third party has to say about this test, i.e. 7sage, Most Strongly Supported, etc. Anyone seen a blog post by an instructor who has taken the test and can gauge how it compares to other LSATs?

I took December 2011, which had a sweet -14 curve, and I thought this test was much more difficult.

vracovino wrote:

malleus discentium wrote:they destroyed the school?

He must think it means standardized

dat Law Standardized Admissions Test.

cusenation wrote:

vracovino wrote:

malleus discentium wrote:they destroyed the school?

He must think it means standardized

dat Law Standardized Admissions Test.

Loosely Standardized, amirite op?

trexjake32 wrote:Sorry, I didn't think that one through. They destroyed the notion that the LSAT is standarized. They didn't destroy school.

Standardized means you get a -13 curve. Not that all the sections average out in difficulty.

Reiterated to OP:

alphasteve wrote:I don't think you understand what the "curve" is or what standardized means..

this blew up fast. i can't believe tests are getting harder to game, so much sadness, tears like rivers.

seriously though...what happened

NYSprague wrote:

trexjake32 wrote:Sorry, I didn't think that one through. They destroyed the notion that the LSAT is standarized. They didn't destroy school.

Standardized means you get a -13 curve. Not that all the sections average out in difficulty.

I think he means in comparison to other LSATs, this one was much more difficult, and the hard game section was not balanced out by easier sections. For instance, the LSAT with mauve dinosaurs had a pretty easy RC section.

cusenation wrote:seriously though...what happened

they screwed the pooch. lsac into bestiality confirmed

tell us about these games

did you feel like you were in a saw movie?

toothbrush wrote:

cusenation wrote:seriously though...what happened

they screwed the pooch. lsac into bestiality confirmed

labrador sex admissions test

trexjake32 wrote:My concern for LSAC is whether or not this naive trend is going to continue?

Also fucking LOL at "sense of duty." I didn't realize LSAC's job was to help you get into law school.

Dipper wrote:

NYSprague wrote:

trexjake32 wrote:Sorry, I didn't think that one through. They destroyed the notion that the LSAT is standarized. They didn't destroy school.

Standardized means you get a -13 curve. Not that all the sections average out in difficulty.

I think he means in comparison to other LSATs, this one was much more difficult, and the hard game section was not balanced out by easier sections. For instance, the LSAT with mauve dinosaurs had a pretty easy RC section.

because hard game sections are a guarantee that other sections will be easier?

cusenation wrote:seriously though...what happened

One of the games didn't follow the rigid patterns that striverdorks had learned to game the test and required flexible/critical thinking instead of rote memorization of test-taking techniques.

Striverdorks MAD AS FUCK.

Based on what I've seen from posters on the internet, I don't think the test was equated properly. Has anyone posted anywhere claiming a 180? How many 175+s have you seen? That's just anecdotal, though, of course. And yeah, if you took this test and you're competing against people who took easier tests, it might put you at a disadvantage in your cycle.

That being said, I would encourage LSAC to keep doing what they've been doing with the games section. They already have a rough idea of how hard we can work/study based on our GPA; the LSAT should be testing something different--namely how our minds work.