Law School Discussion

LSAT Preparation => Studying for the LSAT => Topic started by: llsatt1 on February 10, 2010, 10:20:03 AM

Title: December 2009 Curve
Post by: llsatt1 on February 10, 2010, 10:20:03 AM
.
Title: Re: December 2009 Curve is Suspicious
Post by: cooleylawstudent on February 10, 2010, 10:30:01 AM
I thought the LSAT was a straightup percentage grade with the percentile of fellow testtakers being seperate from your score itself. Are you sure that its on a gradeing curve for the raw score too?
Title: Re: December 2009 Curve is Suspicious
Post by: cooleylawstudent on February 10, 2010, 10:40:11 AM
Actually I havn't seen that chart yet. Can you post it? You've caught my interest a wee bit.  ;)
Title: Re: December 2009 Curve is Suspicious
Post by: llsatt1 on February 10, 2010, 10:45:26 AM
Actually I havn't seen that chart yet. Can you post it? You've caught my interest a wee bit.  ;)


I did not post the raw score beside some of the test scores.  Just keep subtracting one from the previous score all the way down (e.g. 175 = 93)

180  98 (out of 101)
179  97
178
177
176
175
174
173
172  90
171  89
170  87
169
168
167  83
166
165  81
Title: Re: December 2009 Curve is Suspicious
Post by: Pop Up Video on February 10, 2010, 03:41:04 PM
Fail
Title: Re: December 2009 Curve is Suspicious
Post by: prelawdoc on February 10, 2010, 04:57:13 PM
how many could one have missed for a 160 on the Dec LSAT? I found the DEC Lsat exceptionally difficult compared to other practice tests I have taken. And actually voided my score afterwards... now Im regretting this.

Youre right, Feb LSAT will probably not have a generous curve at all. Do they curve against just that administration or against all administrations that year?
Title: Re: December 2009 Curve is Suspicious
Post by: llsatt1 on February 10, 2010, 05:29:41 PM

165  81 (out of 101)
164  79
163  78
162  76
161  74
160  73
Title: Re: December 2009 Curve is Suspicious
Post by: prelawdoc on February 10, 2010, 08:40:03 PM
WOW you could miss 27 for a score of 160 ??!?!? that is exceptionally easy. That has to be the easiest curve I have seen in years. I definitely felt the toronto game was hard. but wow, i totally regret cancelling my score and keeping the feb test. I bet the curve is much harder for feb
Title: Re: December 2009 Curve is Suspicious
Post by: llsatt1 on February 10, 2010, 08:51:09 PM
WOW you could miss 27 for a score of 160 ??!?!? that is exceptionally easy. That has to be the easiest curve I have seen in years. I definitely felt the toronto game was hard. but wow, i totally regret cancelling my score and keeping the feb test. I bet the curve is much harder for feb


Small correction to your post.  It's actually -28 for a 160 on the Dec 2009 LSAT. :D
Title: Re: December 2009 Curve is Suspicious
Post by: cooleylawstudent on February 10, 2010, 09:38:59 PM
You keep saying suspicious. Do you mean to imply that someone did it on purpose to somehow gain something from it? If so who, what and why?
Title: Re: December 2009 Curve is Suspicious
Post by: Julie Fern on February 11, 2010, 07:54:23 AM
julie tell you what suspicious:  weenies come 10 in pack but buns come 8 to pack.

coincidence?  julie not think so.
Title: Re: December 2009 Curve is Suspicious
Post by: cooleylawstudent on February 11, 2010, 10:07:36 PM
Mabey, one things for sure if Star had've had you on his team Clinton would've out of office a few years sooner :o. Gotta love a good consipiracy. (even though they are somtimes true)  :-\


You keep saying suspicious. Do you mean to imply that someone did it on purpose to somehow gain something from it? If so who, what and why?

Yes, that is exactly what I am implying.  I don't think anyone who is knowledgeable about the LSAT can honestly say that PT 59 deserved such a generous curve.  There is just no way.

Who and Why?  Someone from LSAC.  I don't know why.  Someone from LSAC has an agenda, that much is certain.  LSAC regularly reads this board and other forums.  I don't know who in the LSAC is responsible, but LSAC should look into why the December curve was so generous. [edited]

Again, looking at the difficulty of the test and historical tests with generous curves, there is no way that PT 59 should have received a -14 curve.  Historically, the only tests with similarly generous curves as PT 59 have contained games of very unusual difficulty.  There was no such game(s) on PT 59 and the rest of the sections were of average difficulty.


Title: Re: December 2009 Curve is Suspicious
Post by: Jessica Rabbit on February 12, 2010, 07:41:15 PM
julie tell you what suspicious:  weenies come 10 in pack but buns come 8 to pack.

coincidence?  julie not think so.

hmmm.  what to do with the other two weenies...
Title: Re: December 2009 Curve is Suspicious
Post by: Mitchell on February 13, 2010, 10:37:19 AM
(http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn12/Evilpens/its-a-conspiracy.jpg)
Title: Re: December 2009 Curve is Suspicious
Post by: Sheshe on February 13, 2010, 10:06:05 PM
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS  >:(
Title: Re: December 2009 Curve
Post by: H.H. on February 14, 2010, 11:45:45 AM
Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any funnier.  Thank you, Mitchell.
Title: Re: December 2009 Curve
Post by: llsatt1 on February 15, 2010, 06:59:36 AM
Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any funnier.  Thank you, Mitchell.

You have a great sense of humor if you think this is funny.  Either you are too pure of heart to think that someone at LSAC wouldn't be capable of doing this, or you are plain unaware of the LSAT and previous test curves.  Depending on what I observe over the next few LSAT administrations, I'll determine whether I will let this huge mistake go or not.
Title: Re: December 2009 Curve
Post by: Julie Fern on February 15, 2010, 03:55:32 PM
julie tell you what suspicious: weenies come 10 in pack but buns come 8 to pack.

coincidence? julie not think so.


hmmm. what to do with the other two weenies...

julie say let them give speeches at teabagger conventions.
Title: Re: December 2009 Curve
Post by: Julie Fern on February 15, 2010, 03:56:36 PM
Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any funnier. Thank you, Mitchell.

You have a great sense of humor if you think this is funny. Either you are naive that someone at LSAC wouldn't be capable of doing this, or you are plain ignorant of the LSAT and previous test curves. Depending on what I observe over the next few LSAT administrations, I'll determine whether I will let this huge mistake go or not.

alert media.