Law School Discussion

Email...

Re: Email...
« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2008, 11:00:15 AM »
I heard it was based on the last three tests or something?  I don't even know what that means.

They have probably tested the material before in experimental sections so they should theoretically be able to make the scale in advance.

non parata est

  • ****
  • 1002
  • buh??
    • View Profile
Re: Email...
« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2008, 11:33:45 AM »
They have probably tested the material before in experimental sections so they should theoretically be able to make the scale in advance.

That's what I thought, that it was based on the experimental sections.

meggo

  • ****
  • 581
    • View Profile
Re: Email...
« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2008, 11:40:57 AM »
ah but don't they change the experimental section from when it was originally given to what it's actual form becomes? I thought the experimental was designed to test certain RC passages, or certain question types, not as a whole entity....though who knows. I guess it doesn't really matter...

non parata est

  • ****
  • 1002
  • buh??
    • View Profile
Re: Email...
« Reply #13 on: June 18, 2008, 11:50:03 AM »
BUTT IF WE KNOW HOW THE SCALE IS THEN WE MIGHT GET TEH BETTOR LSAT SCORZ1!!!

I'm going insane.  For reals.  Somebody slap me.

Re: Email...
« Reply #14 on: June 18, 2008, 11:56:18 AM »
ah but don't they change the experimental section from when it was originally given to what it's actual form becomes? I thought the experimental was designed to test certain RC passages, or certain question types, not as a whole entity....though who knows. I guess it doesn't really matter...

I think every LSAT section is tested as a complete experimental section before it is used on the test.  But I can't remember where I read that.

Also (hat tip to someone at TLS) it turns out we aren't the first to suffer through groupthinking cakewalkers:

http://www.princetonreview.com/law/testprep/testprep.asp?TPRPAGE=930&TYPE=LSAT-REPORTS

If they've given the section before (except for swapping in a new comparative RC science section) they probably have some idea of its difficulty.  That would help them set the scale in advance...

meggo

  • ****
  • 581
    • View Profile
Re: Email...
« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2008, 12:01:19 PM »
Oh wow, I had no idea that best way to deal with groupthink was to diagram it out. Sometimes I consider doing these things because I know it would help me keep track of the flow of info, but this is usually in LR, not in RC. It would require a larger output of time, which would have been fine actually, if Cakewalking hadn't eaten up the extra time I had accumulated. Ah well.

Re: Email...
« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2008, 12:40:23 PM »
How can the scale be made in advance? Surely the way it works it is figured out based on how difficult, those taking the test, found it to be? If the absolute best score on the test is 95/100, then surely a 180 should be 95 non? Or will that sort of issue merely be reflected in percentile? I didn't think it was arbitrarily made based on how difficult they thought the test would be, but rather, how the difficult the test actually was. I re-read the little thing in the intro that talks about this but all it talks about is score bands and SEM and accuracy coefficients or something like that. If it's pre-determined, that may kind of suck.

Well the LSAC has a reputation to uphold of consistency. That means a 170 in June 2008 means the same level of competence as a 170 in February 1995. So if they based it on how people did, that means that if everyone was dumb one year (hypothetically) and the curve was ridiculous, then a 170 that year would not equal a 170 in a prior year.

That's why I'm sure they determine the curve beforehand, based on experimental sections and how they feel the level of difficulty is. They spend millions doing research into this kind of stuff to develop a bell-curve for each test that very accurately correlates the difficulty to the curve.

So I'm hoping that the trend is a 89-91 for 170. I think last June's 92 for a 170 curve was ridiculous because they were experimenting with the comparative passages and therefore made the LG and LR easier to compensate. I've got a good feeling that this curve will be -10 or even -11 for a 170 because the RC was tougher than usual and the LGs were not as straightforward (vertical linear games haven't been thrown into a test for a long time) Not to mention that the LR was not as easy (there were at least 4 tricky ones where the credited answer is the least wrong choice)

Re: Email...
« Reply #17 on: June 18, 2008, 12:52:02 PM »
The curve can't be wholly predetermined - otherwise questions wouldn't be removed from scoring on certain exams.  The mere fact that some questions are removed shows that how people perform on the test is taken into account when determining how to score it.

Re: Email...
« Reply #18 on: June 18, 2008, 01:09:29 PM »
Questions aren't removed from the test because they are too hard, they're removed if and only if there is a problem with the question that makes it usable. Until the last couple years, it happened only about 2-3 times the previous decade. For whatever reason, it's more common now, but still not common at all.

argo

  • ****
  • 135
    • View Profile
Re: Email...
« Reply #19 on: June 19, 2008, 09:19:28 PM »
So I just logged into my email and the first item sitting in my inbox is an email from LSAC..which granted Im thinking there is just no way in hell. So I open it and they kindly wanted to inform me that they had updated my account with the SS# that I had on my answer sheet (not sure as to why they didn't have it before). But still it did provide for an interesting moment. I guess it would have been worse if this had happened in a week or so because by then I would have actually considered the chance it could have been the score.

Anyways, I guess that means they are processing our answer sheets... :o

How on earth did they get them so quick? I don't know why the LSAT isn't administered electronically like the GMAT, you get your score instantly and their isn't a huge chance you're going to misbubble or something like that.

Add this to a long list of dumb *&^% that you'd posted on this site.