Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: June 2008 Curve Prediction  (Read 15034 times)

TimMitchell

  • Guest
Re: June 2008 Curve Prediction
« Reply #20 on: June 21, 2008, 10:31:22 PM »
Sure, sure.
one of the questions smelled like it was going to get tossed.

Mmm.. okay.

Yeah, which one? Isn't that extremely uncommon? I only came across a couple practice tests that had them crossed out. This is my last speculation post... we will know when we know  :-X

jas142

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: June 2008 Curve Prediction
« Reply #21 on: June 22, 2008, 12:20:08 AM »
This was my third (and last!) time taking the test. I took it in September and in February and this was by far the easiest one.  Games were cake, LR were no trouble, and I thought RC was average difficulty as well. It was all-in-all a no-nonsense test. I wouldn't be surprised if the scale was -7 or -8 for 170. 

The above argument can MOST be weakened if the following was true:

The author's previous two testing experiences have helped sharpen his LSAT skill, making subsequent tests feel easier despite their relative difficulty.

(The LSAT has forever altered the way I think :( )

caic517

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: June 2008 Curve Prediction
« Reply #22 on: June 22, 2008, 03:55:12 AM »
 
"(The LSAT has forever altered the way I think :( )"


Ditto. I'm breathing sufficient and necessary everywhere I am.  Albeit incorrectly more often than not.

bloomlaw

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Welcome to the Monkey House
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: June 2008 Curve Prediction
« Reply #23 on: June 22, 2008, 04:08:17 AM »
Considering I am competing against most of you (a bad way to look at it, I know) for spots next year, am I allowed to root for a really rough scale, or is that considered bad form?

just some guy

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 416
  • WARNING: May Contain Troll or Flame-like Substance
    • View Profile
Re: June 2008 Curve Prediction
« Reply #24 on: June 22, 2008, 08:59:30 AM »
Sure, sure.
one of the questions smelled like it was going to get tossed.

Mmm.. okay.

Probably the one about salad.
I have courted the fire for a very long time, and many sparks have flown in the past, but [this post] speaks, finally, the language of the flame itself.
with apologies to Keith Jarret

non parata est

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1052
  • buh??
    • View Profile
Re: June 2008 Curve Prediction
« Reply #25 on: June 22, 2008, 01:56:43 PM »
Dilettante, there were 101 questions on the test.
Quote from: Lionel Hutz, Esq.
Well he's had it in for me ever since I kinda ran over his dog... Well, replace the word "kinda" with "repeatedly" and the word "dog" with "son."

Dilettante

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
    • View Profile
Re: June 2008 Curve Prediction
« Reply #26 on: June 22, 2008, 02:02:43 PM »
Dilettante, there were 101 questions on the test.

That settles it. Mark it down, fellas, we're doing 92 and 9 for 170!

non parata est

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1052
  • buh??
    • View Profile
Re: June 2008 Curve Prediction
« Reply #27 on: June 22, 2008, 02:04:47 PM »
And for 175?

-4?  -5?
Quote from: Lionel Hutz, Esq.
Well he's had it in for me ever since I kinda ran over his dog... Well, replace the word "kinda" with "repeatedly" and the word "dog" with "son."

Blakkout

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Re: June 2008 Curve Prediction
« Reply #28 on: June 22, 2008, 02:46:48 PM »
Looks like I'm in the moniority, but I don't think it was easy enough to warrent a -8 curve.  I'm going to go with -10, straight up.  I guess we'll just have to wait and see though...

sevinkimpson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: June 2008 Curve Prediction
« Reply #29 on: June 23, 2008, 12:12:42 AM »
And for 175?

-4?  -5?

4? Really? That would mean that a 180 was minus zero only, something that I don't think has ever happened. Or else, minus one for 180, and some score between 175 and 180 is unattainable. 5, I can see, even 6... not 4.