Quote from: Filius Nullius on February 10, 2010, 08:38:59 PMYou 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.
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?
julie tell you what suspicious: weenies come 10 in pack but buns come 8 to pack.coincidence? julie not think so.
Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any funnier. Thank you, Mitchell.
Quote from: Julie Fern on February 11, 2010, 06:54:23 AMjulie 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...
Quote from: H.H. on February 14, 2010, 10:45:45 AMJust 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.
18 Replies
4263 Views