Law School Discussion

scale question/theory

scale question/theory
« on: October 01, 2006, 05:49:02 PM »
?

Re: scale question/theory
« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2006, 05:50:20 PM »
I wish but I don't think there's anyway it will be that low.. But something as drastic as -11=170 is certainly not outside the realm of possibility

zephyr

  • ****
  • 632
    • View Profile
Re: scale question/theory
« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2006, 05:50:37 PM »
Other than the 28-question RC, do people really think that this was the most difficult in recent memory? That's not the perception I'm getting.

Re: scale question/theory
« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2006, 06:01:31 PM »
games were no easier than recent memory, in fact the were tougher than the most recent

scale is predetermined so as far as i know the # of cancelers doesnt matter

Yes, it is.

Re: scale question/theory
« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2006, 06:05:04 PM »
for me 100 q's means even a more generous scale

What's your logic? 

.zone.

  • ****
  • 561
    • View Profile
Re: scale question/theory
« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2006, 06:09:00 PM »
I would definitely not consider this test the most difficult one of recent years.  Nearly every person I saw leaving the test center was smiling and saying "That wasn't bad."  I only saw one girl crying and she wasn't crying THAT bad.  
My room got out pretty early & everyone in my room looked happy when they left.
When I returned to school an hour later & saw more test takers get out, they were all happy and talking about how the test wasn't as bad as they expected.  
Granted, they could have been unfamiliar with the test or have prepped with older tests...but if it was exceedingly difficult, I figure I would have seen at least a few people crying, leaving early, or talking about how to cancel their score.  

Re: scale question/theory
« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2006, 06:09:47 PM »
i can't really explain why...i tried typing out why and my post lsat brian just keeps deconstructing me answer as faulty logic


Yes!  I imagine it would, wouldn't it?

Re: scale question/theory
« Reply #7 on: October 01, 2006, 06:11:52 PM »
-11 for 170 rather than -10 for 170, my justification is two-fold:

The scale is determined by the past 3 years, and test taking has increased considerably. We saw the scale drop from 93 to 90 from December to June, that was quite a drop. There has to be cause for that.

Secondly, This test was slightly, oh so slightly harder than the June test. Games were slightly more difficult, reading comp heck of a lot more difficult, and the logical reasoning was easier, but nothing extremely easy about it, I just think I got really lucky yesterday on those sections.

89 for a 170.

I think this is false.  I think test taking has dropped each administration the last 5 administrations.

Additionally, the number of test takers should have no influence on the scale, for two reasons.  First, the scale is devised before the test is given.  Second, the raw number of people achieving a given score is unimportant; the percentile distribution is what matters.

Let's stop dreaming and admit 1) this test was easy and 2) -9 for a 170.

Re: scale question/theory
« Reply #8 on: October 01, 2006, 06:18:43 PM »
You're wrong on the first count - namely the fact is that the number of people taking the test in the preceding years is, obviously, important. I never stated the number of people taking the test yesterday is factored in. Never.

Alright, I'll bite.  In what way does the number of test takers in previous years influence the scale of any given test?

And of course, I never argued the opposite of your second point so I don't see the point of arguing that, either.

I was dealing the deck, so to speak.

Well that's brilliant logic there, hard to argue with that.

It's just as solid as any of the other opinions given in this thread, but thank you for the feedback.

Re: scale question/theory
« Reply #9 on: October 01, 2006, 06:31:45 PM »
Quote
Alright, I'll bite.  In what way does the number of test takers in previous years influence the scale of any given test?

If I - or any one else here - knew how they formulated their scales, we would be getting paid a lot more money.

It just should be obvious that the scale would be determined by not only the dynamics of the past 3 years of the testing (as they say), but also how many people take the tests, because that impacts LSAC's assessment of how those lump sum of 3 year's worth of people performed, overall.

The scale is determined by statistics gathered from the non-disclosed portions of any given administration (i.e. the experimental sections and the monday and february administrations).  To keep it simple, they can correlate scores to unscored responses and they use three years of data to do it; the number of test takers is irrelevant.