Law School Discussion

scale question/theory

Re: scale question/theory
« Reply #10 on: October 01, 2006, 06:49:31 PM »
not necessarily...

That assumes the people who chose to take the lsat are random.  They are not.  The go-getter, I'm-going-to-law-school, I'm-eight-generation-legacy-at-Harvard type are going to take the test regardless.  The people at the other end are far more likely to take/not take the test due to other factors (E.G. if the economy is bad and few jobs are available out of undergrad more borderline people will take the test -- the 180 earners were going to take it anyway).

This contains so many assumptions that it doesn't even need to be addressed.  But thank you for trying.

Re: scale question/theory
« Reply #11 on: October 01, 2006, 06:58:47 PM »
not necessarily...

That assumes the people who chose to take the lsat are random.  They are not.  The go-getter, I'm-going-to-law-school, I'm-eight-generation-legacy-at-Harvard type are going to take the test regardless.  The people at the other end are far more likely to take/not take the test due to other factors (E.G. if the economy is bad and few jobs are available out of undergrad more borderline people will take the test -- the 180 earners were going to take it anyway).


this is hilarious and makes me want to punch you.

Re: scale question/theory
« Reply #12 on: October 01, 2006, 07:01:38 PM »
88 for a 170. That's my call. Maybe for game pros the games were easy, but quite a lot of us still found them to be challenging. In fact i think anyone who says these games were easier than June 06 or Dec 05 are totally insane. LR's had enough tricky questions as well. To me the test was quite similar to Oct 2002.

ss1400

  • ****
  • 109
    • View Profile
Re: scale question/theory
« Reply #13 on: October 01, 2006, 07:03:01 PM »
you really think we'll get that lucky?  the test really wasn't that hard...

Re: scale question/theory
« Reply #14 on: October 01, 2006, 07:04:35 PM »
you really think we'll get that lucky?  the test really wasn't that hard...

Right, that's why I said -9.

LG - on par with recent games sections.
LR - both on par with the easier of June's LR sections.
RC - Maybe a little harder than June's.

June had -10 for 170.  I think this one will have -9.

ss1400

  • ****
  • 109
    • View Profile
Re: scale question/theory
« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2006, 07:08:32 PM »
you really think we'll get that lucky?  the test really wasn't that hard...

Right, that's why I said -9.

LG - on par with recent games sections.
LR - both on par with the easier of June's LR sections.
RC - Maybe a little harder than June's.

June had -10 for 170.  I think this one will have -9.

Overall, i thought the test was slightly harder than June, so i'd say -10 or -11 if we're lucky

Re: scale question/theory
« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2006, 07:16:15 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. 

this honestly made me laugh out loud

Re: scale question/theory
« Reply #17 on: October 01, 2006, 07:20:56 PM »
Overall, i thought the test was slightly harder than June, so i'd say -10 or -11 if we're lucky

Agreed. LG was a bit harder than June, LR was a bit easier, and RC was way harder. I think the scale will be -10, but I hope it'll be -11.

Re: scale question/theory
« Reply #18 on: October 01, 2006, 07:29:04 PM »

Re: -11

Yes, you can hope, indeed!


Re: scale question/theory
« Reply #19 on: October 01, 2006, 07:36:46 PM »
There isn't any "hoping" involved. The scale will be determined based upon the logical difficulty of the test.

This test was slightly more logically difficult than June 06, I think a majority of people agree with that assertion. Thus it'll be at least -10.

I beg to differ.  I hear loud voices complaining about RC, but I also heard loud voices complaining about RC before this administration.  It seemed to be the achilles heel of many on this board.  The people--and I bet there are many, like me--who felt the RC wasn't really that bad simply don't mention it as frequently or as emphatically.  Thus, we get a false sense of agreement that this RC was the "hardest ever" and other nonsense.

I'd offer a bet on the matter, but it wouldn't be fair.  I know I'm right.