Top Law Schools

.

Oneanddone? wrote:

Zero Hedge wrote:
Much appreciated. That is one generous curve. Going to be interesting to see how this builds on the december cycle data put out by spivey.

Could you elaborate? Curious to hear!

Refering to this: http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/december-2017-data/ . Data shows that there's a huge increase in applicants this year, especially on scores over 160. It's already a more competitive cycle, and a generous curve like this could add on to the competition in those scoring ranges.

Zero Hedge wrote:

Oneanddone? wrote:

Zero Hedge wrote:
Much appreciated. That is one generous curve. Going to be interesting to see how this builds on the december cycle data put out by spivey.

Could you elaborate? Curious to hear!

Refering to this: http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/december-2017-data/ . Data shows that there's a huge increase in applicants this year, especially on scores over 160. It's already a more competitive cycle, and a generous curve like this could add on to the competition in those scoring ranges.

There's always something to make my heart beat faster!! Thanks for the link.

.

etramak wrote:Me: Ok, I won't refresh until 12:45
Me: Refreshes at 12:31

I feel you. I need to get up and walk away.

Oneanddone? wrote:

Zero Hedge wrote:

Oneanddone? wrote:

Zero Hedge wrote:
Much appreciated. That is one generous curve. Going to be interesting to see how this builds on the december cycle data put out by spivey.

Could you elaborate? Curious to hear!

Refering to this: http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/december-2017-data/ . Data shows that there's a huge increase in applicants this year, especially on scores over 160. It's already a more competitive cycle, and a generous curve like this could add on to the competition in those scoring ranges.

There's always something to make my heart beat faster!! Thanks for the link.

Well scores are curved, so percentiles will stay the same, but with more people taking the test of course there will be naturally more people with higher scores. There will still be only ~8% of test scores that get 165+

Still nothing haha

Skadidas wrote:Still nothing haha

same. it's killing me

163, 162, 163.......



4th time 168.

I can't fucking believe it It finally happened.

beancounter15 wrote:163, 162, 163.......



4th time 168.

I can't fucking believe it It finally happened.

Congratulations!!!!!!! <3

im bored

beancounter15 wrote:163, 162, 163.......



4th time 168.

I can't fucking believe it It finally happened.

Nice! Congrats man! In the words of reddit: "go get some ice cream."

beancounter15 wrote:163, 162, 163.......



4th time 168.

I can't fucking believe it It finally happened.

congrats!

I went from 168 in June to a 164 in December... Sigh.

My apps were held at USC and Berkeley because I was registered for Dec. LSAT. I guess it wasnt worth the wait.. Sigh.

usaorbust wrote:

Oneanddone? wrote:

Zero Hedge wrote:

Oneanddone? wrote:

Zero Hedge wrote:
Much appreciated. That is one generous curve. Going to be interesting to see how this builds on the december cycle data put out by spivey.

Could you elaborate? Curious to hear!

Refering to this: http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/december-2017-data/ . Data shows that there's a huge increase in applicants this year, especially on scores over 160. It's already a more competitive cycle, and a generous curve like this could add on to the competition in those scoring ranges.

There's always something to make my heart beat faster!! Thanks for the link.

Well scores are curved, so percentiles will stay the same, but with more people taking the test of course there will be naturally more people with higher scores. There will still be only ~8% of test scores that get 165+

Curves are determined before the test though. It's based on % of past test takers that got the questions correct from the experimental they were on. If people enter into the test that have a propensity to get higher scores than those who took the experimental then there's no way the test can account for this because the curve is decided on retroactive test-takers. A more qualified test base equals higher percentage of people scoring higher. It's the reason why there's variance on the % increase of score ranges in the December data.

Unless I'm wrong about all of this, in which case we can chalk it up to anxiety as I wait for my score

urmlaw17 wrote:I went from 168 in June to a 164 in December... Sigh.

It's okay man! You can always retake for next cycle and if not, you seem to have some pretty good options already!

... I'm over here sitting grey and still not knowing which 25 Q LR section was my experimental (and that'll have a large impact on my score). PRAYING to get it ASAP so I can stop having this prolonged heart attack!!

Went from 163 to 165... Biggest disappointment was that none of the panic-and-bubble-all-one-letter-because-time-is-running-out answers were right by coincidence. The odds were not in my favor.

1 point increase to a 172! Below my prep scores but I really thought I was gonna go down. Hopefully it's enough to make a difference in admissions

GnarMarBinx wrote:... I'm over here sitting grey and still not knowing which 25 Q LR section was my experimental (and that'll have a large impact on my score). PRAYING to get it ASAP so I can stop having this prolonged heart attack!!

Same! I could not for the life of me remember certain questions that people deduced to be on the experimental so it never helped me pinpoint what was real =[

My poor phone battery

So what is the longest that these waves might last? Any predictions? Or does the increase in # of test takers render any speculation moot?

FSK YEAH!!!

got my score. improved but not as much as I would've liked to

disappointed but whatever it is what it is