Why the December 2010 LSAT Curve was so Forgiving
December 2010 LSAT scores were released yesterday and the tumult was as tremendous as ever. People cried, people rejoiced. The world, as a whole, failed to give a crap. It was, as such things going, a fairly normal LSAT release day.
Except for one big thing: the curve. While Matt predicted the -14 curve for a 170, few were expecting it to actually occur: -14 for a 170, -30 for a 160.
Obviously, this is a big deal, considering the initial word on the test. This test, according to most student reports, was fairly straightforward. Most people thought logical reasoning was fairly simple, and that reading comprehension was a bit difficult. People complained about the stained glass game, but people always complain about one game.
So, why such a huge curve?
Games actually were difficult. The stained glass game had one fairly minor deduction that didn’t really help a lot and then the questions themselves were highly difficult. There was no room to write on the first game, and the third game was a little strange in terms of what to use for the base of the diagram. While the last game was easy, the order of the games relative to the difficult would play hell with most people, so it makes sense that many people screwed those up and/or took way too much time to complete them.
Odds are, if you had the games section early in the test, it easily could have made the rest of the test a nightmare. Combine that with the fact that recent December curves have been relatively forgiving in general, and you have a pretty fair picture of why this LSAT had such a nice curve.
