That’s essentially right, but the bell curve is adjusted to account for differences in test-taking populations. Remember, the test is curved AND equated (equated meaning that a score of 170 on any given test should indicate a person of equal ability to someone who scored a 170 on a previous test). If you were to hypothetically remove the worst-scoring 20% from the test-taking pool, the test-scorers will have a big problem on their hands–they were probably expecting 2% of the test-takers to get -12 or better, but now maybe 3% get -12 or better. The curve is generally set before a test is administered, from how previous testers responded in experimental sections. I don’t know how they deal with this–where there are big discrepancies they may actually adjust the curve.
The score and percentile rank you receive are not an exact cut-off for that test. A 170 puts you above 97.3% of test-takers for the past 3 years. Generally there has been a slight push downward on that percentage–five years ago a 170 may have put you above 97.6%, meaning they are giving out slightly more high scores. They are not only trying to create a bell curve, but also “equate” scores to each other–meaning LSAC has become slightly more generous in giving out high scores, because it seems to believe there are slightly more people of high ability.
I’m kind of confusing myself with this, but basically I’m saying the LSAT is not strictly a bell-curve type of thing like law school is (where top 10% get an A, etc., with strict cutoffs). A 170 doesn’t just mean you are in the top 2.5% of whoever took the test, although the percentages generally work out pretty close historically.
Yes, the test is equated. People are given percentile scores. If you score in the 96th percentile, you scored higher than 96 percent of people taking the test. Therefore, the way it is supposed to work out is if there are less people taking the test, there will be less people scoring in each percentile. Less 170s, less 160s, less 150s.
Yes, good point. However, did URMs not get boosts in 2000 and prior? Because we are still set to have a greater number of applicants than in those years. Further, I would imagine that schools still want to maintain diversity throughout their classes.
I did some more realistic calculations earlier, but it’s still all conjecture. I can post them a little later to stimulate conversation, but bed time for now.
So after going through this thread I still can’t tell whether this is a good or bad thing? It seems so far the consensus is that this will work in the favor of those with 170+ applying this cycle, particularly splitters while the opposite is true for reverse splitters. Is that correct? Either way, nearly 20% less test takers between June and October compared to last year is pretty surprising.
