In December of 2005, an event occurred that shook the LSAT community to its very foundations. One could only miss five questions on the LSAT to score in the 99th percentile. Legions of test takers turned to Ben and Jerry’s™ for solace.

Though this may seem innocuous to some, for students applying to elite law schools requiring high LSAT scores, it was devastating. Rather than the typical 10-12 questions that could be missed for a score in the 99th percentile, the December 2005 curve allowed just half that amount.

Subsequent tests were taken and their curves were perused with bated breath. Was the new, horrific curve here to stay, or was it merely a one-time fluke? June, September, and December 2006 arrived in quick succession, and the verdict appeared to be favorable: the tests returned to the more forgiving curves of the pre-December 2005 era.

Until June 2007.

As with the December 2005 LSAT, three scores in the 170’s were missing entirely, and one could only miss six questions in order to score in the 99th percentile at all. This phenomenon prompts the following three questions: Why did this happen again? Is the brutal curve here to stay? And why doesn’t Ben and Jerry’s sell Peanut Butter Cookie Dough anymore?

From reading our previous article on the December 2005 LSAT entitled “The Tightening Curve” you know that two culprits may be to blame for a brutal curve. The first is an easier exam. Because more people can answer more questions correctly, only those that miss a very small number can receive a high score. The second cause for a difficult curve is that students taking the test are getting better. Though the questions may not be easy, fewer students miss them.

Our initial theory for the December 2005 LSAT was that the difficult curve was primarily due to students getting better at the exam. This time around, however, the tests themselves may prove to be a factor.

It appears that the logic games section of the December 2005 LSAT was comparatively easier than those for other LSAT administrations.* Similarly in the June 2007 LSAT, the reading comprehension section seems less rigorous when compared to other reading comprehension sections.** It may be the case that these sections of the exam contributed to students being able to score better, thus resulting in the brutal curves for those exams.




That’s all well and good, but the big question is whether or not such curves are likely to come again. As we discussed in our earlier article, it’s not in LSAC’s interest to continue to make difficult curves. If the idea of the LSAT is to differentiate between the abilities of law school candidates, having a curve where three scores are removed fails in this goal. It’s like trying to differentiate Jeopardy candidates by asking who wrote Hamlet. When everyone gets the question right, it makes it nearly impossible to figure out the smartest person in the room.

Because of this, we predict that curves like this won’t happen that often. However, the clearest way for LSAC to maintain an easier curve is to make the test more difficult, particularly in view of the fact that it’s fairly clear students are becoming increasingly savvy test takers. If you’re thinking about taking the LSAT, this means your own preparation must rise to meet these challenges. Studying diligently on your own or taking a preparatory course can help. That, and some judicious use of Ben and Jerry’s.