Addendum for jump from 155 to 167

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
DoktorZaius
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:21 am

Addendum for jump from 155 to 167

Postby DoktorZaius » Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:02 pm

Long time listener first time caller.

Basically I took the 155 over the summer w/ 0 studying. Just to get a sense of where I was at (which obviously wasn't very good). Then, the 167, that was the good ole awesome curve in December. Now, in truth, I only lightly prepared (meaning very close to not at all) for this one as well (the idea of studying for a standardized test seems counter intuitive and slightly wrong to me), and the difference in my score is a bit hard to gauge. I'm intelligent enough (132 IQ Wechsler as a kid), 1410 SAT score (before writing section)....slightly tangential, but long story short I feel very confident that I could ace the crap (175+) out of the test if I studied for 2-6 months full time like some people on here seem to think is standard.

So I guess my question IS, if an addendum would be helpful, how (in broad strokes) should I write it? I don't want to seem like I didn't take the LSAT seriously (the last thing I want is to suggest to law schools that I have poor study habits). Obviously the point of an addendum is to construct a narrative to persuade them that the higher score is more representative of one's intellectual capacity. Any advice on how best to do so here?

Thanks.

User avatar
wadeny
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:52 pm

Re: Addendum for jump from 155 to 167

Postby wadeny » Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:14 pm

I think the higher score speaks for itsel - most schools take the higher score anyway. Adcoms can probably assume what's going on and don't need to read another addendum.

Marisa5252
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 10:14 am

Re: Addendum for jump from 155 to 167

Postby Marisa5252 » Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:49 pm

wadeny wrote:I think the higher score speaks for itsel - most schools take the higher score anyway. Adcoms can probably assume what's going on and don't need to read another addendum.



+1 Generally addendums are for when there is an extenuating circumstance that caused the increase in score. "My brother died the day before the test," or "the proctor played tupac throughout my LSAT administration and I did send a complaint to LSAC" are some good examples. "I didn't study because I was working" or "I bought the wrong prep book" or "I didn't study because I didn't think I needed to" and things like that do not require an addendum.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Addendum for jump from 155 to 167

Postby vanwinkle » Fri Jan 15, 2010 9:48 pm

wadeny wrote:I think the higher score speaks for itsel - most schools take the higher score anyway. Adcoms can probably assume what's going on and don't need to read another addendum.

Marisa5252 wrote:Generally addendums are for when there is an extenuating circumstance that caused the increase in score. "My brother died the day before the test," or "the proctor played tupac throughout my LSAT administration and I did send a complaint to LSAC" are some good examples. "I didn't study because I was working" or "I bought the wrong prep book" or "I didn't study because I didn't think I needed to" and things like that do not require an addendum.

Both of these are TCR. Don't even bother unless a school says they require an LSAT addendum; otherwise they'll just take the highest anyway.

Woozy
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:29 pm

Re: Addendum for jump from 155 to 167

Postby Woozy » Fri Jan 15, 2010 9:50 pm

I hate to be that guy, and I know this doesn't respond to your query, but you might want to consider preparing for and retaking the LSAT. Depending on your GPA and/or career goals, you could be forgoing tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in scholarships and lifetime earnings by refusing to prepare as well as your peers. For example: 50-100 hours of study would probably move you from borderline applicant to full scholarship at T10-T20 schools, assuming a decent GPA. Are you really so lazy that you won't study for an equivalent wage of around $1,000/hr?

If you have your heart set on some school where you are already a slam dunk, maybe I can see it, but if not, you should really think about it.

User avatar
Dany
Posts: 11580
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:00 pm

Re: Addendum for jump from 155 to 167

Postby Dany » Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:01 pm

DoktorZaius wrote: Now, in truth, I only lightly prepared (meaning very close to not at all) for this one as well (the idea of studying for a standardized test seems counter intuitive and slightly wrong to me)

Why would studying for a standardized test be 'wrong' to you? You wouldn't study for the MCAT? Or review math for the GRE? That's just foolish... seems like you want an excuse for a lower score than you believe you're capable of. And how is that "counter-intuitive"? Wouldn't studying for the LSAT to achieve a high score indicate ability to study for and do well on law school exams?

Marisa5252
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 10:14 am

Re: Addendum for jump from 155 to 167

Postby Marisa5252 » Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:12 pm

Woozy wrote:I hate to be that guy, and I know this doesn't respond to your query, but you might want to consider preparing for and retaking the LSAT. Depending on your GPA and/or career goals, you could be forgoing tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in scholarships and lifetime earnings by refusing to prepare as well as your peers. For example: 50-100 hours of study would probably move you from borderline applicant to full scholarship at T10-T20 schools, assuming a decent GPA. Are you really so lazy that you won't study for an equivalent wage of around $1,000/hr?

If you have your heart set on some school where you are already a slam dunk, maybe I can see it, but if not, you should really think about it.



TITCR

Also - if it is that he's too lazy then he won't be working at the kinds of jobs (or at least not for very long) that a T10-T20 education can bump you into anyway.

User avatar
tome
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:17 pm

Re: Addendum for jump from 155 to 167

Postby tome » Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:18 pm

DoktorZaius wrote:(the idea of studying for a standardized test seems counter intuitive and slightly wrong to me)


Interesting. The idea of not studying for a standardized test that has a very great deal of influence over your future career seems slightly dumb to me. I guess a 130+ IQ isn't everything ...

User avatar
84Sunbird2000
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:39 pm

Re: Addendum for jump from 155 to 167

Postby 84Sunbird2000 » Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:09 pm

tome wrote:
DoktorZaius wrote:(the idea of studying for a standardized test seems counter intuitive and slightly wrong to me)


Interesting. The idea of not studying for a standardized test that has a very great deal of influence over your future career seems slightly dumb to me. I guess a 130+ IQ isn't everything ...


Well, I think he's saying that a "standardized" test is supposed to, on a theoretical level, test people's raw abilities or accrued knowledge. By studying for the tests at a high rate, there is some degree of "gaming the test" that can occur, which puts those who didn't know the test could be studied for at a serious disadvantage.

I'd have to say that every person I know who has taken the LSAT took it blind or with very sparse practice (and I, like this fellow, prepared poorly; though it was largely because of other time commitments), and they are just unaware of how much improvement one can make. Especially given how some people struggle with LG and how studying can improve one's LG effectiveness so greatly, study does seem mildly counterintuitive, and I think it's reflected to some degree in TLS' general perception of the easiness of the early tests with their wild curves (even compared to Dec 2009). Admissions standards were also more lax at that time, even when applicant pools swelled. The internet is a great resource, but not everyone utilizes it or looks to it for guidance on things like the LSAT. I think that the disparity between the TLS types and those who don't know the benefits of LSAT study might prove to lower the 1L correlation for the LSAT even more.

User avatar
faceman9000
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:34 am

Re: Addendum for jump from 155 to 167

Postby faceman9000 » Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:14 pm

Addendum not necessary.

User avatar
Panther7
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Addendum for jump from 155 to 167

Postby Panther7 » Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:20 pm

kwhitegocubs wrote:
tome wrote:
DoktorZaius wrote:(the idea of studying for a standardized test seems counter intuitive and slightly wrong to me)


Interesting. The idea of not studying for a standardized test that has a very great deal of influence over your future career seems slightly dumb to me. I guess a 130+ IQ isn't everything ...


Well, I think he's saying that a "standardized" test is supposed to, on a theoretical level, test people's raw abilities or accrued knowledge. By studying for the tests at a high rate, there is some degree of "gaming the test" that can occur, which puts those who didn't know the test could be studied for at a serious disadvantage.

I'd have to say that every person I know who has taken the LSAT took it blind or with very sparse practice (and I, like this fellow, prepared poorly; though it was largely because of other time commitments), and they are just unaware of how much improvement one can make. Especially given how some people struggle with LG and how studying can improve one's LG effectiveness so greatly, study does seem mildly counterintuitive, and I think it's reflected to some degree in TLS' general perception of the easiness of the early tests with their wild curves (even compared to Dec 2009). Admissions standards were also more lax at that time, even when applicant pools swelled. The internet is a great resource, but not everyone utilizes it or looks to it for guidance on things like the LSAT. I think that the disparity between the TLS types and those who don't know the benefits of LSAT study might prove to lower the 1L correlation for the LSAT even more.


Most people who test well just assume they will test well on the LSAT as well. It's another world in and of itself though. I had never tested below the 95th on anything before, and it was a wakeup when I was 72nd on my first test. I got it over the 90th with practice, but it's not like any other standardized test I have ever taken.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], smartmoon and 5 guests