LSAT Addendum Question! Forum

[bp shinners]

First of all, would it change anything if I told you I went to a t25?

Maybe a little, but I still would recommend against the addendum.

I agree, to a certain extent, with everything you say. However, the LSAT addendum isn't to say that the LSAT might not be an accurate representation of your abilities because prior tests weren't 1:1 indicators. The addendum should show that standardized tests are absolutely not even close to predicting your abilities academically.

Scoring at the 75% on the SAT, even if below the school's 25%, really doesn't make me shake my head and lament, "There's no WAY this girl would ever be in the top 10% of her class at a top 25 school!" That's really what you need an adcomm to think before an LSAT addendum is a good idea. That's especially the case if you have a score in the 160s - that's just not a low enough score for me to think an addendum is justified.

Because of all that, if I'm an adcomm, I'm going to read your addendum and think that you're making excuses for a score with which you aren't happy. I'm not going to decrease the import I put on the LSAT in your case; rather, I'm going to scrap the addendum and have a negative impression of you out of the gate.

[southeastlaw]

Well well, isn't this just a lovely back and forth? This thread is a perfect example of what TLS is all about!

I must say that both sides have persuasive arguments. In the end, however, I take issue with two statements from Mr. bp:

1) "However, the LSAT addendum isn't to say that the LSAT might not be an accurate representation of your abilities because prior tests weren't 1:1 indicators. The addendum should show that standardized tests are absolutely not even close to predicting your abilities academically."

2) "Scoring at the 75% on the SAT, even if below the school's 25%, really doesn't make me shake my head and lament, "There's no WAY this girl would ever be in the top 10% of her class at a top 25 school!" That's really what you need an adcomm to think before an LSAT addendum is a good idea."

bp, I feel that both of these statements set the bar for writing an addendum far too high. Like Brittany says, an addendum will never "tie the knot"; in other words, it will never be able to definitely prove that "standardized tests are absolutly not even close to predicting [one's] abilities academically." If an LSAT addendum can present evidence that might indicate that an LSAT score will not be an accurate predictor of law school performance, then that addendum is successful. The key, like bp emphasizes, is minimizing any negative impression that the addendum might engender. As you've both said, negative impressions can be minimized by using a matter of fact tone and being clear that you do not want to give excuses. Brittany, if you can write this addendum using the proper tone, I believe that you do have an addendum-worthy case to make here; namely, that your performance on standardized testing in the past has not been an accurate indicator of your academic performance, and this is precedent that shows that your performance in law school may indeed follow the same pattern.

[Brittany2012]

Haha:) thanks for the responses both southeastlaw and bp shinners! I agree with southeastlaw's comments about this thread; it's been really nice to be a part of such a helpful exchange!

As for the merits - I do like to think that bpshinners seems to have set the bar a bit to high for an LSAT addendum. The bar is indeed quite high, but, to quote southeastlaw's quote of me, the research that I've done seems to indicate that the addendum does not have to 'tie the knot'. I've done a good amount of research on some of the questions brought up in this thread (on other blogs, other tls forum entries, people who have wrote similar addenda on lsn, other law school prep. sites, etc.), and it does seem like the necessary condition for an addendum like this is "underperforming on standardized tests," not necessarily "performing badly on standardized tests." I think if I approach this with the right tone, make it clear that I'm not offering this as an excuse, but just presenting the information as evidence that the ad com can consider - to any extent that they deem appropriate - that I don't see how it can hurt.

[southeastlaw]

Go for it!

[bp shinners]

I do like to think that bpshinners seems to have set the bar a bit to high for an LSAT addendum. [A]nd it does seem like the necessary condition for an addendum like this is "underperforming on standardized tests," not necessarily "performing badly on standardized tests."

The bar for writing any addendum is very high; for an LSAT addendum, it's even higher. And I still think that your understanding of what "underperforming on standardized tests" means is off (and I think it's going to be harder than you think to make this not sound like an excuse), but I've said my piece. Good luck on the addendum; when you finish it, post it for comments!