February and Late Applicants Forum

[Baby_Got_Feuerbach]

When applying using ONLY the February LSAT, is it best to submit the other portion of your file (inc. LoRs, transcript, and resume) in January?

[midwest17]

Many schools won't take the February LSAT, and you're going to be at a significant disadvantage even at those schools that do take it. You're almost certainly better off waiting and applying at the beginning of next cycle.

[Baby_Got_Feuerbach]

Many schools won't take the February LSAT, and you're going to be at a significant disadvantage even at those schools that do take it. You're almost certainly better off waiting and applying at the beginning of next cycle.

re: the former point, that seems to contradict Spivey's insight.

[midwest17]

Many schools won't take the February LSAT, and you're going to be at a significant disadvantage even at those schools that do take it. You're almost certainly better off waiting and applying at the beginning of next cycle.

re: the former point, that seems to contradict Spivey's insight.

Which insight was that? I vaguely remember him saying that the February LSAT can be used for scholarship negotiations, but I don't remember anything about admissions.

There are schools that will consider applications with the February LSAT, obviously. But you're still going to be at a disadvantage at those schools because of rolling admissions. You're better off waiting.

[Baby_Got_Feuerbach]

Spivey:

1. I have seen it happen many times every cycle. If I thought I could do better this is exactly what I would do, take the Feb LSAT. There is no downside and the upside could be an admit for tens of thousands of dollars in $$$,

I'm going to say all of this with emphasis and it is likely a repeat but bears noting. It is career suicide for a dean of admissions to average scores or to not look at Feb scores as part of the cycle. if other schools are doing it (and they are) than you better too or you will be packing your bags to transition to being the Dean of Admissions at Touro.

Many schools won't take the February LSAT, and you're going to be at a significant disadvantage even at those schools that do take it. You're almost certainly better off waiting and applying at the beginning of next cycle.

re: the former point, that seems to contradict Spivey's insight.

Which insight was that? I vaguely remember him saying that the February LSAT can be used for scholarship negotiations, but I don't remember anything about admissions.

There are schools that will consider applications with the February LSAT, obviously. But you're still going to be at a disadvantage at those schools because of rolling admissions. You're better off waiting.

[Clearly]

Spivey certainly did not imply that you would be just as good with a Feb score as any other. He commented that the early applicant boost seemed to shrink during the drop in applicants.

[PalmBay]

To answer your question, yes. If you're intent on taking the Feb test and applying, you may want to opt to have your file at the school already. Until your file is complete (which means including LSAT score) they won't look at your stuff, but they'll have it on file. Keep in mind it takes some time for the material to get from LSAC to the schools, so don't wait until you get your score to start sending everything in--you're already going to be at a critically late in the process and any potential delays will only hurt.

[Kimikho]

Spivey:

1. I have seen it happen many times every cycle. If I thought I could do better this is exactly what I would do, take the Feb LSAT. There is no downside and the upside could be an admit for tens of thousands of dollars in $$$,

I'm going to say all of this with emphasis and it is likely a repeat but bears noting. It is career suicide for a dean of admissions to average scores or to not look at Feb scores as part of the cycle. if other schools are doing it (and they are) than you better too or you will be packing your bags to transition to being the Dean of Admissions at Touro.

i've always assumed that referred to retakes, since it also mentioned averaging scores there. it would be career suicide for a dean of admissions to not look at a february retake, but i doubt it would be career suicide if, when faced with a 4.0 180 vs. a 4.0 who knows, the dean extends an offer to the 180.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

I applied with a first-time, February score (marginally) over 170 last cycle, and was basically waitlisted everywhere. Don't do it. If February is your only option, sit out a cycle.

[ms9]

I just went to answer this 45 minutes ago, it turned into a lengthy essay, so I will have someone proof then put up on my blog. I will link the blog from here once it is up, likely in the next hour or so.

[ms9]

As promised:

http://spiveyconsulting.com/blog/help-m ... his-cycle/

[Baby_Got_Feuerbach]

As promised:

http://spiveyconsulting.com/blog/help-m ... his-cycle/

Thanks, Mike!

[midwest17]

As promised:

http://spiveyconsulting.com/blog/help-m ... his-cycle/

This seems to be underselling the "wait for next cycle" advice. The main downside to that, as you say, is "you have no idea what the applicant pool will look like next year." But that cuts both ways, and it doesn't seem like there's any reason to expect it to be worse for applicants rather than better.

Sure, people may still get good offers with just a February LSAT, but you agree that the outcome will still be worse than it would otherwise be.

I'm not trying to question your expertise, but even granting your premises doesn't seem to lead to your conclusion.

[ms9]

As promised:

http://spiveyconsulting.com/blog/help-m ... his-cycle/

This seems to be underselling the "wait for next cycle" advice. The main downside to that, as you say, is "you have no idea what the applicant pool will look like next year." But that cuts both ways, and it doesn't seem like there's any reason to expect it to be worse for applicants rather than better.

Sure, people may still get good offers with just a February LSAT, but you agree that the outcome will still be worse than it would otherwise be.

I'm not trying to question your expertise, but even granting your premises doesn't seem to lead to your conclusion.

Well, perhaps I should have been more clear about the hierarchical order of (1), (2), and (3). if possible, 1. if not then 2. if you must apply this cycle feel good about (3). There will be a good number of people who, for whatever reason, need to apply this cycle. For those people they should be confident in 3. For the rest, I would advise 1 or 2, which make more sense than 3.

[midwest17]

As promised:

http://spiveyconsulting.com/blog/help-m ... his-cycle/

This seems to be underselling the "wait for next cycle" advice. The main downside to that, as you say, is "you have no idea what the applicant pool will look like next year." But that cuts both ways, and it doesn't seem like there's any reason to expect it to be worse for applicants rather than better.

Sure, people may still get good offers with just a February LSAT, but you agree that the outcome will still be worse than it would otherwise be.

I'm not trying to question your expertise, but even granting your premises doesn't seem to lead to your conclusion.

Well, perhaps I should have been more clear about the hierarchical order of (1), (2), and (3). if possible, 1. if not then 2. if you must apply this cycle feel good about (3). There will be a good number of people who, for whatever reason, need to apply this cycle. For those people they should be confident in 3. For the rest, I would advise 1 or 2, which make more sense than 3.

That seems fair.