Legitimately poor standardized test performance

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
sparty99
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby sparty99 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 6:37 pm

hoos89 wrote:
sparty99 wrote:
I mean, you are trying to say it doesn't work, but yet, I'm direct proof that it does. And by shit schools with money you can get into a lot of T3's and T4's. However, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about T50s with full-ride. You obviously know nothing about people who have a history of underperformance on standardized tests...If you scored a 20 on the ACT, but a 3.9 in college and a 155 on the LSAT, then an addendum COULD help overcome a low score and get a person admitted.


It's logic like this that shows why you did so poorly on the LSAT. Just because you got a full ride doesn't mean that your LSAT addendum meant shit. OP had not indicated that (s)he is a URM, which I assure you had more to do with your outcome than the addendum.


sparty99 wrote:
A lot of T50s are not good, but that really doesn't matter. This dude has taken the test 3x has reached the limit (I guess) so he might as well right a damn addendum.

I don't have direct proof, but don't need it. They took somoene with a 140 something LSAT. Obviously, there was something about my application that convinced them otherwise. Do you think they would have accepted a 140 something LSAT without an addendum and no proof of past low scores? Let me answer that: NO. I really don't know why you insist on proving me wrong.


So? OP has choices OTHER than going to a shitty law school.


If I was admitted because of my URM status then that fails to take into consideration the number of students who were also URM and were not selected even though they had a higher LSAT. Lastly, how do you know his law school would be "shitty?" He hasn't applied.

User avatar
hoos89
Posts: 1969
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:09 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby hoos89 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 6:42 pm

But for your URM status, you would not have gotten in (let alone gotten a scholarship). Also, some URMs are less common than others, and therefore get a bigger bump. Seriously if you think your LSAT addendum made more than a negligible impact on your outcome, you are delusional.


EDITED: There is a slim chance that OP will get a decent admissions outcome with that LSAT, UNLESS OP is a URM (which has not been even hinted at). However, OP stated that (s)he wants constitutional law, which is almost certainly not going to happen at any school because it's not really a thing.
Last edited by hoos89 on Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.

sparty99
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby sparty99 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 6:53 pm

Kratos wrote:
sparty99 wrote:A lot of T50s are not good, but that really doesn't matter. This dude has taken the test 3x has reached the limit (I guess) so he might as well write a damn addendum.

I don't have direct proof, but don't need it. They took somoene with a 140 something LSAT. Obviously, there was something about my application that convinced them otherwise. Do you think they would have accepted a 140 something LSAT without an addendum and no proof of past low scores? Let me answer that: NO. I really don't know why you insist on proving me wrong.

Dude, what is your background? You are obviously an exceptional case. Honestly, good for you. But you keep throwing in your anecdotal evidence in threads like this and its not helpful because you are obviously an exception.


I'm not exceptional in the sense that there is a reason why you write fucking LSAT addendums. Did you miss that prompt on the applicaiton? Please explain any history of low performance on tests? Did you miss that part? This issue is not germane to law school applications. MBA programs also will take this into consideration. They ask this question for a reason.

IF THE DUDE SUCKED AT THE SAT AND THE ACT THEN IT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR HIM TO WRITE ONE, HOWEVER, IF YOU SCORED A 26 ON THE ACT THEN YOUR 159 LSAT IS PROBABLY REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR TEST TAKING ABILITIES AND THE ADDENDUM WON'T DO MUCH FOR YOU.

But if you truly are bad and did score say, a 20 on the ACT, then you know what, write that fucking addendum. God forbid you whack TLS people try to state that my advice is horrendous and doesn't work despite the fact that SEVERAL schools in the T20 to T50 range read my addendum, saw my low ACT score and said, "fuck it," this dude can still do it. I wouldn't have been accepted if I also didn't have a high GPA and significant work experience. Did my URM status help, probably. But other URM's got rejected with higher LSATs. NOW, I'M OVER THIS THREAD. OP do what I say and read the following material below...There is an example of an addendum by BOALT. All these people told me 3 years ago that I wouldn't get accepted to a school worth attending. Here I am, 3 years later graduated. No debt. You have exhausted all your tests, so you have NOTHING TO LOSE. YOU COULD ALSO GAIN ACCEPTANCE INTO A DECENT SCHOOL. APPLY AND THEN COME BACK AND LET'S SEE IF YOU GET ANY SCHOLARSHIPS.

http://www.boalt.org/coalition/admissionspacket.pdf

http://www.nationaljurist.com/content/h ... lsat-score

User avatar
TheSpanishMain
Posts: 4114
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:26 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby TheSpanishMain » Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:03 pm

Whoa, caps lock meltdown.

Sparty (MSU? if so, what's up?) why do you think schools particularly care if students "can do it"? I mean, they obviously don't want to admit people who are too retarded to pass the bar, but they primarily care about LSATs because it helps their medians. Law schools are a business. It's not like they're looking out for the best interests of the applicant or anything.

User avatar
Kratos
Posts: 6758
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 3:50 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby Kratos » Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:08 pm

sparty99 wrote:
Kratos wrote:
sparty99 wrote:A lot of T50s are not good, but that really doesn't matter. This dude has taken the test 3x has reached the limit (I guess) so he might as well write a damn addendum.

I don't have direct proof, but don't need it. They took somoene with a 140 something LSAT. Obviously, there was something about my application that convinced them otherwise. Do you think they would have accepted a 140 something LSAT without an addendum and no proof of past low scores? Let me answer that: NO. I really don't know why you insist on proving me wrong.

Dude, what is your background? You are obviously an exceptional case. Honestly, good for you. But you keep throwing in your anecdotal evidence in threads like this and its not helpful because you are obviously an exception.


high GPA and significant work experience. URM status

There we go bro. thats what got you in. Why are you getting butt hurt about this. You are not representative of the standard applicant and thus your anecdotes are not helpful for the average applicant.

Also, OP if all you want to do is Constitutional Law, you might want to rethink law school as it is exceedingly rare to get that type of job and those that do are generally from the best schools, which you unfortunately probably can't get with your LSAT.

Wingtip88
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 10:00 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby Wingtip88 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:15 pm

OP is only going to find out whether he is accepted into a quality law school at the price of a reasonable amount of debt financing by applying and negotiating scholarships. He's already paid for the LSAT and probably the LSAC services so it's not like he's making a burdensome investment at this point by simply applying. The numbers game isn't really in his favor but you never know. The applicant pool for law school has been shrinking consistently for some years now.

And can we not derail the thread. Sparty said an addendum could help, he didn't promise that it would.

OP - seriously, a remunerative career in "Constitutional Law" is almost certainly not happening. I'd really suggest spending time informing yourself of what kinds of legal careers actually exist and whether you'd find happiness (or a manageable financial situation) working in them.

sparty99
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby sparty99 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:16 pm

Kratos wrote:
sparty99 wrote:
Kratos wrote:
sparty99 wrote:A lot of T50s are not good, but that really doesn't matter. This dude has taken the test 3x has reached the limit (I guess) so he might as well write a damn addendum.

I don't have direct proof, but don't need it. They took somoene with a 140 something LSAT. Obviously, there was something about my application that convinced them otherwise. Do you think they would have accepted a 140 something LSAT without an addendum and no proof of past low scores? Let me answer that: NO. I really don't know why you insist on proving me wrong.

Dude, what is your background? You are obviously an exceptional case. Honestly, good for you. But you keep throwing in your anecdotal evidence in threads like this and its not helpful because you are obviously an exception.


high GPA and significant work experience. URM status

There we go bro. thats what got you in. Why are you getting butt hurt about this. You are not representative of the standard applicant and thus your anecdotes are not helpful for the average person.


I would have not received acceptance if I didn't write an LSAT addendum that explained my history of poor performance on the SAT and ACT. Sent those scores as well. Also, if I also didn't go into context about my undergraduate performance and work experience which was also part of my LSAT addendum, then I wouldn't have even been considerred. Without the fucking addendum with the scores from the SAT/ACT, it looks as if I'm an applicant who just took the test without any preparation. However, with that addendum the committee says, "Oh, this guy is just not good at this test. We will ignore that and look at his other areas."

sparty99
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby sparty99 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:20 pm

TheSpanishMain wrote:Whoa, caps lock meltdown.

Sparty (MSU? if so, what's up?) why do you think schools particularly care if students "can do it"? I mean, they obviously don't want to admit people who are too retarded to pass the bar, but they primarily care about LSATs because it helps their medians. Law schools are a business. It's not like they're looking out for the best interests of the applicant or anything.


Ugh...they needed to see a students high gpa to know that they are at least capable of doing well (or can at least pass law school). I certaintly never said law schools cared about the applicant.

User avatar
hoos89
Posts: 1969
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:09 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby hoos89 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:22 pm

sparty99 wrote:
I would have not received acceptance if I didn't write an LSAT addendum that explained my history of poor performance on the SAT and ACT. Sent those scores as well. Also, if I also didn't go into context about my undergraduate performance and work experience which was also part of my LSAT addendum, then I wouldn't have even been considerred. Without the fucking addendum with the scores from the SAT/ACT, it looks as if I'm an applicant who just took the test without any preparation. However, with that addendum the committee says, "Oh, this guy is just not good at this test. We will ignore that and look at his other areas."


Yeah I can pretty much assure you that conversation never happened. You do not know that the addendum had ANY influence on your cycle, and yet for some reason you seem convinced that it was determinative. Also, why would the committee think it was a good thing that you just aren't good at the test? I mean if you really prepared and took the test three times, then it becomes less likely that your score is a fluke and that you really don't have the logical reasoning skills for which the LSAT is designed to test. The whole point of the LSAT is to find people who are good at it.

User avatar
TheSpanishMain
Posts: 4114
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:26 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby TheSpanishMain » Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:25 pm

sparty99 wrote:
TheSpanishMain wrote:Whoa, caps lock meltdown.

Sparty (MSU? if so, what's up?) why do you think schools particularly care if students "can do it"? I mean, they obviously don't want to admit people who are too retarded to pass the bar, but they primarily care about LSATs because it helps their medians. Law schools are a business. It's not like they're looking out for the best interests of the applicant or anything.


Ugh...they needed to see a students high gpa to know that they are at least capable of doing well (or can at least pass law school). I certaintly never said law schools cared about the applicant.


But don't you think the school generally cares more about its medians than it does whether a student can do well?

User avatar
Kratos
Posts: 6758
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 3:50 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby Kratos » Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:28 pm

OP feel free to write an addendum, but it probably won't make a big difference. As other posters have noted. If you can wait and take it a 4th time that might be your best option. Or apply, you will get into some schools, however many of those are the schools that people here generally advise against going to.

sparty99
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby sparty99 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:30 pm

hoos89 wrote:
sparty99 wrote:
I would have not received acceptance if I didn't write an LSAT addendum that explained my history of poor performance on the SAT and ACT. Sent those scores as well. Also, if I also didn't go into context about my undergraduate performance and work experience which was also part of my LSAT addendum, then I wouldn't have even been considerred. Without the fucking addendum with the scores from the SAT/ACT, it looks as if I'm an applicant who just took the test without any preparation. However, with that addendum the committee says, "Oh, this guy is just not good at this test. We will ignore that and look at his other areas."


Yeah I can pretty much assure you that conversation never happened. You do not know that the addendum had ANY influence on your cycle, and yet for some reason you seem convinced that it was determinative. Also, why would the committee think it was a good thing that you just aren't good at the test? I mean if you really prepared and took the test three times, then it becomes less likely that your score is a fluke and that you really don't have the logical reasoning skills for which the LSAT is designed to test. The whole point of the LSAT is to find people who are good at it.


Okay, whatever bro. You are right. I would have gotten accepted into Tier 1 law schools with my 140 something LSAT even if I didn't write an addendum which included my SAT/ACT scores. I know nothing. I'm glad your highly educated brain was able to show the flaws in my thinking.

sparty99
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby sparty99 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:34 pm

TheSpanishMain wrote:
sparty99 wrote:
TheSpanishMain wrote:Whoa, caps lock meltdown.

Sparty (MSU? if so, what's up?) why do you think schools particularly care if students "can do it"? I mean, they obviously don't want to admit people who are too retarded to pass the bar, but they primarily care about LSATs because it helps their medians. Law schools are a business. It's not like they're looking out for the best interests of the applicant or anything.


Ugh...they needed to see a students high gpa to know that they are at least capable of doing well (or can at least pass law school). I certaintly never said law schools cared about the applicant.


But don't you think the school generally cares more about its medians than it does whether a student can do well?


The school cares about a lot of goddamn things. However, that doesn't mean they don't look at whether the student has shown that they can do the fucking work. They don't want someone who is going to drop out or who goes three years and can't pass the bar. Now I really don't know what you are getting at, but I no longer care. The pizza has arrived.

User avatar
TheSpanishMain
Posts: 4114
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:26 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby TheSpanishMain » Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:39 pm

sparty99 wrote:The school cares about a lot of goddamn things. However, that doesn't mean they don't look at whether the student has shown that they can do the fucking work. They don't want someone who is going to drop out or who goes three years and can't pass the bar. Now I really don't know what you are getting at, but I no longer care. The pizza has arrived.


Ok dude, enjoy. Not sure what's confusing here. Also not sure why you're getting all butthurt about it, or why you're so convinced that your addendum (THAT FUCKING INCLUDED YOUR GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKING SAT AND ACT!!!!!!111) and not your URM status and high GPA was critical, but whatever. Enjoy your pizza.

User avatar
hoos89
Posts: 1969
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:09 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby hoos89 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:49 pm

sparty99 wrote:
hoos89 wrote:
sparty99 wrote:
I would have not received acceptance if I didn't write an LSAT addendum that explained my history of poor performance on the SAT and ACT. Sent those scores as well. Also, if I also didn't go into context about my undergraduate performance and work experience which was also part of my LSAT addendum, then I wouldn't have even been considerred. Without the fucking addendum with the scores from the SAT/ACT, it looks as if I'm an applicant who just took the test without any preparation. However, with that addendum the committee says, "Oh, this guy is just not good at this test. We will ignore that and look at his other areas."


Yeah I can pretty much assure you that conversation never happened. You do not know that the addendum had ANY influence on your cycle, and yet for some reason you seem convinced that it was determinative. Also, why would the committee think it was a good thing that you just aren't good at the test? I mean if you really prepared and took the test three times, then it becomes less likely that your score is a fluke and that you really don't have the logical reasoning skills for which the LSAT is designed to test. The whole point of the LSAT is to find people who are good at it.


Okay, whatever bro. You are right. I would have gotten accepted into Tier 1 law schools with my 140 something LSAT even if I didn't write an addendum which included my SAT/ACT scores. I know nothing. I'm glad your highly educated brain was able to show the flaws in my thinking.


You very well may have gotten in, and I would argue that you almost definitely would have. You have no evidence to the contrary. I know you're being sarcastic, but there really have been substantial flaws in your logic in pretty much all of your posts in this thread.

User avatar
pancakes3
Posts: 3896
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:49 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby pancakes3 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:51 pm

I would have a huge problem with the policy of allowing a LSAT addendum to carry so much sway.

User avatar
UnicornHunter
Posts: 13486
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 9:16 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby UnicornHunter » Sun Nov 16, 2014 8:02 pm

pancakes3 wrote:I would have a huge problem with the policy of allowing a LSAT addendum to carry so much sway.


A: Nobody* cares if you'd have a problem or not.
B; Nobody's arguing that it has that much sway, just that it *might* make a difference.


OP, don't go to law school.


*In A, "nobody" refers to LSAC.

User avatar
heythatslife
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby heythatslife » Sun Nov 16, 2014 8:28 pm

LOL at this guy's reasoning. I don't judge people by their test scores but in this case it's not surprising he couldn't break 150 on the LSAT.

sparty99
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby sparty99 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 8:33 pm

heythatslife wrote:LOL at this guy's reasoning. I don't judge people by their test scores but in this case it's not surprising he couldn't break 150 on the LSAT.


The only one laughing is me with my no debt and JD/bar passage required legal job.

User avatar
fats provolone
Posts: 7125
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:44 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby fats provolone » Sun Nov 16, 2014 8:43 pm

the worst

WheatThins
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:05 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby WheatThins » Sun Nov 16, 2014 8:45 pm

You guys are the worst.

OP, you probably need to retake the test and focus on areas you under-preformed. An addendum isn't going to hurt you; probably won't help - but screw it there's no risk to it.

If you don't want to be a lawyer, consider other ways to achieve your goals. Law school may not be the most direct route.

User avatar
twenty
Posts: 3153
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby twenty » Sun Nov 16, 2014 8:46 pm

the INSPIRATIONAL story of ~&sparty99&~

imagine, if you will, a crowded admissions office at one of the most prestigious law schools in the country - a top 50 school, to be exact, ranked by the prestigious United States News and World Report every year. while law schools had felt the burden of smaller and smaller applicant pools in recent years, none of this seemed to worry Kenny, the resident admissions officer who knew that he would always have a job as long as shows like suits and how to get away with murder maintained their ratings.

Kenny: "Hey Patricia, we've just gotten the new wave of 2010 applications in. Let's do what we do every year; you sort them from highest to lowest LSAT/GPAs, and we'll take three months in sending a decision so that admits think that we put a lot of thought into it."
Patricia: "I'll have it done in a couple minutes, boss."
Kenny: Good. I have to do some push ups in my office with the door closed.

As Kenny grunted away in his office doing "push ups", Patricia sorted through the files. As her fingers flew through the pages at lightning speed, they suddenly halted as if frozen by a mysterious force.

"Oh my God," Patricia gasped. She tossed the rest of the files aside, scattering paper all over the room. Clutching the file in her fist, she swung Kenny's door open forcefully. The sight of the naked middle-aged man didn't even phase her.

"Someone finally wrote an addendum!" she sighed, "Years I've been here, and no one has ever once written one!"

"Who the fuck do you think you are bursting in while I'm-- wait, an addendum?"

"For the LSAT!" the young woman screamed orgasmically, "He was a bad test taker in high school!"

Kenny stood up from his chair and snatched the file out of Patricia's hand. His eyes fell upon the simple addendum words as if they had been offered from on high by God himself. "So he's not just a lazy fuck like the rest of these applicants, he's just a bad test taker... well we can't afford to lose a stand-up guy like this!" Kenny ran out his office stark naked over to the ominous phone in the middle of the main room.

"Dean? Yeah, it's Kenny. You won't believe this, a guy named Sparty99 wrote an addendum for his low LSAT scores. Get this, he's a bad test taker."

Patricia heard squeals of delight from the other end of the line. Kenny winced and pulled the phone away from his head. "A full ride? Well golly, with class cuts being the way they are..." The squeals of delight turned to rage-filled cursing. Kenny gingerly hung up the phone, his previously rock-hard dick now much smaller than it had been a few minutes before.

"I don't know, Patricia," Kenny's eyes welled up with tears, "If we can't land this Sparty99 fellow, we might lose our jobs. He's probably sent that same addendum to every school he applied to. Just our luck."

But Sparty99 took pity on the adcoms at the T50 law school. Even though he could have retaken the LSAT and gone to far more preftegious law schools with better job opportunities, Sparty99 decided to settle for this school. The Dean's office breathed a collective sigh of relief upon receiving Sparty99's enrollment deposit in the mail.

A year passed. Patricia felt a flurry of excitement upon seeing the 2011 applications coming in to her office, but alas, no one had written an addendum. Fools, she thought to herself, if only they knew. Her only hope now was that the brave and well-endowed Sparty99 would spread the news to top-law-schools.com/forums/ so that she could once again taste the ecstasy and jubilation of feeling that extra page attached to the LSAC CAS printout.

User avatar
earthabides
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 7:48 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby earthabides » Sun Nov 16, 2014 8:51 pm

That was beautiful.

sparty99
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby sparty99 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 8:54 pm

I really don't know why it is so hard to realize that LSAT addendums coupled with bad test scores MIGHT HELP AN APPLICANT. Wow. Just fucking wow. I guess I never read, "How to Get into the Top MBA Programs" where admissions committee members suggested such a thing.

I'M DONE WITH THIS THREAD.
Last edited by sparty99 on Sun Nov 16, 2014 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

sparty99
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby sparty99 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 8:55 pm

earthabides wrote:That was beautiful.


Actually, it was stupid as fuck.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: zcjthb6 and 2 guests