Legitimately poor standardized test performance

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
Elston Gunn
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby Elston Gunn » Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:48 pm

PeanutsNJam wrote:
twenty wrote:the INSPIRATIONAL story of ~&sparty99&~

story



Jesus fuck I couldn't read that in one sitting because I'm at work and my co-workers will think I'm insane.

See, OP, this is what you'd be doing at 9PM on a Sunday if you went to law school and got lucky.

Big Dog
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby Big Dog » Sun Nov 16, 2014 11:47 pm

I acknowledge that I am not a good test taker, and never was.


Test anxiety is real, and if that is your issue, it can be addressed. Good luck.

speckledsparrow
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:19 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby speckledsparrow » Sun Nov 16, 2014 11:49 pm

.
Last edited by speckledsparrow on Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rigo
Posts: 11948
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby Rigo » Mon Nov 17, 2014 12:28 am

twenty wrote:the INSPIRATIONAL story of ~&sparty99&~
[read full story on page two]

Holy hell. I got a real good chuckle from that. Bravo twenty!

User avatar
Ron Don Volante
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 2:26 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby Ron Don Volante » Mon Nov 17, 2014 1:12 am

Dirigo wrote:
twenty wrote:the INSPIRATIONAL story of ~&sparty99&~
[read full story on page two]

Holy hell. I got a real good chuckle from that. Bravo twenty!

hill1334
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 11:31 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby hill1334 » Mon Nov 17, 2014 2:05 am

hoos89 wrote:
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.


In Sparty's defense, you also have zero evidence that his addendum did not help, which means you are taking a borderline fallacious position yourself. While I will admit that the addendum most likely made no difference in the end, it is also entirely possible that Sparty was on the bubble and his addendum pushed him above one of his competitors. Either way, I think it is safe to say it did not hurt his application, so I have to agree with Sparty that OP should likely submit one as well. They do include the option for an addendum for a reason, and what does OP have to lose?

Edit: Someone already said what I did. Sorry should have read the whole thread.

BigZuck
Posts: 10872
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby BigZuck » Mon Nov 17, 2014 2:23 am

Wait is he saying that without the addendum he would not have been accepted but because he did send one he got in with a full ride? That seems pretty dumb if so. Or is he saying he would have got in, but only at sticker? Or only with a half ride? What exactly is his argument as the addendum related to his cycle? I'd ask him myself but he seems pretty mad right now.

User avatar
PeanutsNJam
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby PeanutsNJam » Mon Nov 17, 2014 2:52 am

I mean, I guess it can't hurt to submit an addendum claiming that your low test scores are not indicative of your future performance in law school. I.E. you got shitty SAT/ACT scores, but have a high UG GPA. So maybe with a low LSAT score, you can still have a high LSAT GPA.

But there's no way that it's a game changer, just like how a GPA addendum won't get me into a school where my GPA is below their floor. Ad comms will first look at how you will affect their medians. If you're a splitter, I'm guessing they'd take a closer look at your PS/recs/WE/addendums to determine if they want you, so write an addendum, but don't bank on it moving you from waitlist material to full scholly material.

speckledsparrow
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:19 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby speckledsparrow » Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:13 am

.
Last edited by speckledsparrow on Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:43 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 » Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:14 am

BigZuck wrote:Wait is he saying that without the addendum he would not have been accepted but because he did send one he got in with a full ride? That seems pretty dumb if so. Or is he saying he would have got in, but only at sticker? Or only with a half ride? What exactly is his argument as the addendum related to his cycle? I'd ask him myself but he seems pretty mad right now.


My LSAT addendum is not the sole reason why I was accepted. I was accepted because I was a URM with challenging work experience, had a high gpa from undergrad, performed well in a challenging under grad program, and had a history of low test scores as evidenced by my SAT/ACT scores. If I didn't write an addendum the school would not have considered my application further. I would have been an automatic denial.

My LSAT addendum made the law schools give less weight to my LSAT score because they saw after reading it, that I have performed well academically and professionally despite scoring very low on the SAT/ACT. They also saw my SAT/ACT scores which proved that I don't perform well on standardized tests. If my LSAT addendum played no part, then certainly URM's with higher LSAT scores or similar LSAT scores would be accepted to T20s to T50s. As I have consistently tried to state, the LSAT addendum can be used for people who have a history of low performance on tests. This is why I used it. And without it, my application does not get further consideration.

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

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby sparty99 » Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:17 am

speckledsparrow wrote:Thanks for the advice everyone. I am going to refrain from applying this cycle and wait and take the test a 4th time after fully exploring what is available in terms of legal practice and deciding if I really want to go to law school. This is not an issue of self esteem. This is an issue of integrity. I would like to apply with integrity, if I choose to do so.


"Integrity?" What the hell does that mean. You are going to get screwed by corporate america. You clearly don't know how to play "the game." Anyways, if I would have known you can take the LSAT a 4th time, I would have simply told you to retake the fucking test and don't do an addendum. You have wasted everyone's time.

speckledsparrow
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:19 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby speckledsparrow » Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:18 am

.
Last edited by speckledsparrow on Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

speckledsparrow
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:19 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby speckledsparrow » Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:20 am

.
Last edited by speckledsparrow on Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:44 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 » Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:22 am

speckledsparrow wrote:
sparty99 wrote:
BigZuck wrote:Wait is he saying that without the addendum he would not have been accepted but because he did send one he got in with a full ride? That seems pretty dumb if so. Or is he saying he would have got in, but only at sticker? Or only with a half ride? What exactly is his argument as the addendum related to his cycle? I'd ask him myself but he seems pretty mad right now.


My LSAT addendum is not the sole reason why I was accepted. I was accepted because I was a URM with challenging work experience, had a high gpa from undergrad, performed well in a challenging under grad program, and had a history of low test scores as evidenced by my SAT/ACT scores. If I didn't write an addendum the school would not have considered my application further. I would have been an automatic denial.

My LSAT addendum made the law schools give less weight to my LSAT score because they saw after reading it, that I have performed well academically and professionally despite scoring very low on the SAT/ACT. They also saw my SAT/ACT scores which proved that I don't perform well on standardized tests. If my LSAT addendum played no part, then certainly URM's with higher LSAT scores or similar LSAT scores would be accepted to T20s to T50s. As I have consistently tried to state, the LSAT addendum can be used for people who have a history of low performance on tests. This is why I used it. And without it, my application does not get further consideration.


I know this is a different situation but knowing an affluent African American girl with a 2.3 who got a Fulbright, I'm very skeptical that you would not have gotten further consideration. But that is what it is. Skepticism.

Maybe if we got rid of this URM bullshit could we more directly conclude your LSAT addendum had an impact.

Again, I am so sorry for wasting everyone's time.


You are right. URM's with my credentials get into T20 to T50s all the time. My bad.

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

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby sparty99 » Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:25 am

speckledsparrow wrote:
sparty99 wrote:
speckledsparrow wrote:Thanks for the advice everyone. I am going to refrain from applying this cycle and wait and take the test a 4th time after fully exploring what is available in terms of legal practice and deciding if I really want to go to law school. This is not an issue of self esteem. This is an issue of integrity. I would like to apply with integrity, if I choose to do so.


"Integrity?" What the hell does that mean. You are going to get screwed by corporate america. You clearly don't know how to play "the game." Anyways, if I would have known you can take the LSAT a 4th time, I would have simply told you to retake the fucking test and don't do an addendum. You have wasted everyone's time.


This post says a whole lot about you than me. Must I repeat, I am not a URM. What benefit do YOU acquire from giving me advice that would more likely be congruent to a URM's situation, should the URM in question have poor standardized test performance?

And frankly, more people have been posting in response to YOUR input, not mine.


I never said you were a URM. WHAT YOU FAILED TO REALIZE YOU TWAT, WAS THAT LSAT ADDENDUMS ARE WRITTEN FOR PEOPLE WITH LOW TEST SCORES. YOU STATED YOU HAVE A HISTORY OF LOW PERFORMANCE. DAMN. I TOLD YOU TO WRITE AN ADDENDUM IF THAT WAS THE CASE. JESUS CHRIST. YOU KNOW WHAT......WHY DON'T YOU JUST GOOGLE LSAT ADDENDUM'S AND READ THAT ADVICE!!! IT'S THE SAME SHIT I'VE BEEN SAYING. YOU UNGRATEFUL HEIFER.

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

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby sparty99 » Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:28 am

ADVICE FROM NYU:

Some Reasons to Write an Addendum

• A long gap in your college attendance or resume.
• Academic misconduct, disciplinary action in college, or a criminal record.
AN LSAT SCORE that does not accurately reflect your law school potential (only if you are able to demonstrate prior
academic excellence despite low standardized test scores). For example, if you scored a 1000 on your SAT, but were able to graduate with a GPA of 3.9, the SAT was obviously a poor predictor of your college performance, and there would be reason to believe that the LSAT might be a poor predictor of your law school performance. In such a case, you should include an official copy of your SAT or ACT score, along with an addendum, discussing prior poor standardized test scores and excellent academic performance.

http://prelaw.cas.nyu.edu/docs/CP/2746/ ... to,-79,644

Poopface
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:03 am

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby Poopface » Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:34 am

sparty99 wrote:
BigZuck wrote:Wait is he saying that without the addendum he would not have been accepted but because he did send one he got in with a full ride? That seems pretty dumb if so. Or is he saying he would have got in, but only at sticker? Or only with a half ride? What exactly is his argument as the addendum related to his cycle? I'd ask him myself but he seems pretty mad right now.


My LSAT addendum is not the sole reason why I was accepted. I was accepted because I was a URM with challenging work experience, had a high gpa from undergrad, performed well in a challenging under grad program, and had a history of low test scores as evidenced by my SAT/ACT scores. If I didn't write an addendum the school would not have considered my application further. I would have been an automatic denial.

My LSAT addendum made the law schools give less weight to my LSAT score because they saw after reading it, that I have performed well academically and professionally despite scoring very low on the SAT/ACT. They also saw my SAT/ACT scores which proved that I don't perform well on standardized tests. If my LSAT addendum played no part, then certainly URM's with higher LSAT scores or similar LSAT scores would be accepted to T20s to T50s. As I have consistently tried to state, the LSAT addendum can be used for people who have a history of low performance on tests. This is why I used it. And without it, my application does not get further consideration.



Uhh maybe the other URMs with the higher LSATs that you jumped had way shittier GPAs and no work experience. You didn't jump people with higher LSATs just because you wrote an addendum

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

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby fats provolone » Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:38 am

why do you keep saying T50

why don't you just say "a law school"

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

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby sparty99 » Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:44 am

Poopface wrote:
sparty99 wrote:
BigZuck wrote:Wait is he saying that without the addendum he would not have been accepted but because he did send one he got in with a full ride? That seems pretty dumb if so. Or is he saying he would have got in, but only at sticker? Or only with a half ride? What exactly is his argument as the addendum related to his cycle? I'd ask him myself but he seems pretty mad right now.


My LSAT addendum is not the sole reason why I was accepted. I was accepted because I was a URM with challenging work experience, had a high gpa from undergrad, performed well in a challenging under grad program, and had a history of low test scores as evidenced by my SAT/ACT scores. If I didn't write an addendum the school would not have considered my application further. I would have been an automatic denial.

My LSAT addendum made the law schools give less weight to my LSAT score because they saw after reading it, that I have performed well academically and professionally despite scoring very low on the SAT/ACT. They also saw my SAT/ACT scores which proved that I don't perform well on standardized tests. If my LSAT addendum played no part, then certainly URM's with higher LSAT scores or similar LSAT scores would be accepted to T20s to T50s. As I have consistently tried to state, the LSAT addendum can be used for people who have a history of low performance on tests. This is why I used it. And without it, my application does not get further consideration.



Uhh maybe the other URMs with the higher LSATs that you jumped had way shittier GPAs and no work experience. You didn't jump people with higher LSATs just because you wrote an addendum


GODDAMN. I NEVER SAID I JUMPED OTHER URMS JUST BECAUSE I WROTE AN ADDENDUM. HOWEVER, I DID SAY THE ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE DOESN'T EVEN CONSIDER MY APPLICATION IF I DID NOT WRITE A LSAT ADDENDUM WHICH STATES MY SAT/ACT SCORES. IT WOULD HAVE GONE STRAIGHT TO THE FUCKING TRASH.

I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND THAT MY ADDENDUM PLAYED A PART IN MY ACCEPTANCE. JESUS CHRIST. RATHER THAN BASHING ME, I WOULD BE TAKING MY ADVICE. I OBVIOUSLY KNOW WHAT I'M DOING.

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

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby fats provolone » Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:46 am

i think most biglaw firms offer free confidential counseling btw

just a thought

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

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby sparty99 » Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:47 am

fats provolone wrote:why do you keep saying T50

why don't you just say "a law school"


Because "a law school" could mean Cooley Law or Vermont Law School. And there is a difference between having acceptance at Vermont Law School and USC!

speckledsparrow
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:19 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby speckledsparrow » Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:50 am

.
Last edited by speckledsparrow on Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
downbeat14
Posts: 545
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:00 am

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby downbeat14 » Mon Nov 17, 2014 4:00 am

Sparty, the point is you have no reputable idea why you were selected, unless you had a conversation with the person executing the decision (I didn't read the whole thread, so maybe you said this). No real point in speculating really about the specific reason you were admitted because (1) you can't actually know for sure, and (2) even then you can't reliably predict anything at all about the OP based on that because it's an apples to oranges comparison with your URM status and softs.

As to (2), pretty sure the point of the thread was for OP to get advice rather than to figure out why you got in to a "meh" school with money. Also, OP said they were interested in T20 or T14 (I believe earlier ITT), so not sure your circumstance is highly relevant to the topic at hand on two fronts.

Maybe it's best you do what you said you were going to do the last 5 times and be "done" with the thread. If you keep responding in all caps at people, you are going to just fuel the fire further and take away from the part of the conversation that was meant to help out the poster and future readers with similar questions (which I think is the point of this site, at least in the immediate sense in the admissions advice sections). Or you're welcome to supply entertainment value for random strangers on the internet if you'd like.

Also, lol at quoting NYU's admissions page. Pretty sure a lot of schools write that on their websites in order to keep collecting app fees from auto-dings. Good for business no less...

The truth is, OP sitting out until they can get a better score is much more likely to produce a financially viable scenario than writing an addendum and applying with subpar numbers at present. For the VAST majority of non-URM candidates, an LSAT significantly below the 25th is a near auto-ding. And for any school worth attending (not yours Sparty), OP will be in that category until they retake and improve (by a lot) given their current numbers and lack of mega-softs.
Last edited by downbeat14 on Mon Nov 17, 2014 4:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby sparty99 » Mon Nov 17, 2014 4:00 am

WOW. REALLY? I guess you were too blind to realize the advice from Boalt could also work for you as well. I guess you failed to realize that you could use that sample BOALT addendum as an example as to how to write an addendum. I don't remember the addendum saying, "I'm a URM ad that's why I scored low." I suppose you are also the person who won't join BLSA because you are not black.

Don't worry about me and the law. I'm not the one asking for advice.

speckledsparrow
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:19 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby speckledsparrow » Mon Nov 17, 2014 4:00 am

.
Last edited by speckledsparrow on Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anon.y.mousse., bellaboo, bleakchimera2, dan9257, Rich29, UVA2B and 8 guests