LSAC changes its long-standing policy on "3x in 2 yrs" limit Forum

[Jack Smirks]

Change the thread title to "LSAC Changes its Waiver Policy" and this thread might be accurate.

[incompetentia]

If you're treating the test that is going to determine what is likely your final step of your education as something that you can blow off three times and still be okay, then you need to step back.


I understand there are exceptions to this rule. No entity is going to take the time to make policy that takes into account all these exceptions, but I would argue that the waiver from them should still cover these.

[fatduck]

you should just be able to submit your best PT score, using the honor system

[Cartman]

There's a lot of douchebaggery going on in this thread. Something that is common among a few of the elitist pricks that habit the site.

Look I myself couldn't imagine sitting for more than 3 tests, much less 3 itself, but I recognize that many students may not be as fortunate to have the luxury of being able to do well the first or second times.

3 should be enough, but it may not always be - so who the fuck cares if someone takes it more than 3? Is it any skin off your back? Or LSAC's, for that matter? Personally, I don't understand the policy in the first place. If a law school sees 4 or 5 takes and decides that this negatively reflects on the test takers ability, then that should be their prerogative. Why must LSAC become involved? If anything, you'd think that they wouldn't care how many tests the student takes - more retakes = more $$.

People standing on soapboxes are people standing on soapboxes.

[buckilaw]

Good. If someone can't get it right after 3 chances within two years they should probably give up.

We all have bad days. I took the test for the 2nd time.

What if I couldn't make it due to some unforeseeable circumstances?

I doubt LSAC would be sympathetic, given that how stingy they are with accommodations.

I wouldn't be surprised if some lawsuits against LSAC were initiated in the event someone was denied this rule. The LSAC cannot act as a gatekeeper to one's educational pursuit. This rule is bullsh*t to begin with.

Couple downsides to bringing suit against LSAC: 1. You look bad 2. Even if you win, you won't, you still need to ask LSAT to send your applications 3. I suspect LSAC may never receive your LORS if you go this route.

The only potential benefit I can see to bringing suit against LSAC is that a law school hopeful would become painfully aware of what a motion to dismiss is.

[fatduck]

The LSAC cannot act as a gatekeeper to one's educational pursuit. This rule is bullsh*t to begin with.

i wasn't able to find this in my copy of the constitution. is it somewhere obscure like the U.N. charter?

[Jeffort]

"...or if your score is otherwise not reported." = Does not necessarily include missed tests or absences, in my opinion. Is there any specific reference regarding missed tests or absences ? Thanks !

P.S. I agree that three sittings within a 2 year period is enough, but absences due to illness or traffic accidents & the like should not count, in my opinion.

There is nothing in the policy stating that pulling an absent counts against the 3 times rule. ABSENT hasn't counted against the limit before and nothing in the text of the new policy appears to have changed that.

The text: "You may not take the LSAT more than three times in any two-year period." If you didn't show up and check-in to take the test, you didn't 'take' the test that administration, instead you flaked out and DIDN'T take the test.

[lakers3peat]

well I sure hope Jeffort is right because I registed for october but my uncle died so I never took it. I choked under pressure in December and I'm not feeling like I hit my goal after June so according to the OP, I'm shit out of luck? Hopefully Jeffort is right.

[WhatSarahSaid]

The LSAC cannot act as a gatekeeper to one's educational pursuit. This rule is bullsh*t to begin with.

i wasn't able to find this in my copy of the constitution. is it somewhere obscure like the U.N. charter?

http://pbskids.org/stantonanthony/bill_of_rights.html

[SchopenhauerFTW]

Good. If someone can't get it right after 3 chances within two years they should probably give up.

I'll never get my 170+ now.

[Bildungsroman]

Good. If someone can't get it right after 3 chances within two years they should probably give up.

I'll never get my 170+ now.

I'll give you an exemption from that statement.

[JurisDoctorate]

"You may not take the LSAT more than three times in any two-year period. This policy applies even if you cancel your score or if your score is not otherwise reported."

Do you think registering for the LSAT (and then canceling) constitutes taking the LSAT?

[Gecko of Doom]

Couple downsides to bringing suit against LSAC: 1. You look bad 2. Even if you win, you won't, you still need to ask LSAT to send your applications 3. I suspect LSAC may never receive your LORS if you go this route.

The only potential benefit I can see to bringing suit against LSAC is that a law school hopeful would become painfully aware of what a motion to dismiss is.

I don't even get what grounds there would be to sue. I mean, it's not like LSAC is acting as a "gatekeeper" in that it keeps people from applying to law schools. People just might not have scores high enough to get into the ones they want. Suing because your LSAT score is too low? I don't see anyone taking that seriously.

[joebloe]

The thing is, it's become pretty common knowledge that many if not most law schools will grant waivers to retake without even batting an eye. The effect is that LSAC's three-in-two rule becomes a paper tiger, which is simply unfair to those who haven't recognized this. So LSAC could either enhance enforcement or dispense with the rule entirely. Presumably, the limitation on retakes is necessary to maintain the integrity of the test process, so it seems pretty obvious what their choice would be.

[suspicious android]

Interesting, but we have no idea how lenient they'll be with the waivers. Until then, it's just speculation, this might not change anything. For all we know "The guy next to me was tapping my pencil and it totally destroyed my concentration" might be enough still.

[Holly Golightly]

Can I retake just for fun even though I'm already done with 1L?

[slacker]

There's a lot of douchebaggery going on in this thread. Something that is common among a few of the elitist pricks that habit the site.

Look I myself couldn't imagine sitting for more than 3 tests, much less 3 itself, but I recognize that many students may not be as fortunate to have the luxury of being able to do well the first or second times.

3 should be enough, but it may not always be - so who the fuck cares if someone takes it more than 3? Is it any skin off your back? Or LSAC's, for that matter? Personally, I don't understand the policy in the first place. If a law school sees 4 or 5 takes and decides that this negatively reflects on the test takers ability, then that should be their prerogative. Why must LSAC become involved? If anything, you'd think that they wouldn't care how many tests the student takes - more retakes = more $$.

People standing on soapboxes are people standing on soapboxes.

You can simulate the testing experience using all the released PTs if you want. So doing well the first or second time just comes down to preparation really. I agree with the rest of what you said though. There isn't any reason for a limit.

[joebloe]

There's a lot of douchebaggery going on in this thread. Something that is common among a few of the elitist pricks that habit the site.

Look I myself couldn't imagine sitting for more than 3 tests, much less 3 itself, but I recognize that many students may not be as fortunate to have the luxury of being able to do well the first or second times.

3 should be enough, but it may not always be - so who the fuck cares if someone takes it more than 3? Is it any skin off your back? Or LSAC's, for that matter? Personally, I don't understand the policy in the first place. If a law school sees 4 or 5 takes and decides that this negatively reflects on the test takers ability, then that should be their prerogative. Why must LSAC become involved? If anything, you'd think that they wouldn't care how many tests the student takes - more retakes = more $$.

People standing on soapboxes are people standing on soapboxes.

I'm pretty sure the 3 in 2 rule has more to do with people with no intention of applying to law school taking the tests, rather than people who actually will apply to schools. That would certainly explain to me why schools have been so easy with the waivers up until now.

[runplaystudy]

I totally agree that if you can't get it right within three tries you probably should just let it go...

At the same time, this is getting in the way of a test taker's future - the LSAC should NOT be the gatekeepers of entrance into law school to that extent. Besides, if someone wants to pay to take the test four times I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to. It's their choice and it's their future, the LSAC has too much power as it is really.

[WhatSarahSaid]

At the same time, this is getting in the way of a test taker's future - the LSAC should NOT be the gatekeepers of entrance into law school to that extent.

This point keeps coming up. Doesn't the LSAC write the test? Isn't that significantly more gatekeeper-y, or whatever, than just restricting people from taking it a fourth time?

Furthermore, why are people assuming that they'll readily deny testtakers?

[Ocean64]

i think i know... LSAC is trying to do is keep Robin Singh of TM from taking the test every other administration like he usually does lol

[NYC Law]

Looks like a reasonable policy. If you don't like it then just wait an extra year and quit being a whiny bitch.

[fatduck]

quit being a whiny bitch.

you're asking too much

[KevinP]

i think i know... LSAC is trying to do is keep Robin Singh of TM from taking the test every other administration like he usually does lol

Lol!

[Jeffort]

i think i know... LSAC is trying to do is keep Robin Singh of TM from taking the test every other administration like he usually does lol

Lol!

If that's the case, then LSAC is REALLY slow. Last time Robin took it was 2003.