Really Sad, Depressed, and Crying Over Today's LSAT Forum

[soj]

I don't know. If any wonky factors precipitated a cancellation I feel like it would behoove the applicant to address them in an addendum, and doesn't the supposed difference between a cancellation and a less than stellar score have something to do with not needing to write an addendum?

I understand it to be that the subpar score/good score would require an addendum more so than cancel/good score. You would need to explain why you did so poorly the first time around when it's clear from your second score that you could do better. A cancel could also necessitate an explanation, but not as much as would performing below your potential.

I agree with you, but very few schools (only YS, really) can afford to be this picky. And even YS seems to care a lot more about actual softs than whether you canceled a potentially shitty score. I'd tend to err on the side of not canceling unless you completely bombed, but I definitely understand the feeling. Test after test plenty of people who were tempted to cancel find out their scores and are glad they didn't. Of course, more people end up disappointed.

Yeah, I guess I'm an overly cautious person when it comes to these types of things... I hate having to HOPE that I did well instead of just knowing that I did. Winding up in the majority of disappointed folks would be terrible for such an important admissions factor.

Makes sense. Best of luck to you! And taking a year off after UG is SO credited.

[beautyistruth]

Would you change any of the advice for a non-URM in the same situation? Obviously re-taking in December will be most definitely necessary. That said, should I cancel rather than risk a 165(ish) score? 3.7 from University of Washington, pretty average softs.

[carboncopyx]

Did you expect to dominate the test based on your PTs? And are you prepared to sit this cycle out if you feel the same way after December?

I ask because I'm in a similar boat.

I actually did not expect to dominate based off of my PTs--I had been doing well (got into 172/173 about a week before the test), but I did not yet feel like I was peaking. I am very particular about standardized tests (don't even get me started about what I did for the SAT back in high school!), and I am pretty stubborn about not taking these types of things for real unless I am 110% prepared. Given eight more weeks, though, I do expect to fully understand the test and dominate it come December. I think it is a very learnable test, all in all.

I don't think I will feel the same way after December, to be honest. I'm not even entertaining the idea in my head of December being anything less than stellar. I'm submitting all the rest of my applications earlier, so applying this cycle is going to happen regardless. If I truly screw it up, though, I do have other options--I am still applying and interviewing for post-grad job openings, and I also do have a return offer from the firm I was with over the summer. So am I prepared to not go to law school next year? Sort of, there are things that I can do. Am I approaching the test as if I had other options? No, December is do or die. Burning your bridges is often the best way of ensuring success.

[carboncopyx]

Would you change any of the advice for a non-URM in the same situation? Obviously re-taking in December will be most definitely necessary. That said, should I cancel rather than risk a 165(ish) score? 3.7 from University of Washington, pretty average softs.

Depends on what schools you're aiming for. HYS (especially H) have a preference for only having one score, but the rest don't mind as much.

[honeybadger12]

Did you just take it?

I did, and it went all right (didn't find LG to be unusually difficult). But I didn't walk out feeling like I completely dominated the test, either. So I canceled.

Did you expect to dominate the test based on your PTs? And are you prepared to sit this cycle out if you feel the same way after December?

I ask because I'm in a similar boat.

What was your PT average over the last four tests and what is your estimate for the real thing?

[SantIvo]

Did you just take it?

I did, and it went all right (didn't find LG to be unusually difficult). But I didn't walk out feeling like I completely dominated the test, either. So I canceled.

Did you expect to dominate the test based on your PTs? And are you prepared to sit this cycle out if you feel the same way after December?

I ask because I'm in a similar boat.

What was your PT average over the last four tests and what is your estimate for the real thing?

Last four tests: 179, 180, 171, 170. The variability is due to games performance, which, being my Achilles heel, typically dictates my overall score.

Because I bricked game one on the real thing, my guess is that I scored somewhere in the low 170s (worst case being a 169). Not sure how to proceed in light of all this.

edit: I should also say that I've exhausted all my test materials. No more fresh PTs left.

[beautyistruth]

Would you change any of the advice for a non-URM in the same situation? Obviously re-taking in December will be most definitely necessary. That said, should I cancel rather than risk a 165(ish) score? 3.7 from University of Washington, pretty average softs.

Depends on what schools you're aiming for. HYS (especially H) have a preference for only having one score, but the rest don't mind as much.

I'd be happy with any T-14 admittance and over the moon if I got into CCN. Thanks for the advice

[DaRascal]

I'm in the exact same boat. I wasn't CRYING over the LSAT but I was PISSED with games. I honestly had my best performance ever on LR and RC... Way better than any PT I've ever done. So I just wanted to kill LG and be content with having put forth my best effort possible regardless of my score and then that f***ing zoning game had to come up. Like you I also spent a good 8 or 9 minutes on the first game but I notice that games 2 and 3 were much easier but EVEN THEN I always tend to get replacement questions wrong and stupid questions wrong so I could have gone -4 or -5 in games 1-3 and then I had to guess on about 4 of the last game so assuming no correct guesses I could be -8 or -9 and I could likewise be overestimating my LR and RC performance although I honestly feel I went -6 on LR cumulatively at worst and -5 on RC at worst.

So that would mean at worst I believe I got -20. What would -20 even give me? I had a 158 in June. Like OP I'm a URM (Puerto Rican male) with a 3.6.

This is so funny how we're in exactly the same boat, OP. I'm not going to let a friggin zoning game ruin my life and lock me out of T14 though. I'll try again in December if I have to! (Although I just wonder if I'll be able to be in the zone like that again on RC and LR )


Btw, I had RC-LR-RC-LG-LR so unlike you I had to control my emotions (anger on my part) because I still had a section to go.

[SantIvo]

This boat that we're all in must be quite large.

[sinfiery]

Would you change any of the advice for a non-URM in the same situation? Obviously re-taking in December will be most definitely necessary. That said, should I cancel rather than risk a 165(ish) score? 3.7 from University of Washington, pretty average softs.

Depends on what schools you're aiming for. HYS (especially H) have a preference for only having one score, but the rest don't mind as much.

Doesn't H say something along the lines of, The LSAT need only be taken once. A cancel on your transcript is definite proof that the LSAT was indeed not only taken once.

But they also say they take all scores into consideration, which could mean 50/50% importance or 99.999/.001%. We just don't know...

[carboncopyx]

Doesn't H say something along the lines of, The LSAT need only be taken once. A cancel on your transcript is definite proof that the LSAT was indeed not only taken once.

But they also say they take all scores into consideration, which could mean 50/50% importance or 99.999/.001%. We just don't know...

But a subpar score is definite proof that not only did you take it more than once, but you didn't do that hot, either...

[sinfiery]

Doesn't H say something along the lines of, The LSAT need only be taken once. A cancel on your transcript is definite proof that the LSAT was indeed not only taken once.

But they also say they take all scores into consideration, which could mean 50/50% importance or 99.999/.001%. We just don't know...

But a subpar score is definite proof that not only did you take it more than once, but you didn't do that hot, either...

the latter being something they don't mention as caring about

but of course we assume one would

[SantIvo]

Doesn't H say something along the lines of, The LSAT need only be taken once. A cancel on your transcript is definite proof that the LSAT was indeed not only taken once.

But they also say they take all scores into consideration, which could mean 50/50% importance or 99.999/.001%. We just don't know...

But a subpar score is definite proof that not only did you take it more than once, but you didn't do that hot, either...

While I agree that an applicant ought to cancel if they're sure they bombed and will surely be receiving a score they wouldn't apply with, I think it makes more sense not to cancel if the possibility of an adequate score (which obviously varies from person to person) still remains. IMHO, the possible benefits of receiving an acceptable score (unblemished record, earlier application, etc.) far outweigh the potential drawbacks (having a confirmed sub par score on the record as opposed to having what is only very probably a sub par score -- indeed, the decision to cancel might even be perceived as an indication of a score so bad that it wasn't even worth taking a chance on). Also, cancelling an October score puts tremendous pressure on the December exam: should something go awry during that administration the applicant is essentially out for the year with no score to their name and only one chance left to take the test; thus I fully disagree with the notion that burning one's bridges is a good way to ensure success.

In short, I feel like what any applicant stands to gain from canceling a potentially respectable score is murkily understood at best, and what they stand to lose is significant enough that it's worth at least seeing that first score (so long as it's potentially respectable).

[carboncopyx]

While I agree that an applicant ought to cancel if they're sure they bombed and will surely be receiving a score they wouldn't apply with, I think it makes more sense not to cancel if the possibility of an adequate score (which obviously varies from person to person) still remains. IMHO, the possible benefits of receiving an acceptable score (unblemished record, earlier application, etc.) far outweigh the potential drawbacks (having a confirmed sub par score on the record as opposed to having what is only very probably a sub par score -- indeed, the decision to cancel might even be perceived as an indication of a score so bad that it wasn't even worth taking a chance on). Also, cancelling an October score puts tremendous pressure on the December exam: should something go awry during that administration the applicant is essentially out for the year with no score to their name and only one chance left to take the test; thus I fully disagree with the notion that burning one's bridges is a good way to ensure success.

In short, I feel like what any applicant stands to gain from canceling a potentially respectable score is murkily understood at best, and what they stand to lose is significant enough that it's worth at least seeing that first score (so long as it's potentially respectable).

To each thine own. I have extremely high standards and also like having to perform under pressure, so what works for me might not work for you.

[beautyistruth]

Doesn't H say something along the lines of, The LSAT need only be taken once. A cancel on your transcript is definite proof that the LSAT was indeed not only taken once.

But they also say they take all scores into consideration, which could mean 50/50% importance or 99.999/.001%. We just don't know...

But a subpar score is definite proof that not only did you take it more than once, but you didn't do that hot, either...

I also assume all sub-par scores are not created equal? 140-175 would have to be much worse than a 168-175. At what point is a score so embarassing that it's going to hurt to have it on your record? Or is everything under the schools 25 percentile generally considered a shit score that makes you look bad?

[carboncopyx]

I also assume all sub-par scores are not created equal? 140-175 would have to be much worse than a 168-175. At what point is a score so embarassing that it's going to hurt to have it on your record? Or is everything under the schools 25 percentile generally considered a shit score that makes you look bad?

Who knows... that's probably a personal judgment call, and it'd be impossible to deduce where the adcom would draw that line, as well.

[DaRascal]

140-175?

Yeah right! Show me a case of that ever happening and I'll give you a million dollars.

[bitsy]

Elle Woods-- 143 to 179. pay up.

[abcde12345]

Harvard doesn't give a shit. They make a big fucking spreadsheet, organize it from best numbers to worst, and accept the first 900 names. Then they call them for 5 minutes to make them feel good.

[honeybadger12]

Last four tests: 179, 180, 171, 170. The variability is due to games performance, which, being my Achilles heel, typically dictates my overall score.

Because I bricked game one on the real thing, my guess is that I scored somewhere in the low 170s (worst case being a 169). Not sure how to proceed in light of all this.

edit: I should also say that I've exhausted all my test materials. No more fresh PTs left.

Yeah I probably wouldn't cancel in your shoes; I also thought low 170s after the test and I ended up with a good score, and I don't think even a 169 or 170/174 is much worse than a C/174. Shouldn't be a problem that you don't have fresh PTs. You can still use the PTs to study. Also you've clearly spent a lot of time studying already and have gotten a 180 on a PT. That means you know what you're doing, it's at the point where you just gotta execute on game day.

[SantIvo]

While I agree that an applicant ought to cancel if they're sure they bombed and will surely be receiving a score they wouldn't apply with, I think it makes more sense not to cancel if the possibility of an adequate score (which obviously varies from person to person) still remains. IMHO, the possible benefits of receiving an acceptable score (unblemished record, earlier application, etc.) far outweigh the potential drawbacks (having a confirmed sub par score on the record as opposed to having what is only very probably a sub par score -- indeed, the decision to cancel might even be perceived as an indication of a score so bad that it wasn't even worth taking a chance on). Also, cancelling an October score puts tremendous pressure on the December exam: should something go awry during that administration the applicant is essentially out for the year with no score to their name and only one chance left to take the test; thus I fully disagree with the notion that burning one's bridges is a good way to ensure success.

In short, I feel like what any applicant stands to gain from canceling a potentially respectable score is murkily understood at best, and what they stand to lose is significant enough that it's worth at least seeing that first score (so long as it's potentially respectable).

To each thine own. I have extremely high standards and also like having to perform under pressure, so what works for me might not work for you.

All certainly true and fair enough points. The only question I'd ask, though -- and I apologize if I'm being excessively nosy/adversarial -- is how you made the decision to write the test if you had only recently achieved your minimum acceptable score. Given your high standards, why did you risk having to cancel when you could still see room for growth?

[sinfiery]

To each thine own. I have extremely high standards and also like having to perform under pressure, so what works for me might not work for you.

The risk is you're playing against the perfect applicant in your head. Which means absolutely nothing.

The real game is playing against the other applicants. Of course, being a perfect applicant is sufficient to win this game but it is far from necessary.


If you find this task too easy, and want to play it on "Hard" mode, I suppose you can carry on.

[sunynp]

To each thine own. I have extremely high standards and also like having to perform under pressure, so what works for me might not work for you.

The risk is you're playing against the perfect applicant in your head. Which means absolutely nothing.

The real game is playing against the other applicants. Of course, being a perfect applicant is sufficient to win this game but it is far from necessary.


If you find this task too easy, and want to play it on "Hard" mode, I suppose you can carry on.

I think that you shouldn't cancel because you need to see what your actual score was. You don't know what the curve will be. It is stupid to cancel because your ego tells you that you didn't do as well as you absolutely could. It is also just something made up in your head because you don't know your score.

I never considered cancelling and i had no idea of how well I did. But I wanted the score to see where I screwed up if I needed to retake. That information is valuable in preparing for the next exam.

[carboncopyx]

All certainly true and fair enough points. The only question I'd ask, though -- and I apologize if I'm being excessively nosy/adversarial -- is how you made the decision to write the test if you had only recently achieved your minimum acceptable score. Given your high standards, why did you risk having to cancel when you could still see room for growth?

I'd discussed my options with my school's career counselor and the law student next door (I go to college at a T6 law school) in the days before the test, and they both told me that one cancel is nothing to worry about and that if I thought I would get some value out of the actual-day testing experience, I should go ahead and sit for the exam. I wasn't risking a cancel so much as I was going into the test with the intention of canceling (and only keeping the score if I felt like I DESTROYED the test, with 5+ minutes at the end of every section to go over my answers). I got a lot of the experience (the test site, the proctor, getting there, etc.), so I don't regret doing it. I think sitting for the test in October actually made me more confident and calm about December.

The risk is you're playing against the perfect applicant in your head. Which means absolutely nothing.

The real game is playing against the other applicants. Of course, being a perfect applicant is sufficient to win this game but it is far from necessary.


If you find this task too easy, and want to play it on "Hard" mode, I suppose you can carry on.

I like challenges. And I don't like relying on factors I can't control (i.e. other people's relative scores) to succeed.

I think that you shouldn't cancel because you need to see what your actual score was. You don't know what the curve will be. It is stupid to cancel because your ego tells you that you didn't do as well as you absolutely could. It is also just something made up in your head because you don't know your score.

I never considered cancelling and i had no idea of how well I did. But I wanted the score to see where I screwed up if I needed to retake. That information is valuable in preparing for the next exam.

See above. Or I can just get to a point where I am getting ~175 on all my PTs so that when I do actually take a test for a score that I will submit, I will know exactly how well I did because of how prepared I will be.




Man, I am getting a lot of pushback against my testing/life philosophies right now, ha.

[M.M.]

I'm in the exact same boat. I wasn't CRYING over the LSAT but I was PISSED with games. I honestly had my best performance ever on LR and RC... Way better than any PT I've ever done. So I just wanted to kill LG and be content with having put forth my best effort possible regardless of my score and then that f***ing zoning game had to come up. Like you I also spent a good 8 or 9 minutes on the first game but I notice that games 2 and 3 were much easier but EVEN THEN I always tend to get replacement questions wrong and stupid questions wrong so I could have gone -4 or -5 in games 1-3 and then I had to guess on about 4 of the last game so assuming no correct guesses I could be -8 or -9 and I could likewise be overestimating my LR and RC performance although I honestly feel I went -6 on LR cumulatively at worst and -5 on RC at worst.

So that would mean at worst I believe I got -20. What would -20 even give me? I had a 158 in June. Like OP I'm a URM (Puerto Rican male) with a 3.6.

This is so funny how we're in exactly the same boat, OP. I'm not going to let a friggin zoning game ruin my life and lock me out of T14 though. I'll try again in December if I have to! (Although I just wonder if I'll be able to be in the zone like that again on RC and LR )


Btw, I had RC-LR-RC-LG-LR so unlike you I had to control my emotions (anger on my part) because I still had a section to go.

You literally described my test day experience. Down to the numbers. (Except I had 2 LG and thought I dominated the first and the second experimental.