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

[soj]

Soj, I remember reading your posts in the ASW threads for H and S, may I ask where you ended up matriculating?

One of the HYS.

[honeybadger12]

Soj, I remember reading your posts in the ASW threads for H and S, may I ask where you ended up matriculating?

One of the HYS.

Not that I care, but why the secrecy?

[soj]

Not that I care, but why the secrecy?

I don't know why I bother either, but I like to be slightly more anonymous in the on-topics.

[honeybadger12]

Not that I care, but why the secrecy?

I don't know why I bother either, but I like to be slightly more anonymous in the on-topics.

Fair enough

[pedestrian]

Did they really say that, or did they punt the question like all adcoms do, saying something like "we consider all the scores holistically"? Disfavoring retakers is, even at HYS, largely a flame designed to make the admissions process seem more holistic and less numbers-driven.

They really did say that. Both Deans came to my university for info sessions. I was in a situation where I could take October and risk getting a subpar score, and I asked them what they would advise me to do in my situation. Harvard told me explicitly that they would want to see ONE GOOD SCORE and only ONE good score rather than a subpar score thrown in the mix. Stanford was a bit more lenient about it, but they are in general more lax about the LSAT in comparison.

But that's a slightly different question isn't it? I'm not sure that a canceled score counts as "no score" in the same sense that waiting and only taking the test once does. If OP could go back in time and make a choice between taking the October test and getting a subpar score or waiting until December to get a great score, I think you are 100% right that he should take it once and get his best score.

The question is whether a "good but not great" score is worse than a canceled score. My sense is that a canceled score is read as "didn't do well" anyway, and it seems that there is a chance that OP actually did alright.

[carboncopyx]

Call me cynical, but that doesn't mean Harvard actually disfavors retakers. Harvard doesn't give a fuck if you have a 174 or a 170/174. Harvard just doesn't want you to get a 170, give up on the LSAT like so many stupid, lazy 0Ls do ("I can't retake! I have to go to law school next year!"), and then settle for a lower T14. Stanford is more lenient because Stanford doesn't give a fuck if you have a 170 or a 174.

I think the comparison that would be relevant here is between C/174 and 170/174, not between 170/174 and 170. 170/174 is definitely superior to just a 170, even thought it does include two scores. But given a choice between C/174 and 170/174, the C/174 has a slight edge. If your retake score rocks the universe (180), then sure, you can get away with submitting two scores to little detriment. But if the choice is between a subpar score/good score and cancel/good score, H has a preference for the latter. It's not so much a general disfavor as it is a consideration that one should take into account when trying to maximize one's chances relative to similar applicants.

[soj]

I think the comparison that would be relevant here is between C/174 and 170/174, not between 170/174 and 170. 170/174 is definitely superior to just a 170, even thought it does include two scores. But given a choice between C/174 and 170/174, the C/174 has a slight edge. If your retake score rocks the universe (180), then sure, you can get away with submitting two scores to little detriment. But if the choice is between a subpar score/good score and cancel/good score, H has a preference for the latter. It's not so much a general disfavor as it is a consideration that one should take into account when trying to maximize one's chances relative to similar applicants.

I don't know how top schools view C/174 vs. 170/174. My intuition is that neither is significantly worse than the other, and neither is significantly worse than 174. Even if H did tell you they prefer C/174 to a 170/174, I suspect that's because they don't want to risk having you get a 170 and decide to settle.

Like pedestrian said, the question you asked the deans is not "What's better: 170/174 or C/174?", but "What's better: 170/174 or 174?"

They really did say that. Both Deans came to my university for info sessions. I was in a situation where I could take October and risk getting a subpar score, and I asked them what they would advise me to do in my situation. Harvard told me explicitly that they would want to see ONE GOOD SCORE and only ONE good score rather than a subpar score thrown in the mix. Stanford was a bit more lenient about it, but they are in general more lax about the LSAT in comparison.

[SantIvo]

Call me cynical, but that doesn't mean Harvard actually disfavors retakers. Harvard doesn't give a fuck if you have a 174 or a 170/174. Harvard just doesn't want you to get a 170, give up on the LSAT like so many stupid, lazy 0Ls do ("I can't retake! I have to go to law school next year!"), and then settle for a lower T14. Stanford is more lenient because Stanford doesn't give a fuck if you have a 170 or a 174.

I think the comparison that would be relevant here is between C/174 and 170/174, not between 170/174 and 170. 170/174 is definitely superior to just a 170, even thought it does include two scores. But given a choice between C/174 and 170/174, the C/174 has a slight edge. If your retake score rocks the universe (180), then sure, you can get away with submitting two scores to little detriment. But if the choice is between a subpar score/good score and cancel/good score, H has a preference for the latter. It's not so much a general disfavor as it is a consideration that one should take into account when trying to maximize one's chances relative to similar applicants.

Fair enough, but that consideration has to be weighed against the possibility of canceling an adequate score, and the fact that canceling ensures a later submission of one's application. These are the issues I'm currently facing, so I'd be quite interested to know how relevant posters would proceed facing a potential October score range of 169 - 175. Would you wait and see the score, and then retake if it's sub 173, or just cancel and go full bore right into study mode?

[carboncopyx]

But that's a slightly different question isn't it? I'm not sure that a canceled score counts as "no score" in the same sense that waiting and only taking the test once does. If OP could go back in time and make a choice between taking the October test and getting a subpar score or waiting until December to get a great score, I think you are 100% right that he should take it once and get his best score.

The question is whether a "good but not great" score is worse than a canceled score. My sense is that a canceled score is read as "didn't do well" anyway, and it seems that there is a chance that OP actually did alright.

A canceled score is not a no-score, but a subpar score is DEFINITELY just a subpar score. There are so many reasons for having just one cancel on your record--off-day, getting sick, terrible testing conditions, etc.--that it would be impossible to speculate as to what an specific individual's cancel means. More than one cancel, though, is a problem. But while the adcom may not be able to infer much from ONE cancel, there's a world of inferences to be made from a subpar score (you were not adequately prepared; you could not adequately judge how badly you performed; you buckle under pressure--while these all may apply to the cancel, a cancel also opens up the realm of possibility in which you throw up in the middle of a section (and if you throw up in the middle of a section and don't cancel, then that's REALLY saying something about your judgment)).

[CalAlumni]

I failed to mention something that I should have, but it slipped my mind.

I have 2 absences so the question for me becomes: which of the following looks better?

A/A/165/173 or A/A/C/173

Absences were for good reasons...was busy opening offices in different states for my former Internet company...interviews with various finance/entrepreneur/technology magazines, etc.

[honeybadger12]

But that's a slightly different question isn't it? I'm not sure that a canceled score counts as "no score" in the same sense that waiting and only taking the test once does. If OP could go back in time and make a choice between taking the October test and getting a subpar score or waiting until December to get a great score, I think you are 100% right that he should take it once and get his best score.

The question is whether a "good but not great" score is worse than a canceled score. My sense is that a canceled score is read as "didn't do well" anyway, and it seems that there is a chance that OP actually did alright.

A canceled score is not a no-score, but a subpar score is DEFINITELY just a subpar score. There are so many reasons for having just one cancel on your record--off-day, getting sick, terrible testing conditions, etc.--that it would be impossible to speculate as to what an specific individual's cancel means. More than one cancel, though, is a problem. But while the adcom may not be able to infer much from ONE cancel, there's a world of inferences to be made from a subpar score (you were not adequately prepared; you could not adequately judge how badly you performed; you buckle under pressure--while these all may apply to the cancel, a cancel also opens up the realm of possibility in which you throw up in the middle of a section (and if you throw up in the middle of a section and don't cancel, then that's REALLY saying something about your judgment)).

Obviously hard to know for sure what adcomms think, but this post makes a lot of sense imo

[honeybadger12]

I failed to mention something that I should have, but it slipped my mind.

I have 2 absences so the question for me becomes: which of the following looks better?

A/A/165/173 or A/A/C/173

Absences were for good reasons...was busy opening offices in different states for my former Internet company...interviews with various finance/entrepreneur/technology magazines, etc.

I'm not a big fan of either; I'd say don't cancel if you already have two absences. By absence you mean absence, not withdrawal, right?

[carboncopyx]

Like pedestrian said, the question you asked the deans is not "What's better: 170/174 or C/174?", but "What's better: 170/174 or 174?"

That may be true. I guess it just depends on if they view "cancel" as an actual score or not. I do think there is something negative about a 170/174 in which the initial 170 "anchors" an otherwise great score, whereas C/174 does not have said numerical anchor. It's very easy to see 170/174 and average it in your head to 172, while C/174 translates to...? Who knows, but it doesn't create that immediate mental math calculation that would otherwise tarnish a great score. Just my two cents.

[WalkingPlato]

Let's assume the worst case. You got -3 on RC, -5 on LR, and -10 on LG. That's -18. With that, you could get around a 165 assuming the curve is about -12, which would not be unlikely. So, with this case, you have a 3.7X, ~165, and URM status.

I don't mean to be ignorant (and if this ends up sounding ignorant, I truly apologize), but it's the general concesus, and somewhat supported by statistics, that URMs have the bottom 25% designated to them, meaning that you don't need that great of an LSAT to get into a top school (relative to non-URMs). So, you'd be in at Berkeley and schools below, but it would be a bit tougher for top 6.

But, this is based on what you you did on the test. It's natural to fall below your PT on the real test. So even if you say you did well on other sections, it might not be true. So the worse case I mentioned above might be better than what you actually did.

I took the LSAT today and got crushed BIG TIME by the LG's. I had been PT'ing in the low 170's for PT's 60-66; although LG's were getting a bit harder, I've NEVER been crushed like this before.

First game had me stumped for a few minutes while drawing out the diagram and by the time I finished I was deep into the 35 min. and probably missed some there. Don't remember what happened in LG's 2-3 but upon hitting the last game--ZONES--I read it over and over but did not understand the game. This has never happened...I didn't get it. There are no words to describe it. I basically guessed on the last game and ended up writing the essay trying to hold back tears.

I did awesome on RC (super easy) probably -1 to -2. LR was easy except for the experimental which was first in the line up and crushed me, essentially destroying my confidence early: LR-RC-LR-LR-LG. I probably missed -2 to -4 in LR cumulatively max. but who really knows.

I'm Mexican-American URM and have a 3.7X from UC Berkeley. I don't know what to do, should I cancel?

[carboncopyx]

I failed to mention something that I should have, but it slipped my mind.

I have 2 absences so the question for me becomes: which of the following looks better?

A/A/165/173 or A/A/C/173

Absences were for good reasons...was busy opening offices in different states for my former Internet company...interviews with various finance/entrepreneur/technology magazines, etc.

That changes a lot. Don't cancel. The possibility of a good score as your third listing trumps the danger of three absences/cancellations in a row. Both of them don't look too great, but A/A/C will raise some eyebrows.

[SantIvo]

But that's a slightly different question isn't it? I'm not sure that a canceled score counts as "no score" in the same sense that waiting and only taking the test once does. If OP could go back in time and make a choice between taking the October test and getting a subpar score or waiting until December to get a great score, I think you are 100% right that he should take it once and get his best score.

The question is whether a "good but not great" score is worse than a canceled score. My sense is that a canceled score is read as "didn't do well" anyway, and it seems that there is a chance that OP actually did alright.

A canceled score is not a no-score, but a subpar score is DEFINITELY just a subpar score. There are so many reasons for having just one cancel on your record--off-day, getting sick, terrible testing conditions, etc.--that it would be impossible to speculate as to what an specific individual's cancel means. More than one cancel, though, is a problem. But while the adcom may not be able to infer much from ONE cancel, there's a world of inferences to be made from a subpar score (you were not adequately prepared; you could not adequately judge how badly you performed; you buckle under pressure--while these all may apply to the cancel, a cancel also opens up the realm of possibility in which you throw up in the middle of a section (and if you throw up in the middle of a section and don't cancel, then that's REALLY saying something about your judgment)).

Obviously hard to know for sure what adcomms think, but this post makes a lot of sense imo

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?

[CalAlumni]

I failed to mention something that I should have, but it slipped my mind.

I have 2 absences so the question for me becomes: which of the following looks better?

A/A/165/173 or A/A/C/173

Absences were for good reasons...was busy opening offices in different states for my former Internet company...interviews with various finance/entrepreneur/technology magazines, etc.

I'm not a big fan of either; I'd say don't cancel if you already have two absences. By absence you mean absence, not withdrawal, right?

The first absence was coincidentally at the time LSAC changed the rules for absences so all schools agreed collectively not to hold it against them (according to something official I read a long time ago when this happened.) So really, 1 bad absence...but won't taking a company from 0 in my mothers basement to 1M+ help mitigate that? Hopefully...

[soj]

That may be true. I guess it just depends on if they view "cancel" as an actual score or not. I do think there is something negative about a 170/174 in which the initial 170 "anchors" an otherwise great score, whereas C/174 does not have said numerical anchor. It's very easy to see 170/174 and average it in your head to 172, while C/174 translates to...? Who knows, but it doesn't create that immediate mental math calculation that would otherwise tarnish a great score. Just my two cents.

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.

[3ThrowAway99]

Like pedestrian said, the question you asked the deans is not "What's better: 170/174 or C/174?", but "What's better: 170/174 or 174?"

That may be true. I guess it just depends on if they view "cancel" as an actual score or not. I do think there is something negative about a 170/174 in which the initial 170 "anchors" an otherwise great score, whereas C/174 does not have said numerical anchor. It's very easy to see 170/174 and average it in your head to 172, while C/174 translates to...? Who knows, but it doesn't create that immediate mental math calculation that would otherwise tarnish a great score. Just my two cents.

Whelp, I was slow on the draw, but:

In theory this may make sense but in practice I really doubt it makes a predictable difference one way or another. Obviously with all other things equal a 174 v. C/174 or 170/174, the single 174 is preferable to either (although frankly I still doubt it gives much of an edge), but the claim that in a C/174 v. xxx/174 the C is better than the xxx is pretty speculative IMO, even though with anchoring effects it could theoretically make sense.

Also, your line of argument may be undervaluing the possibility that OP did better than he thought--it sounds like one of the games sections was pretty hard on this past test so there may be a pretty generous curve.

Even with the two scores v. only one the degree of difference that this usually makes I imagine is slight enough to be made up or overcome by a strong v. a relatively weak PS all other things equal, but this is obviously very speculative on my part.

[honeybadger12]

I failed to mention something that I should have, but it slipped my mind.

I have 2 absences so the question for me becomes: which of the following looks better?

A/A/165/173 or A/A/C/173

Absences were for good reasons...was busy opening offices in different states for my former Internet company...interviews with various finance/entrepreneur/technology magazines, etc.

I'm not a big fan of either; I'd say don't cancel if you already have two absences. By absence you mean absence, not withdrawal, right?

The first absence was coincidentally at the time LSAC changed the rules for absences so all schools agreed collectively not to hold it against them (according to something official I read a long time ago when this happened.) So really, 1 bad absence...but won't taking a company from 0 in my mothers basement to 1M+ help mitigate that? Hopefully...

Hopefully. Can't change it now. Don't cancel and hope for the best. Good luck!

[carboncopyx]

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.

[carboncopyx]

Also, your line of argument is underestimating the possibility that OP is did better than he thought--it sounds like one of the games sections was pretty hard on this past test so there may be a pretty generous curve.

Even with the two scores v. only one the degree of difference that this usually makes is one that can probably be made up or overcome by a strong v. a relatively weak PS all other things equal (or as poster above mentioned, by "softs").

All true. I just don't like leaving any of this stuff up to chance/elements out of my control, if I can help it. And I think the LSAT is the single biggest admissions factor that is largely in your control at time of application. My opinions stem from how risk-averse I naturally am--I personally could never wait and hope that luck/the LSAC deities smiles down on me. But ultimately, cancel/wait-and-see is a very personal decision.

Anyway, OP decided to not cancel and see, and I think that's the right choice given his particular situation. Best of luck!

[honeybadger12]

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.

Did you just take it?

[carboncopyx]

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.

[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.