Highest vs Average LSAT; new ABA policy; which schools?

[radioface]

Hi all--

I was hoping we could set up a place where people can post the info theyve gathered on which schools adhere to which policy regarding highest vs average LSAT score, especially in light of the new ABA ruling that only highest scores need to be reported to them.

I know someone mentioned that berkeley and stanford will take the best. I think this is a departure from berkeley's previous stance. so if we can keep a running tally on what people find, it would be v helpful.

I had a rough go of it 2 years ago, took the test about 45 minutes after i found out I had thyroid cancer. I worked at the hospital and checked my own pathology report saturday AM, thinking it would clear my head and charge me up, as my doctor gave me a 5% chance it would come back with a bad result. well, the 5% won and it really screwed me for the test. In hindsight, I probably should have cancelled my score, but I had no idea I did as poorly as I did. just took it again last week. thinking I did 10+ points better. now preparing to apply to some top 20's.

thanks

[radioface]

oh yeah-- just in case anyone was wondering. couple of surgeries and a little bit of radioactive iodine and Im cured... thank god there are good lawyers out there who have helepd to make modern medicine such a useful and productive enterprise!

[cyln]

hey radioface,

I think regardless of the schools' new policies concerning how to deal with multiple scores, the new ABA rule will have very little effect on the admission process due to the fact that schools will still be able to see the previous score.. I mean LSAT is considered as the best indicator of law school success therefore the reason law schools tend to average the multiple scores was not only because of the ABAs rule and usnews rankings but because they wanted/want the most promising students in their classes.. so I think this is not going to change despite the fact that they are now not obliged to report the lower score..but maybe it might help to encourage the schools to admit students like you. obviously your previous score does not reflect your real performance and if you write an addendum explaining your situation I am pretty sure they will consider your most recent score as a better indicator. the thing is I believe they would have done this even ABA did not change anything.. also, you say you expect 10+ points increase and that means even without an explanation and/or ABA's intervention your highest score will be the decisive one for most schools anyway...

good luck!

[radioface]

well... turns out schools ARE changing policies. someone on another blog called a bunch and gathered responses. with some input I added from other sources:

Yale: No change in policy; still averaging. "We don't base admissions on your numbers..." Yeah...

Harvard: No final decision. Advised to contact jdadmiss@law.harvard.edu for further developments

NYU: No change in policy as yet. However, "it is definitley possible our policy could change before the next cycle."

UMich: Now accepting highest score

Georgetown: Originally stated that they would not change policies. After deliberation with other counselors the representative I spoke to said that they would being accepting the higher score. However, she noted that Georgetown (as well as other law schools) would look much more favorably upon students who took only one LSAT.

Duke: No change in policy. "This only has to do with the ABA, why would we change our own policies?"

USC: Accepting higher score [But they implied that they always have. I'm not sure this is the case.]

UCLA: Now accepting higher score

Boalt: Now accepting higher score

Stanford: Pretentiously ambiguous answer

Columbia: No change in policy. 6+ points for higher score consideration.



Schools already accepting higher score:
UPenn
Northwestern
Cornell

[DELETED]

DELETED

[jackasher]

a few more from my own research:

Colorado - high score
Bloomington - high score
University of North Carolina - high score

I disagree with Ceylan's early post. No matter how much law schools like to say they don't care about the rankings and where there scores match up to other schools, they do. My prediction is that the first year or two a few of the schools will use the average scores, drop in the rankings and immediately start using the high score. Only using the high score isn't an foreign concept. For undergrad admission when i applied (i dont know what it's like now) they not only didn't they average your SAT scores, but you could mix and match your best verbal and math scores.

The real question is how this will (or won't) raise the standards at specific schools. With more pay off for people who take the test multiple times (up to three) you can expect many students to use all three times to improve their score if necessary to reach their target. Scores submitted to the law schools should be higher all around. Also, scoring in the the top percentile might mean getting more questions correct as the test presumably will have more repeat testers than the past.

[polo06]

I continue to read posts here and on other threads about this subject and the new rule changes. Personally, I think all of this is much ado about nothing. It all boils down to an individual's chances of admission. Do we honestly believe that the law school adcomms are going to look at a 161/164/168 candidate exactly the same way they look at the 168 (single test candidate)? If that is the case then I must totally be missing the boat.

Personally, I took the test one time (170) and I remain confident that with all other things being equal, most adcomms will look at me favorably compared to candidates who achieved this score with two or three attempts. I really don't care what they report to the LSAC as long as they apply some common sense logic when comparing candidates.

Polo06

[MagicMurdock]

I have to say I agree with polo06 in the sense that even if they only look at your top score it would be better if you just did well the first time. This is why you should study a lot before taking the LSAT at all. However, how much or to what extent taking the test only once helps you is debatable (and ultimately impossible to tell if you are not in the admissions council)

[lindseyl]

I have to disagree with polo06 on this one. I mean, your 170 speaks for itself. Let's say a candidate has a bad testing experience, chooses not to cancel their score, and then discovers they did quite poorly. A second test is probably their only option. I think it's the improvement that matters here, not the average of both scores. Schools will still have access to both scores, which could be in favor of that applicant who performed poorly on their first exam (which could be explained in an adendum). I think if the person first scored a 140 then drastically improves to a 165 or higher will rank pretty highly in an adcomm's mind.

[MIT_Engineer]

Just wanted to chime in here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the new ABA policy affects the way the schools' LSAT numbers are reported for US News ranking purposes. With this in mind, a candidate who took the LSAT twice and scored 160 and 172 would improve a school's LSAT numbers (and have a more positive effect on their ranking) versus someone who took the LSAT once and scored a 170.

[soccr234]

I wonder to what extent doing worse the second time you take it will harm your admissions chances even if the schools you are applying to accept the highest score. I got a 162 in June and am going to take it again in September. If I were to for some reason end up with a lower score, would that heavily weigh on an admissions committee's mind even if they are officially accepting the higher score?

[Ken]

First, welcome to the forum. Second, congrats on having the perseverance to retake the LSAT to capitilize upon the new policy. Very strategic.

I now believe that law schools are very focused on how they fare in the rankings game that they will heavily focus on your best LSAT score, which is what gets reported to the ABA. Thus, I think if your second score is a bit below your first, they will solely look at your first (higher) score. I think you would really have to bomb the second LSAT and have it be noticably lower for them to take notice.

The risk vs. reward outcome clearly favors taking the risk. Good luck.
I think you will find that the second time you are much more calm and at peace with the LSAT gods and will score above a 167!

[sophia.olive]

What do you guys think about a 170/166/178.
Will that carry the same strength as a 178. or would it be more like a 176
Will the ad-minion think said person is incredibly unpredictable and could put the other students at risk if they sat him/her in a class room.

[rklafehn]

How do you get a 176 out of 170 / 166 / 178?

More like a 171+...

[Grizz]

--ImageRemoved--

[SullaFelix]

What do you guys think about a 170/166/178.
Will that carry the same strength as a 178. or would it be more like a 176
Will the ad-minion think said person is incredibly unpredictable and could put the other students at risk if they sat him/her in a class room.

Fact is, even if a school says they're only concerned with the highest score, they're still going to think more highly of someone who got a high score on the first attempt than someone who took three tries. So while it would give you an edge over everyone with a score lower than your final mark, you're still at a disadvantage compared with those who scored just as highly on one take.

[sophia.olive]

How do you get a 176 out of 170 / 166 / 178?

More like a 171+...

Well, I didn't mean an actual average, just the fact that a point or two may be knocked off because it was the third time.

[Bronte]

Hey, guys, are you aware that you just bumped a thread from four years ago?

[Barbie]

I'm an idiot and took the LSAT cold the first time (154) and then took a few PT, retook with a 163, and am retaking again. I called some of my target/fit schools and they told me that they ONLY consider the top score. I asked that if I even did significantly worse on my final take (def hope not, but for devils advocate purposes) if it would change my chance at admissions. every school I contacted said NO. even if I bombed my final take, they would only look at the 163, and it would have NO impact (unless it was down to maybe me and someone else with my exact numbers and credentials). HTH

[lieg]

Barbie, I LITERALLY have the exact same scores as you and am signed up again for a third time. Do you mind mentioning what schools you contacted? This seems like really good news.

[jamielynn1981]

There was a law school forum this weekend in NYC where I asked a bunch of schools (all from CA) this very question. Last year I got a 162 and plan on retesting in December. All the schools said they'd take my higher score and that taking the test twice wouldn't count against me in the admission process.

In case you're interested, the schools were:

Berkeley
UCLA
UC-Davis
UC-Hasings
USC
Pepperdine

Like someone mentioned before, these schools care about their rankings and now that they only need to report the higher score it would make sense that taking the test twice wouldn't count against you (unless they are trying to decide between you and someone with your same stats and they only took it once--then maybe). If you have a score that will improve their rankings they'll want you.

[Emma1]

....

[tryster0]

anyone know if UTexas takes average or highest?

[im_blue]

anyone know if UTexas takes average or highest?

"If I take the LSAT more than once, which score does UT use?

Candidates with multiple LSAT scores will be evaluated using all reported scores. However, the Law School will no longer solely consider an applicant’s average score in the admissions review process. The ABA recently revised its survey reporting requirements; all law schools are being asked to report an applicant’s highest LSAT score."
--LinkRemoved--