. Forum

[eve2490]

.

[WhirledWorld]

'

[robotclubmember]

If you're going to write an LSAT addendum, less is probably more. No more than four sentences. Explain first, then mitigate.

I see what OP is saying. Standardized tests were a poor predictor of his UGrad performance, therefore LSAT isn't necessarily the best predictor of his law school performance. OP, there is probably a more concise way to say what you are saying. Include a copy of your official SAT if possible to corroborate. Adcomms are interested in the predictive value of elements of your packet. It won't hurt you to tip your hand to the adcomms that you had a lackluster SAT performance. They already are going to see your LSAT score. I can't phrase this for you because I don't know your circumstances, but take it back to the drawing board and stay on point, keep it very very brief.

[CanadianWolf]

Disagree. Do not include a copy of your SAT with your law school applications. It is relevant, however, to relate in brief fashion your past experience with the SAT & your undergraduate performance. Just make it short & concise.

[Teoeo]

Don't include any addendum. It won't help you, and it might hurt you. Let them speculate as to why you underperformed, they might give you the benefit of the doubt after seeing your grades and you don't have a valid excuse.

[Kchuck]

The LSAT addendum is for explaining large gaps if you've retaken the damn LSAT, a sizable increase in score. It is not a place to write an excuse for why your score is lower than what you thought it should be.

Do yourself a favor and don't submit that.

[bk1]

No, just no.

[09042014]

Retake.

[D. H2Oman]

Go ahead and submit if you want. With a shitty LSAT score you won't be getting in anyway.

[d34d9823]

Lol, the addendum is for explaining exceptional circumstances that affected your score, not for explaining to the admissions committee why their admissions criteria is wrong.

[JennBNYC]

No, just no.

+1

[nStiver]

Go ahead and submit if you want. With a shitty LSAT score you won't be getting in anyway.

Wow thats a really fucking productive man. Im sure the OP appreciates it. Keep trolling around, it makes you look like an idiot.

[eve2490]

.

[d34d9823]

Wow thats a really fucking productive man. Im sure the OP appreciates it. Keep trolling around, it makes you look like an idiot.

You must be new here.

Best of luck, OP! Hopefully you can get a score that makes this a moot point anyway.

[nStiver]

Maybe my language was a bit extreme. H20s comment just struck me as rather mean and unproductive. Maybe he was just messing around. Anyway my bad.

Wow thats a really fucking productive man. Im sure the OP appreciates it. Keep trolling around, it makes you look like an idiot.

You must be new here.

[reasonable_man]

I understand the valued importance of the LSAT as a reliable predictor of a candidate’s potential to do well in law school. However, I do believe that standardized test scores have the ability to undermine an individual’s potential to succeed professionally and academically. For instance, the SAT is known to be a very reliable indicator of a student’s performance in college and has a positive correlation with first year (or semester, need to find out) grades. I received a cumulative XXX on my SAT prior to my admission at Stony Brook University, a rather modest score compared to many other students. Despite such a score, I did exceptionally well throughout my first year and continued to do so in the following years. I will be graduating from Stony Brook University in the spring, 2 semesters earlier than I am scheduled to graduate, and in the top 5% of my class- among some of the aspiring doctors, scientists, and researchers of the future. I strongly believe that my GPA may be a more powerful and consistent indicator of my potential performance at law school than would the LSAT. It is my hope that my LSAT score will not underestimate my capacity to thrive in a challenging learning environment, initiate action as a leader, and make significant contributions to team efforts. I have overcome a standardized test score in the past and I am confident that I can do it again.

I propose you go with this letter instead...

Dear Learned Adcoms:

I am writing to explain to you just how wrong you are in relying upon a standardized test as a mechanism for admission to law school. First and foremost, I ask that you kindly pay no attention to the fact that in order to practice in New York, I will have to pass the New York Bar, which includes a 200 question multiple choice test (the MBE), 50 State specific multiple Choice questions, 6 Essays and a practical reasoning section (together, considered the standardized test that made the LSAT its whore). Moreover, please ignore the fact that I will have to take the MPRE (60 question multiple choice), which requires reasoning skills similar to that of the LSAT.

Now that you’re thinking straight, why on earth would you need a LSAT score, when you can simply go by GPA alone. I mean take my application for instance; I am graduating from Stony Brook Freakin University man… (aka fist pumpers heaven – a school that routinely attracts the MOST mediocre students in all of Suffolk County and even parts of Nassau County, Long Island). I mean we have boat loads of Daddy-pampered spoiled little whores running around in short skirts with one sheet of lose leaf fumbling their way to class in between gang-bangs and beer pong. Clearly, my college is in line with Harvard, Princeton and other places of OUR ilk. It is a mere oversight, I’m sure, that we aren’t competing in the Ivy Leagues.

So in conclusion, it is clear that the validity of the LSAT is inconclusive, because I gotz mad smartz (i.e. 4.0 up at SBU, what what), and I ain’t did that good up on the LSAT so clearly that joint is whack. Kindly review my file based only on the positive attributes and turn a blind eye to the negatives.

One Love,

SBU-Chillen-To Brooklyn Law baby

[bk1]

h20man may come off as dickish but there's a definite kernel of truth to his statement.

[nStiver]

h20man may come off as dickish but there's a definite kernel of truth to his statement.

Hah Im not disputing that. I think it is a very bad idea to include this as an addendum.

[nStiver]

I understand the valued importance of the LSAT as a reliable predictor of a candidate’s potential to do well in law school. However, I do believe that standardized test scores have the ability to undermine an individual’s potential to succeed professionally and academically. For instance, the SAT is known to be a very reliable indicator of a student’s performance in college and has a positive correlation with first year (or semester, need to find out) grades. I received a cumulative XXX on my SAT prior to my admission at Stony Brook University, a rather modest score compared to many other students. Despite such a score, I did exceptionally well throughout my first year and continued to do so in the following years. I will be graduating from Stony Brook University in the spring, 2 semesters earlier than I am scheduled to graduate, and in the top 5% of my class- among some of the aspiring doctors, scientists, and researchers of the future. I strongly believe that my GPA may be a more powerful and consistent indicator of my potential performance at law school than would the LSAT. It is my hope that my LSAT score will not underestimate my capacity to thrive in a challenging learning environment, initiate action as a leader, and make significant contributions to team efforts. I have overcome a standardized test score in the past and I am confident that I can do it again.

I propose you go with this letter instead...

Dear Learned Adcoms:

I am writing to explain to you just how wrong you are in relying upon a standardized test as a mechanism for admission to law school. First and foremost, I ask that you kindly pay no attention to the fact that in order to practice in New York, I will have to pass the New York Bar, which includes a 200 question multiple choice test (the MBE), 50 State specific multiple Choice questions, 6 Essays and a practical reasoning section (together, considered the standardized test that made the LSAT its whore). Moreover, please ignore the fact that I will have to take the MPRE (60 question multiple choice), which requires reasoning skills similar to that of the LSAT.

Now that you’re thinking straight, why on earth would you need a LSAT score, when you can simply go by GPA alone. I mean take my application for instance; I am graduating from Stony Brook Freakin University man… (aka fist pumpers heaven – a school that routinely attracts the MOST mediocre students in all of Suffolk County and even parts of Nassau County, Long Island). I mean we have boat loads of Daddy-pampered spoiled little whores running around in short skirts with one sheet of lose leaf fumbling their way to class in between gang-bangs and beer pong. Clearly, my college is in line with Harvard, Princeton and other places of OUR ilk. It is a mere oversight, I’m sure, that we aren’t competing in the Ivy Leagues.

So in conclusion, it is clear that the validity of the LSAT is inconclusive, because I gotz mad smartz (i.e. 4.0 up at SBU, what what), and I ain’t did that good up on the LSAT so clearly that joint is whack. Kindly review my file based only on the positive attributes and turn a blind eye to the negatives.

One Love,

SBU-Chillen-To Brooklyn Law baby

Hey I might just use this..

[09042014]

It isn't wrong to say that standardized tests weren't predictive of your past success. But I wouldn't go further than that.

IMO you should start studying for Dec LSAT now. Even with a good addendum, it does jack shit.

Hustle your way to 170.

[reasonable_man]

It isn't wrong to say that standardized tests weren't predictive of your past success. But I wouldn't go further than that.

IMO you should start studying for Dec LSAT now. Even with a good addendum, it does jack shit.

Hustle your way to 170.

I don't think he needs to hustle to a 170... Not coming from Stonybrook U with such great grades... Plus, if he uses my addendum suggestion above, I'm sure he is a lock almost anywhere.

[09042014]

It isn't wrong to say that standardized tests weren't predictive of your past success. But I wouldn't go further than that.

IMO you should start studying for Dec LSAT now. Even with a good addendum, it does jack shit.

Hustle your way to 170.

I don't think he needs to hustle to a 170... Not coming from Stonybrook U with such great grades... Plus, if he uses my addendum suggestion above, I'm sure he is a lock almost anywhere.

I hear Harvard is flying out alums to recruit.

[thechee]

In fairness, I have heard of LSAT addenda working some pretty great magic. I have a friend who wrote a really long (like 2 pages) addendum explaining why the LSAT wouldn't be predictive for him, since he was in the top 10% for grades (despite having ACT/SAT scores far below the 25th %ile for his UG), but in the bottom 40% for the LSAT among law school applicants at his UG.

He got into a T10, even with a 160 (not URM).

[dissonance1848]

What were your friend's softs? Nobel Prize?

[LAWLAW09]

What were your friend's softs? Nobel Prize?

-- Independent thinker (if he never came across TLS's 1 paragraph standard for addenda)

-- Ability to make a convincing argument that read nothing like the hundreds of other addenda that
address the same circumstances