Sending SAT score along with addendum. Forum

[jem422]

I have a quick question that I hope someone can answer for me. How exactly do you attach your SAT score to your addendum? (obviously this is an addendum about poor performances on standardized tests so I need the proof)

I am on collageboard.com right now but they only allow me to send SAT scores to schools. I took the SATs in 2004 so I don't even think I saved the physical copy I had of those scores. Is there something I am missing? Thank you for your help in advance!

[mb88]

I don't mean to be rude, and I don't mean to be a downer...

But seriously? I really don't think it's a good idea to try and send law schools your crappy SAT scores. Ask yourself this: How does your SAT score, low as it may be, prove that you're bad at standardized tests? It could just as likely mean that you're just not intellectually gifted enough to get good scores, and that's probably how the admissions council is going to view it.

I'm not trying to insinuate that you don't have a problem with standardized tests, but in all honesty, tons of people with low scores try to claim that, and there just isn't any real way to prove it. I think the only way that you could genuinely and effectively make that case is if you had like a 4.0 GPA in Quantum Mechanics from Harvard and scored a 130 on the LSAT. Now that is a disparity that shows bad standardized test taking skills. But frankly, if you're just another liberal arts major with a 3.6 and scored in the 140s/150s on the LSAT, I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're a dime a dozen, and the admissions councils are going to look very negatively at a self-pitying addendum.

[BenJ]

Don't follow mb88's advice. This is a reasonable thing to tell adcomms, although it may not help much, and citing the SAT is important: If you performed much better in college than your SAT indicated, then they can (might) expect that you would also perform much better in law school than your LSAT indicates. It won't help except at the margins, but if you have a stellar GPA, it will help somewhat.

As to the original question, however: No idea. I suspect just telling the schools your SAT scores would suffice; worry about official documentation if they request it. But I don't really know, and someone else probably knows better.

[mallard]

I think it's actually pretty standard to use SAT scores to demonstrate that standardized tests haven't been accurate predictors of your scholarly performance. I don't know how, but don't listen to that guy.

[dresden doll]

According to Anna Ivey, you absolutely should substantiate claims of being a poor standardized test taker who has nonetheless succeeded academically by attaching proof of your SAT score and allowing adcomms to note distinction between that result and your subsequent UG GPA.

In other words, disregard the first reply.

[jem422]

thanks guys for your help! I will gladly disregard their reply because I did my research and read posts that spoke about poor test taker addendums and saw advice on how it was a GOOD thing to use your SAT scores as a way to show proof, I just didn't know how to show that proof!

but for the sake of entertaining "mb88" over here, I am certainly NOT a dime a dozen.

[Gamecubesupreme]

I don't mean to be rude, and I don't mean to be a downer...

But seriously? I really don't think it's a good idea to try and send law schools your crappy SAT scores. Ask yourself this: How does your SAT score, low as it may be, prove that you're bad at standardized tests? It could just as likely mean that you're just not intellectually gifted enough to get good scores, and that's probably how the admissions council is going to view it.

I'm not trying to insinuate that you don't have a problem with standardized tests, but in all honesty, tons of people with low scores try to claim that, and there just isn't any real way to prove it. I think the only way that you could genuinely and effectively make that case is if you had like a 4.0 GPA in Quantum Mechanics from Harvard and scored a 130 on the LSAT. Now that is a disparity that shows bad standardized test taking skills. But frankly, if you're just another liberal arts major with a 3.6 and scored in the 140s/150s on the LSAT, I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're a dime a dozen, and the admissions councils are going to look very negatively at a self-pitying addendum.

Why do people give ill advice when they have no idea what they're talking about.

[mb88]

Well, I'm genuinely sorry if I've given bad advice. The general consensus is to send in your bad SATs. Feel free to ignore what I've said then.

I stop short of fully retracting my advice, however, as the insistence of Ann Ivey does nothing to change the fact that poor SATs do not prove difficulty with standardized tests. They might suggest it, certainly, but they suggest just as strongly poor potential in general or lack of preparation (not that I accuse you of such, I am working off the assumption that you genuinely have difficulty with tests).

I just see almost no logical situation in which the Addcoms could look at a poor LSAT and poor SAT and think, "Ah, yes, this person must be just a poor test taker." The two items alone, unless accompanied by some sort of truly mindboggling undergrad record, just do not mean anything. It may sound bad, but I have a suspicion that the only reason Ann Ivey and the like advise sending in the score is because there really isn't anything else you can do in this situation. I think their reasoning must be that something is better than nothing. I disagree.

[Anonymous Loser]

I don't mean to be rude, and I don't mean to be a downer...

But seriously? I really don't think it's a good idea to try and send law schools your crappy SAT scores. Ask yourself this: How does your SAT score, low as it may be, prove that you're bad at standardized tests? It could just as likely mean that you're just not intellectually gifted enough to get good scores, and that's probably how the admissions council is going to view it.

I'm not trying to insinuate that you don't have a problem with standardized tests, but in all honesty, tons of people with low scores try to claim that, and there just isn't any real way to prove it. I think the only way that you could genuinely and effectively make that case is if you had like a 4.0 GPA in Quantum Mechanics from Harvard and scored a 130 on the LSAT. Now that is a disparity that shows bad standardized test taking skills. But frankly, if you're just another liberal arts major with a 3.6 and scored in the 140s/150s on the LSAT, I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're a dime a dozen, and the admissions councils are going to look very negatively at a self-pitying addendum.

Why do people give ill advice when they have no idea what they're talking about.

Sounds to me like this guy knows exactly what he's talking about. I think urging someone to refrain from sending in an addendum unless the situation clearly warrants it is sound advice: absent an SAT score in the lowest quartile, it's absurd to claim a pattern of poor performance on standardized tests exists.

[Arosen12]

I don't mean to be rude, and I don't mean to be a downer...

But seriously? I really don't think it's a good idea to try and send law schools your crappy SAT scores. Ask yourself this: How does your SAT score, low as it may be, prove that you're bad at standardized tests? It could just as likely mean that you're just not intellectually gifted enough to get good scores, and that's probably how the admissions council is going to view it.

I'm not trying to insinuate that you don't have a problem with standardized tests, but in all honesty, tons of people with low scores try to claim that, and there just isn't any real way to prove it. I think the only way that you could genuinely and effectively make that case is if you had like a 4.0 GPA in Quantum Mechanics from Harvard and scored a 130 on the LSAT. Now that is a disparity that shows bad standardized test taking skills. But frankly, if you're just another liberal arts major with a 3.6 and scored in the 140s/150s on the LSAT, I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're a dime a dozen, and the admissions councils are going to look very negatively at a self-pitying addendum.

Why do people give ill advice when they have no idea what they're talking about.

Sounds to me like this guy knows exactly what he's talking about. I think urging someone to refrain from sending in an addendum unless the situation clearly warrants it is sound advice: absent an SAT score in the lowest quartile, it's absurd to claim a pattern of poor performance on standardized tests exists.

This is a dilemma that I am also in. I have a 3.95 GPA at a top 30 private university (not harvard quantum mechanics but not basking weaving either) but an LSAT score in the 150's. In high school I was at the top of my class we well, with 8 AP courses and what not, and my SAT scores despite much much practice were well below the median at the top tier schools (after taking SAT 3 times hit mid 600s still not good at all). I was thinking of citing the low SAT score as well and applying to law school this yr, but instead decided that the best bet would be to find job (in this economy uh o) and study and retake in October and then apply hopefully with higher LSAT score. I think the OP should study hard and try a retake if feasible.

[Anonymous Loser]

If your SAT score is truly in the mid-600's, then an addendum is certainly warranted, as this would place you in something like the 3d percentile of test-takers. Indeed, simply filling in the answer sheet randomly would likely yield a higher score. If, however, you mean that you are scoring 600 points on each section, this places you in roughly the 85th percentile of test-takers. In other words, you are pretty fucking good at taking the SAT.

[Arosen12]

If your SAT score is truly in the mid-600's, then an addendum is certainly warranted, as this would place you in something like the 3d percentile of test-takers. Indeed, simply filling in the answer sheet randomly would likely yield a higher score. If, however, you mean that you are scoring 600 points on each section, this places you in roughly the 85th percentile of test-takers. In other words, you are pretty fucking good at taking the SAT.

yes I meant mid 600's on each section but relative to GPA isn't all that good

[jem422]

I don't mean to be rude, and I don't mean to be a downer...

But seriously? I really don't think it's a good idea to try and send law schools your crappy SAT scores. Ask yourself this: How does your SAT score, low as it may be, prove that you're bad at standardized tests? It could just as likely mean that you're just not intellectually gifted enough to get good scores, and that's probably how the admissions council is going to view it.

I'm not trying to insinuate that you don't have a problem with standardized tests, but in all honesty, tons of people with low scores try to claim that, and there just isn't any real way to prove it. I think the only way that you could genuinely and effectively make that case is if you had like a 4.0 GPA in Quantum Mechanics from Harvard and scored a 130 on the LSAT. Now that is a disparity that shows bad standardized test taking skills. But frankly, if you're just another liberal arts major with a 3.6 and scored in the 140s/150s on the LSAT, I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're a dime a dozen, and the admissions councils are going to look very negatively at a self-pitying addendum.

Why do people give ill advice when they have no idea what they're talking about.

Sounds to me like this guy knows exactly what he's talking about. I think urging someone to refrain from sending in an addendum unless the situation clearly warrants it is sound advice: absent an SAT score in the lowest quartile, it's absurd to claim a pattern of poor performance on standardized tests exists.

This is a dilemma that I am also in. I have a 3.95 GPA at a top 30 private university (not harvard quantum mechanics but not basking weaving either) but an LSAT score in the 150's. In high school I was at the top of my class we well, with 8 AP courses and what not, and my SAT scores despite much much practice were well below the median at the top tier schools (after taking SAT 3 times hit mid 600s still not good at all). I was thinking of citing the low SAT score as well and applying to law school this yr, but instead decided that the best bet would be to find job (in this economy uh o) and study and retake in October and then apply hopefully with higher LSAT score. I think the OP should study hard and try a retake if feasible.

I have the same gpa and in the same position as you (school wise) but while I was attending school, I worked three jobs (all of which are corporate jobs that took me in) and also started my own business. So, working is out of the question for me since I am already doing that (of course, pending law school I will not be working and my partner in my business has agreed to take over most of the business to help me out).
I am only 22, so I could go out and work more but I feel like that is just delaying time when I seem to be stuck with the same LSAT score (took it twice and scored the same exact score). I am applying anyway to see if I happen to get lucky, that is, if they even look at my resume/personal statement and don't disregard the rest of my application right off the bat because of my score.

[Flanker1067]

If your SAT score is truly in the mid-600's, then an addendum is certainly warranted, as this would place you in something like the 3d percentile of test-takers. Indeed, simply filling in the answer sheet randomly would likely yield a higher score. If, however, you mean that you are scoring 600 points on each section, this places you in roughly the 85th percentile of test-takers. In other words, you are pretty fucking good at taking the SAT.

yes I meant mid 600's on each section but relative to GPA isn't all that good

This is a case of what mb88 is talking about though. I really don't mean you to take offense, but in this case the difference isn't really addendum worthy. Relatively sure, the test is low, but it is reasonable to assume that someone who has this score can, with hard work get a great GPA. Therefore, it doesn't negate the tests (supposed) ability to measure your potential.

Edit: I believe the addendum is for some very rare cases where the person scores like a 900 something total, and does well.
This is because that score would normally tell a person that the candidate isn't very smart and should not have done well in school, so the test clearly didn't do its job.

Second Edit: What I meant to say is that I don't believe it is addendum worthy. I do not claim to know for a fact what adcomms want to see.

[x47point6]

Not quite the same, but I cited a high SAT score on an addendum in order to discredit the lower of multiple LSATs. I can't know for sure whether this had any bearing on how they took the addendum (I got in, FWIW), but they never asked for any official confirmation of the score. I just said this is what I got, and that was that.

Based on that, I don't think anyone's going to ask you to substantiate a score that you're only putting forward because of its mediocrity.

[Arosen12]

I must say Jem422 that is extremely impressive your accomplishments, more power to you. I merely play a Varsity sport in college which I thought was a big time commitment, haven't started my own business or anything. My prelaw advisor suggested in my low LSAT position to simply write a pithy statement, stating something to the effect that your SAT scores were **** and yet you had 3.95GPA and that the test may not truly reflect your abilities. (no need for documentation, if the schools really wanted it they would ask you) However, I have been told it would do very little in overcoming the lower LSAT score, which is very frustrating, one test to outweigh 4 yrs of college and work accomplishments, but I get the need to normalize. As for me, that is why I am going to give it one more shot and improve or not, apply. As you already took the test twice and I'm sure studied hard for it, it seems like a good idea to apply, work hard and do well in law school. However, you area applying very late in the cycle, I think your chances would go up if you wanted to wait and apply at the beginning of next cycle (Sept/Oct) Good luck!

[jem422]

I must say Jem422 that is extremely impressive your accomplishments, more power to you. I merely play a Varsity sport in college which I thought was a big time commitment, haven't started my own business or anything. My prelaw advisor suggested in my low LSAT position to simply write a pithy statement, stating something to the effect that your SAT scores were **** and yet you had 3.95GPA and that the test may not truly reflect your abilities. (no need for documentation, if the schools really wanted it they would ask you) However, I have been told it would do very little in overcoming the lower LSAT score, which is very frustrating, one test to outweigh 4 yrs of college and work accomplishments, but I get the need to normalize. As for me, that is why I am going to give it one more shot and improve or not, apply. As you already took the test twice and I'm sure studied hard for it, it seems like a good idea to apply, work hard and do well in law school. However, you area applying very late in the cycle, I think your chances would go up if you wanted to wait and apply at the beginning of next cycle (Sept/Oct) Good luck!

Yeah, it stinks that it comes down to our LSAT scores but I understand why too. I actually have had my applications submitted, they are just pending review of my updated transcript because the university I am attending is HORRIBLE when it comes to sending out transcripts (or sending out anything, really) on time and such. I saw people posting about the addendum for low LSAT score, so I figured I would attach it while I was waiting on that. Besides, most of my applications aren't due until April. Good luck to you as well. I say, whatever you feel is best to do, just do it. It can't hurt to always apply again and it certainly doesn't hurt to wait if you can afford to!

[cubswin]

I recall seeing a Dean, possibly from Boalt, say that without a copy of the SAT scores, they hardly give any credit to people's claims about having a history of poor performance on standardized tests.

That being said, if you scored above a 1200 on the SAT, you might not find much sympathy for your poor LSAT score. You'll probably just affirm yourself as a moderate test taker who works really hard in school to achieve high grades. Obviously, I don't have all the facts of your situation, but do think long and hard whether your LSAT is bad enough to warrant one of these addendums, and if so, whether your addendum is a good one.

Best of luck.

[lawschooliseasy]

I think it's actually pretty standard to use SAT scores to demonstrate that standardized tests haven't been accurate predictors of your scholarly performance. I don't know how, but don't listen to that guy.

TITCR... If you are a serious splitter and you have very low ACT/SAT scores schools like to know. Many applications specifically ask if you have a history of underperformance on standardized tests; if you answer yes they ask for ACT/SAT scores. I believe that this carries the most weight when you are extreme case. For example, if you scored in the 50th percentile on the ACT and graduated with a 4.0.

[mb88]

I believe that this carries the most weight when you are extreme case. For example, if you scored in the 50th percentile on the ACT and graduated with a 4.0.

Personally, I don't think that a 50th% ACT and a 4.0 is extreme enough to warrant such an addendum. The simple fact of the matter is, a 50th% might seem low to TLS members, but it's actually better than half of the testing pool. In a word: average. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) there are plenty of ways for average students to attain 4.0s or close. High inflation undergrads, professor cherry-picking, careful class arrangement (Astronomy instead of Chemistry, etc), taking internet classes, and perhaps most prominently: easy majors (we all know some).

Proving that you're just "a bad test taker" requires a very distinct and very tangible gap between your test scores and actual performance. Average students get A's all the time. You need to show that your test scores are very much below average, while your class performance is very much above. An A in Ancient Roman History does not necessarily show that you are above and beyond the "average" group (with their TLS-Shocking 50th percentiles).

A 3.9 triple major in Aerospace Engi, Mechanical Engi, and Math after getting a 20th% probably would.

[BenJ]

I believe that this carries the most weight when you are extreme case. For example, if you scored in the 50th percentile on the ACT and graduated with a 4.0.

Personally, I don't think that a 50th% ACT and a 4.0 is extreme enough to warrant such an addendum. The simple fact of the matter is, a 50th% might seem low to TLS members, but it's actually better than half of the testing pool. In a word: average. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) there are plenty of ways for average students to attain 4.0s or close. High inflation undergrads, professor cherry-picking, careful class arrangement (Astronomy instead of Chemistry, etc), taking internet classes, and perhaps most prominently: easy majors (we all know some).

Proving that you're just "a bad test taker" requires a very distinct and very tangible gap between your test scores and actual performance. Average students get A's all the time. You need to show that your test scores are very much below average, while your class performance is very much above. An A in Ancient Roman History does not necessarily show that you are above and beyond the "average" group (with their TLS-Shocking 50th percentiles).

A 3.9 triple major in Aerospace Engi, Mechanical Engi, and Math after getting a 20th% probably would.

You do know that a ton of people who take the SAT/ACT never go to college or drop out, right? (Like, almost all of the bottom 25%, and a decent chunk right up to around the 60th percentile or so.) 50th percentile on the SAT is not just "average", it's dreadful, assuming you actually want to graduate from college, let alone for someone who ends up graduating with a decent (3.0 or above) GPA.

[mb88]

You do know that a ton of people who take the SAT/ACT never go to college or drop out, right? (Like, almost all of the bottom 25%, and a decent chunk right up to around the 60th percentile or so.) 50th percentile on the SAT is not just "average", it's dreadful, assuming you actually want to graduate from college, let alone for someone who ends up graduating with a decent (3.0 or above) GPA.

Yes, I'm aware.

However, that still doesn't change the fact that a 50th percentile means you were an average scorer. An average scorer does not equate being "bad at tests", because even if you don't like your score, you still did better than half of everybody else. Hell, if we use that logic (that a "bad" score is relative to acceptance), then I'm a "bad test taker" with regards to Yale. Do you think they'll buy that?

[Ragged]

mb88, everything you said sounds like a great advice to me.

OP, imagine this: your app is being compared to an app exactly like yours except you included an addendum with your crappy SAT score and the other person didn't. Now do you really think that adcomms are gonna go "oooh but that guy also got a crappy SAT score. that settles it. he is in."?

I think you have very little to gain from this and alot to lose.

[Gamecubesupreme]

You do know that a ton of people who take the SAT/ACT never go to college or drop out, right? (Like, almost all of the bottom 25%, and a decent chunk right up to around the 60th percentile or so.) 50th percentile on the SAT is not just "average", it's dreadful, assuming you actually want to graduate from college, let alone for someone who ends up graduating with a decent (3.0 or above) GPA.

Yes, I'm aware.

However, that still doesn't change the fact

What, are you kidding. Of course it changes the fact. You're citing the 50th percentile on the assumption that everyone taking the test is actually trying when that is FAR from the truth. A 50th percentile would be around a 1500, which is an average of 500 for every section. The only way to get below a 500 is answer more than half of the questions wrong, which is literally failing the section.

So no, failing a standardized test is not "average." It's abysmal.

[x47point6]

What, are you kidding. Of course it changes the fact. You're citing the 50th percentile on the assumption that everyone taking the test is actually trying when that is FAR from the truth. A 50th percentile would be around a 1500, which is an average of 500 for every section. The only way to get below a 500 is answer more than half of the questions wrong, which is literally failing the section.

So no, failing a standardized test is not "average." It's abysmal.

This isn't right. A ~500 on a given section is necessarily average. They calibrate the test so that a 600, 1500, and 2400 are 1st, 50th, and 99th percentiles respectively.

The majority of the SAT is a 5-answer, multiple-choice test, where each correct response is worth +1 to your raw score, each incorrect response is worth -0.25 to your score, and omitted questions don't raise or lower your score.

If in a given section a test taker needs to have a raw score of about 50% of the maximum raw score (say, a 33 out of 67) in order to a get a 500 (and I'm not pulling this out of nowhere, this is based on actual conversion tables), then that test taker needs to answer 60% of the questions correctly. This is because an incorrect response effective decrements the raw score by 1.25 points (0.25 for the incorrect response, 1 for the missed opportunity to score a point).

Also note that purely guessing on the test, or getting 4/5 of the questions wrong, will result in a zero for a raw score, and a ~200 for a scaled score.

The point I'm trying to make is that between totally guessing (20% correct) and a 1500 (60% correct), you actually have to try.