Overriding the 3x in 2 years LSAT Forum

[sandwiches5000]

Bleh. I still can't believe this is happening. I took the lsat twice. the first time, I was on medication that made me sleepy and I got a 157. I got a 167 the second time I took it, but I guess I got nervous and made a bubbling mistake. I was PT-ing in the upper 170s. I just went in to take it again and I got really sick and had to cancel. Now I don't know what to do. I want to take it in December because I don't want to sell myself short if I had such a high score on the PTs. How lenient is LSAC when it comes to these matters especially when they are truly out of our control? I'm planning on applying to schools with the 167 in October and letting them hold my information if necessary until receiving the December score.

How much is this going to hurt my admissions chances if I do get that high score in December?

I am so sick of this exam.

[Taffybear2]

I would love someone to shed light on this as well. I'm in the same boat right now. I feel your pain ;(

[bdubs]

I don't think they will be very impressed with your excuses.

I imagine they changed the policy because they (either LSAC or schools) were sick of people requesting accommodations to take the test more than 3 times. It seemed to be exceedingly common under the old system for people to seek, and frequently to get, a sponsor for a 4th or 5th time. I would guess this is no more and you will probably need to wait.

[sandwiches5000]

This is what they say on the website:

For significant extenuating circumstances, exceptions to this policy may be made by LSAC. To request an exception, submit a signed, detailed explanation addressing the circumstances that you feel make you eligible to retake the LSAT and specify the date that you wish to test. E-mail your request as an attachment to LSACinfo@LSAC.org or send it by fax to 215.968.1277.

[bdubs]

You think being sick 1 out of 3 times is a significant extenuating circumstance?

[sandwiches5000]

You think being sick 1 out of 3 times is a significant extenuating circumstance?

Yes, if LSAC's policy was created to allow the candidate to take the test three times, having one of those three times negated by illness seems legitimate. Technically, I only took the test two times. I know they specify that they allow you to "sit" for the exam three times, but I'm pretty sure they say this with the intention of allowing people to actually "take" the exam three times.

[bdubs]

You think being sick 1 out of 3 times is a significant extenuating circumstance?

Yes, if LSAC's policy was created to allow the candidate to take the test three times, having one of those three times negated by illness seems legitimate. Technically, I only took the test two times. I know they specify that they allow you to "sit" for the exam three times, but I'm pretty sure they say this with the intention of allowing people to actually "take" the exam three times.

Try it out and report back. This is a relatively new policy, so you'd probably be among the first on TLS to try it for this particular reason.

[ThreeRivers]

You think being sick 1 out of 3 times is a significant extenuating circumstance?

Yes, if LSAC's policy was created to allow the candidate to take the test three times, having one of those three times negated by illness seems legitimate. Technically, I only took the test two times. I know they specify that they allow you to "sit" for the exam three times, but I'm pretty sure they say this with the intention of allowing people to actually "take" the exam three times.

Define "sick." My brother was going crazy on CPA prep then got cancer unexpectedly / was going under chemotherapy and feeling miserable and still attempted to take a section of the CPA. I'd imagine this falls under the " significant extenuating circumstances. I wouldn't imagine writing a note saying "I woke up feeling naseaus with a stuffy nose" would be. Basically, you better have some documentation of something imo

[BiglawOrBust]

You think being sick 1 out of 3 times is a significant extenuating circumstance?

Yes, if LSAC's policy was created to allow the candidate to take the test three times, having one of those three times negated by illness seems legitimate. Technically, I only took the test two times. I know they specify that they allow you to "sit" for the exam three times, but I'm pretty sure they say this with the intention of allowing people to actually "take" the exam three times.

What??

This crap is never going to fly with them. Your reasons are far from compelling.

[midwestls]

They will not be impressed. You will ultimately have to suck it up and live with your 167 - and even if you didn't, there is absolutely no guarantee your school will improve. Probably better to face that reality now and decide whether you want to go to school where that 167 will take you.

[BiglawOrBust]

They will not be impressed. You will ultimately have to suck it up and live with your 167 - and even if you didn't, there is absolutely no guarantee your school will improve. Probably better to face that reality now and decide whether you want to go to school where that 167 will take you.

Yeah, plus if you already choked three times, what makes you so certain that you'll significantly improve?

Just go with the 167, brochacho. You can really do much worse.

[sandwiches5000]

I know my excuse isn't as significant as cancer or any "serious" illness but I had diarrhea in the middle of the exam. I couldn't hold it in or help it. I had to go. It had been happening to me on and off all week because I think I contracted a parasite of some kind (I'm living overseas) but I hoped it wouldn't happen during the exam.

I may not be able to do the exam again, nor do I even know if I want to. I just feel like it's a waste of my high PT scores.

[MrAnon]

You've taken the test 3 times already. Its really more than enough times to get fair evidence of what your score would be. I would just apply to school.

[missinglink]

Apply to see if you can take it again.

The market is shitty and looks to be so for quite some time. If you can actually get something in the 170s, you owe it to yourself to open those doors.

The worst that can happen is they say no.

[ThreeRivers]

I know my excuse isn't as significant as cancer or any "serious" illness but I had diarrhea in the middle of the exam. I couldn't hold it in or help it. I had to go. It had been happening to me on and off all week because I think I contracted a parasite of some kind (I'm living overseas) but I hoped it wouldn't happen during the exam.

I may not be able to do the exam again, nor do I even know if I want to. I just feel like it's a waste of my high PT scores.

I mentioned the cancer thing mainly as an example as something that be proven versus something that can be made up. Do you have documentation of you contracting the parasite (did you visit a doctor who stated this)? If you do you might be in decent shape... if you don't I don't LSAT will believe you... or everyone would "have" the same condition you had.

[ThreeRivers]

I mentioned the cancer thing mainly as an example as something that can be proven versus something that can be made up. Do you have documentation of you contracting the parasite (did you visit a doctor who stated this)? If you do you might be in decent shape... if you don't I don't LSAT will believe you... or everyone would "have" the same condition you had.

[Bildungsroman]

Considering how recently LSAC changed its policy to put itself in charge of approving exceptions to the "3 times in 2 years" rule, it's extremely likely that every single person who will respond to this thread has neither gotten an exemption to the rule nor spoken to anybody who has, making all of this blind speculation. If you want an exemption, apply for it and see what happens.

[ThreeRivers]

Considering how recently LSAC changed its policy to put itself in charge of approving exceptions to the "3 times in 2 years" rule, it's extremely likely that every single person who will respond to this thread has neither gotten an exemption to the rule nor spoken to anybody who has, making all of this blind speculation. If you want an exemption, apply for it and see what happens.

It is obvious this is speculation, but I think the belief that they will most likely have to have some type of documentation is valid

[JamMasterJ]

They will not be impressed. You will ultimately have to suck it up and live with your 167 - and even if you didn't, there is absolutely no guarantee your school will improve. Probably better to face that reality now and decide whether you want to go to school where that 167 will take you.

Yeah, plus if you already choked three times, what makes you so certain that you'll significantly improve?

Just go with the 167, brochacho. You can really do much worse.

This is just a stupid post.

Go for it OP. Not sure if things will work out, and I think it'd go better if you can get some sort of documentation, but it might work out for you

[Patriot1208]

LSAC won't approve this; it's clear you don't want it enough because if you did you would have just let it go in your pants.

[sandwiches5000]

LSAC won't approve this; it's clear you don't want it enough because if you did you would have just let it go in your pants.

I seriously almost wore a diaper. No joke.

[ThreeRivers]

Although I've been one of the negative ones in this thread definitely ask... there is no harm in that and hey you might get lucky. I don't believe you'll get your request but I'd still ask

[Patriot1208]

LSAC won't approve this; it's clear you don't want it enough because if you did you would have just let it go in your pants.

I seriously almost wore a diaper. No joke.

If you aren't willing to wear a diaper to sit for the LSAT, law school probably isn't for you anyways.

[bp shinners]

You should definitely ask, but you should also operate under the assumption that you'll get a firm 'No' from LSAC.

They implemented the policy to standardize it so that people couldn't just ask a school and get a waiver. That system was being abused. The policy was recently changed so that LSAC could give out waivers to those who have legitimate reasons for needing a fourth test. From my conversations with some people at LSAC, the level of scrutiny is lower than if you were asking for special accommodations, but it's still relatively high. They let you take it three times so that, if you get sick during one of them, you have two other chances. It's not supposed to let you take it a fourth time if you were relying on a third test but got sick.

I also know of at least one student at Blueprint who applied for the waiver but was denied. His excuse was also an illness during the third administration.

[sandwiches5000]

You should definitely ask, but you should also operate under the assumption that you'll get a firm 'No' from LSAC.

They implemented the policy to standardize it so that people couldn't just ask a school and get a waiver. That system was being abused. The policy was recently changed so that LSAC could give out waivers to those who have legitimate reasons for needing a fourth test. From my conversations with some people at LSAC, the level of scrutiny is lower than if you were asking for special accommodations, but it's still relatively high. They let you take it three times so that, if you get sick during one of them, you have two other chances. It's not supposed to let you take it a fourth time if you were relying on a third test but got sick.

I also know of at least one student at Blueprint who applied for the waiver but was denied. His excuse was also an illness during the third administration.

Wow, good to know. I am preparing myself to live with the 167 but it's hard because I dedicated my life to it after the second test. Such a waste of time. Do you know if the guy at Blueprint had documentation of his illness when he applied for the exemption?