Applying with a really low LSAT score before Oct retake? Forum

[awesomepossum21]

So I took the LSAT last year and did really horribly -- 159. I'm retaking in October and hoping to get about 170. I want to apply as early as I can, but I also don't want schools to look at my application and only see the 159 then reject me. Does this mean I need to wait until after my October scores come in to apply?

[JamMasterJ]

Schools usually don't finish looking at applications that state a future test date. On the other hand, sending out applications in the last week of October is still considered pretty early.

[buddyt]

I don't think you will be at a disadvantage by waiting until your new score comes in and applying at that time.

[Eberry]

Late October/Early November is still fairly early. I'd simply wait.


But...I'd recommend having your application ready to send for the day/day-after scores are released.

Personally, I'm applying to some schools in September (ranked 19-35) that I have a shot at even if my LSAT doesn't improve this October. If I do well, these schools become safety schools and I'll turn my sights higher. If I score the same/lower, then my applications to these schools will be really early. This might be a strategy that works for you as well.


Good luck.

[ms9]

SPAM.

[catholicgirl]

I used to do this for a living (admissions) and have been at two top-20 and three top total law schools and these are the type of questions I love (because there is a binary yes/no solution for you). I just started blogging and this was quasi one of my topics, if you are interested. SPAM Once/if I get permission from the moderators I'll answer some of these questions here.

Also, going from a 159 to a 170 is almost unheard of. That is way outside the expected range and I am a bit uncertain why you think you could do so? If you were pretesting at 170 and just had a really bad day, then sure. But the internal consistency of the LSAT is really strong and their psychometricians are the best in the business so I would not expect that much of a leap unless there is an extenuating reason.

Yeah. I'm curious. What are you doing differently this time that will give you an 11 point leap? Did you take it cold, were you sick?

[JamMasterJ]

spam.

Posting advice: good
Posting a link to your blog: bad

HTH

Also, 159 to 170 is not that uncommon, especially if OP didn't really study the first time.

[Funkycrime]

Also, going from a 159 to a 170 is almost unheard of. That is way outside the expected range and I am a bit uncertain why you think you could do so? If you were pretesting at 170 and just had a really bad day, then sure. But the internal consistency of the LSAT is really strong and their psychometricians are the best in the business so I would not expect that much of a leap unless there is an extenuating reason.

Gtfo.

[rebexness]

[ms9]

Also, going from a 159 to a 170 is almost unheard of. That is way outside the expected range and I am a bit uncertain why you think you could do so? If you were pretesting at 170 and just had a really bad day, then sure. But the internal consistency of the LSAT is really strong and their psychometricians are the best in the business so I would not expect that much of a leap unless there is an extenuating reason.

gonna enjoy proving you wrong.

That would not prove anything other than that you are an outlier. There are numerous outliers every year, of course. I think I saw a 140something go into the 170's once when I was reading files.

Having seen huge data sets for the last twelve years and having been provided with the LSAC reports, it is very uncommon. LSAC is quite good at the LSAT, indeed it beats all other graduate school tests for correlation with 1st year performance, I believe. If you want to take this up with someone I would contact Peter Paschley, their lead test developer. I'm all for you guys breaking the trend and killing it on test day. I hope the first test was an aberration.

[ms9]

spam.

Posting advice: good
Posting a link to your blog: bad



Gotha, I appreciate this advice. I'll post advice rather than links to my advice. That actually does make more sense from a moderatoirs perspective now that I think about it.

[Miracle]

Also, going from a 159 to a 170 is almost unheard of. That is way outside the expected range and I am a bit uncertain why you think you could do so? If you were pretesting at 170 and just had a really bad day, then sure. But the internal consistency of the LSAT is really strong and their psychometricians are the best in the business so I would not expect that much of a leap unless there is an extenuating reason.

gonna enjoy proving you wrong.

That would not prove anything other than that you are an outlier. There are numerous outliers every year, of course. I think I saw a 140something go into the 170's once when I was reading files.

Having seen huge data sets for the last twelve years and having been provided with the LSAC reports, it is very uncommon. LSAC is quite good at the LSAT, indeed it beats all other graduate school tests for correlation with 1st year performance, I believe. If you want to take this up with someone I would contact Peter Paschley, their lead test developer. I'm all for you guys breaking the trend and killing it on test day. I hope the first test was an aberration.

Can you please stop! Just stop! I went from 139 to 175+ after studying. There are too many success stories out there especially on TLS that go against everything you said.

[Funkycrime]

The statistics may show jumps are unlikely, but the majority of people creating those stats are the "Oh law skool? I'll tries this test. Dang 153! I'll read a McGraw Hill book and retake!!" type people. People on this site know the test is learnable, and that hard studying pays off. Many people on here have demonstrated this (like the poster above).

[JamMasterJ]

The statistics may show jumps are unlikely, but the majority of people creating those stats are the "Oh law skool? I'll tries this test. Dang 153! I'll read a McGraw Hill book and retake!!" type people. People on this site know the test is learnable, and that hard studying pays off. Many people on here have demonstrated this (like the poster above).

this. People that put in an extraordinary amount of work get the "almost unheard of" results, and any indication that it isn't going to happen is based on unrepresentative assumptions. LSAC is right because people keep proving them right, not because it's objectively nearly impossible to increase your score significantly.

Also, if OP's hoping to get a 170, it's probably based on something more substantiated than unicorns and four leafed clovers

[Funkycrime]

Jam, didn't you go 168 to 176? There's another amazing leap by a TLS local.

[shntn]

Jam, didn't you go 168 to 176? There's another amazing leap by a TLS local.

They do happen. Best of luck to the OP and everyone else with their retakes.

[JamMasterJ]

Jam, didn't you go 168 to 176? There's another amazing leap by a TLS local.

166>176

[shntn]

Jam, didn't you go 168 to 176? There's another amazing leap by a TLS local.

166>176

To add to the anecdotal success stories, 167 -> 179. Shit's real, trust me.

[rglifberg]

Also, going from a 159 to a 170 is almost unheard of. That is way outside the expected range and I am a bit uncertain why you think you could do so? If you were pretesting at 170 and just had a really bad day, then sure. But the internal consistency of the LSAT is really strong and their psychometricians are the best in the business so I would not expect that much of a leap unless there is an extenuating reason.

gonna enjoy proving you wrong.

That would not prove anything other than that you are an outlier. There are numerous outliers every year, of course. I think I saw a 140something go into the 170's once when I was reading files.

Having seen huge data sets for the last twelve years and having been provided with the LSAC reports, it is very uncommon. LSAC is quite good at the LSAT, indeed it beats all other graduate school tests for correlation with 1st year performance, I believe. If you want to take this up with someone I would contact Peter Paschley, their lead test developer. I'm all for you guys breaking the trend and killing it on test day. I hope the first test was an aberration.

Can you please stop! Just stop! I went from 139 to 175+ after studying. There are too many success stories out there especially on TLS that go against everything you said.

For a 175+ scorer this is a pretty weak counter-argument. Just because there are many stores of people making large jumps on the LSAT, that is not sufficient to say that such a large jump isn't rare. There could be 500 people a year ( a lot, in my opinion), for example, who make a 25+ point leap, but that would still be rare in relation to the total amount of test takers (assuming the number is 100,000 + or something like that). I think large increases are definitely feasible, coming from someone re-taking for the 3rd time in October, but I believe that we all have our limits. It is definitely a fact that the average re-taker does not increase substantially, maybe it is due to a lack of motivation, bad study habits, or maybe intellect, it's all speculation really.

[awesomepossum21]

Thanks for all the responses guys, I'll just wait until the end of October to apply.

And in answer to the 159-->170 thing, I decided to take the LSAT the first time on a whim a year and a half ago, it was dumb, and I was kind of freaking out the entire time I was taking the test so of course I did poorly. I've been studying for three months now and have been consistently scoring around 170 on PTs and I feel a million times more prepared. So I don't think 170 is at all beyond the realm of possibility. I appreciate the, ahem, pessimists keeping me motivated to study though

[skri65]

Jam, didn't you go 168 to 176? There's another amazing leap by a TLS local.

166>176

To add to the anecdotal success stories, 167 -> 179. Shit's real, trust me.

To add another personal anecdote: My dianogistic=147, first LSAT = 152, most recent LSAT = 163, currently PT'ing 166-170.
The jump is absolutely possible.

[Miracle]

rglifberg:

You missed a crucial part of the underlying assumption. This post greatly summarizes the argument, and my stance as well:

"The statistics may show jumps are unlikely, but the majority of people creating those stats are the "Oh law skool? I'll tries this test. Dang 153! I'll read a McGraw Hill book and retake!!" type people. People on this site know the test is learnable, and that hard studying pays off. Many people on here have demonstrated this (like the poster above)."

I don't know where you found your statistics about an average re-takeer. I would love to read about those statistics. If test takers approach the test in certain way that does not weaken my claim that the test is learnable through hard work, and dedication. You cannot weaken my argument by claiming that large amount of people received "low scores", without addressing why such scores are achieved, and addressing the main cause of such issue.

[rglifberg]

http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/ ... erdata.pdf

http://www.manhattanlsat.com/blog/2011/ ... manifesto/

rglifberg:

You missed a crucial part of the underlying assumption. This post greatly summarizes the argument, and my stance as well:

"The statistics may show jumps are unlikely, but the majority of people creating those stats are the "Oh law skool? I'll tries this test. Dang 153! I'll read a McGraw Hill book and retake!!" type people. People on this site know the test is learnable, and that hard studying pays off. Many people on here have demonstrated this (like the poster above)."

That's a rather extreme assumption to make. I highly doubt the majority of test takers approach re-takes with this mentality. I'm absolutely sure there are absolutely some that do, but to say that is the majority is doubt-able , in my opinion. I think if you are re-taking the LSAT you are a some-what motivated person, and I would assume that most re-takers put in the study time, but who knows really? I took a Testmasters class with someone who was re-taking, and who seemed like a smart dude, but his brain just didn't seem to work the way the LSAT tests, and just couldn't break 153, it sucked I felt really bad. Also, the fact that many people on here have increased substantially could just be because this site attracts the smartest and most inclined towards learning the LSAT. It is after all a self-selecting sample. I'm all for re-takes though, I'm taking my 3rd and final test in October, I just don't think the, keyword: "average" test taker is capable of huge leaps, I think it revolves around how analytically one is capable of thinking and learning how to think. FWIW I've gone from 143- 158 and hoping for mid 160's+ in October, so I'm not trying to talk down the possibilities at all.