Top Law Schools

156 in june 2011, then 163 in dec 2012. I just studied more. is that big enough of a big to write a addendum or is that usual?

dkang wrote:156 in june 2011, then 163 in dec 2012. I just studied more. is that big enough of a big to write a addendum or is that usual?

I think its usual. I wouldnt.

dkang wrote:156 in june 2011, then 163 in dec 2012.

December 2012 hasn't happened yet. #AlternativeRealityFTW?

The Platypus wrote:

dkang wrote:156 in june 2011, then 163 in dec 2012.

December 2012 hasn't happened yet. #AlternativeRealityFTW?

Assumed he meant he meant December 2011. If not, lol.

top30man wrote:

The Platypus wrote:

dkang wrote:156 in june 2011, then 163 in dec 2012.

December 2012 hasn't happened yet. #AlternativeRealityFTW?

Assumed he meant he meant December 2011. If not, lol.

Haha Dec. 2011****

Not addendum worthy. Good job, though.

Nova wrote:Not addendum worthy. Good job, though.

People say this all the time (and FWIW I agree, simply studying more shouldn't need an addendum) what about schools that specifically ask for it? For example Duke says you should write something to convince them to take the highest, otherwise they average. I know conventional TLS wisdom says they are lying about averaging but wouldn't ignoring their explicit instructions (they actually say it twice on the instructions page) look pretty bad?

I had an 8 point jump (162-170) and got asked about it a few times. I just told them the truth (took original test at Temple, was terrible testing conditions, took second test at Penn, heavenly testing condition, plus a few more month to review, and less nerve) And that was good enough explanation for them.