Petition LSAC for 4th re-take? Forum

[slawww]

Just moved this thread here, figured this would be a better forum for this:

Has anyone successfully petitioned LSAC for a 4th re-take? I just sent them my request, curious if anyone has had any success.

[PRgradBYU]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =6&t=90729

[slawww]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =6&t=90729

Thanks, but apparently you can't get a law school to sponsor your re-take anymore. Now it's approved on a case-by-case basis by LSAC.

Wondering if anyone's had any luck.

[crossingfingers]

I was encouraged by Dean Richard at UVA to petition for the 4th retake (I had less than ideal test taking experiences two of the three times and wrote what I was fairly certain was a strong request) and was pretty quickly denied. I haven't heard of anyone who's successfully done it, and I'm guessing it would take some crazy circumstance plus doctor's note. They certainly can't penalize you though, so it's not like you stand to lose much. I'd say give it a go if you've got a compelling reason.

(Oh, and despite the fact that I knew that they had cancelled the "sponsored" fourth retake, I explained that UVA was willing to support me; they were unimpressed, hah.)

[slawww]

I was encouraged by Dean Richard at UVA to petition for the 4th retake (I had less than ideal test taking experiences two of the three times and wrote what I was fairly certain was a strong request) and was pretty quickly denied. I haven't heard of anyone who's successfully done it, and I'm guessing it would take some crazy circumstance plus doctor's note. They certainly can't penalize you though, so it's not like you stand to lose much. I'd say give it a go if you've got a compelling reason.

(Oh, and despite the fact that I knew that they had cancelled the "sponsored" fourth retake, I explained that UVA was willing to support me; they were unimpressed, hah.)

Wow that's ridiculous. I really don't understand LSAC's reasoning, especially is a test-taker has significantly improved every sitting.

[JayJones78]

I was encouraged by Dean Richard at UVA to petition for the 4th retake (I had less than ideal test taking experiences two of the three times and wrote what I was fairly certain was a strong request) and was pretty quickly denied. I haven't heard of anyone who's successfully done it, and I'm guessing it would take some crazy circumstance plus doctor's note. They certainly can't penalize you though, so it's not like you stand to lose much. I'd say give it a go if you've got a compelling reason.

(Oh, and despite the fact that I knew that they had cancelled the "sponsored" fourth retake, I explained that UVA was willing to support me; they were unimpressed, hah.)

Wow that's ridiculous. I really don't understand LSAC's reasoning, especially is a test-taker has significantly improved every sitting.

Similar exprience here. Wrote a pretty compelling appeal and was denied. My interviewer at NW also mentioned the fact that I should tell them in my appeal about my intention to apply there and that they welcome a 4th LSAT etc etc. it did not help. I heard of NO ONE who was able to get approved and I did a lot of research about it before I sent my appeal. IMHO this process is nothing short of redicouls. I truly don't understand why my friends who are applying to grad/B/med schools can take their exams as many times as they want (I know of a girl who took the MCATs like 6 or more times) yet we are bound under this rule that I don't understand its reasoning.

[dood]

just wait 2 years between 1st and 4th attempt. really not that long if Uve already taken 3 times, unless consecutive. but fall, spring, fall, and u just need to wait 1/2 year for fall again

[JayJones78]

just wait 2 years between 1st and 4th attempt. really not that long if Uve already taken 3 times, unless consecutive. but fall, spring, fall, and u just need to wait 1/2 year for fall again

I think it's easier when you're younger/still in school or are doing other things. Ever person has different things going on and I don't think that LSAC should decide how many times I can take the LSAT when their "friends" in the similar post-grad exams don't have similar rules

[bp shinners]

Wow that's ridiculous. I really don't understand LSAC's reasoning, especially is a test-taker has significantly improved every sitting.

They're protecting people from themselves. There are many out there who, with an essentially infinite number of retakes, wasted a year or two constantly prepping and retaking the exam. I believe the exam also loses some of its predictive value for first year of law school for people who prep for that period of time. I also think the constant retakes of people working for test prep companies had something to do with it.

And the LSAC isn't there to let you get a high score - it's there to provide a service to law schools, helping them with their admissions decisions. If someone constantly improves their score, that actually hurts their mission, as the score becomes less meaningful as one person has a wider range of scores.

[JayJones78]

Wow that's ridiculous. I really don't understand LSAC's reasoning, especially is a test-taker has significantly improved every sitting.

They're protecting people from themselves. There are many out there who, with an essentially infinite number of retakes, wasted a year or two constantly prepping and retaking the exam. I believe the exam also loses some of its predictive value for first year of law school for people who prep for that period of time. I also think the constant retakes of people working for test prep companies had something to do with it.

And the LSAC isn't there to let you get a high score - it's there to provide a service to law schools, helping them with their admissions decisions. If someone constantly improves their score, that actually hurts their mission, as the score becomes less meaningful as one person has a wider range of scores.

I get what you're saying. But doesn't the same thing holds for MCAT/GRE & GMAT? Why is it different there and with the LSAT? It makes no sense.

Plus the same thing can be said about GPA. I can choose to take another year of undergrad and take more classes that will improve my GPA and make it higher.

[bp shinners]

I get what you're saying. But doesn't the same thing holds for MCAT/GRE & GMAT? Why is it different there and with the LSAT? It makes no sense.

Plus the same thing can be said about GPA. I can choose to take another year of undergrad and take more classes that will improve my GPA and make it higher.

But the LSAC doesn't set the policies for those other exams, or for the amount of time/credits it takes to get an undergrad degree.

[JayJones78]

I get what you're saying. But doesn't the same thing holds for MCAT/GRE & GMAT? Why is it different there and with the LSAT? It makes no sense.

Plus the same thing can be said about GPA. I can choose to take another year of undergrad and take more classes that will improve my GPA and make it higher.

But the LSAC doesn't set the policies for those other exams, or for the amount of time/credits it takes to get an undergrad degree.

It still doesn't mean that they should not have the same policies as other post grad exams. That's just my opinion. If people who want to go to med school can take the MCATs until they get the score they need to go to the school they want, there's no reason the same can't apply for law school applicants.

[slawww]

I get what you're saying. But doesn't the same thing holds for MCAT/GRE & GMAT? Why is it different there and with the LSAT? It makes no sense.

Plus the same thing can be said about GPA. I can choose to take another year of undergrad and take more classes that will improve my GPA and make it higher.

But the LSAC doesn't set the policies for those other exams, or for the amount of time/credits it takes to get an undergrad degree.

It still doesn't mean that they should not have the same policies as other post grad exams. That's just my opinion. If people who want to go to med school can take the MCATs until they get the score they need to go to the school they want, there's no reason the same can't apply for law school applicants.

My request was denied.

I agree with this. I'd also have to disagree with the notion that taking the LSAT multiple times diminishes the predictive ability of the test. Since it's testing logical concepts, which apparently has a correlation with success in law school. Some people may take more time to understand the logical principles the exam tests, but I don't think that really means that their predictability would be any different than someone who took the LSAT fewer times, since it's not knowledge based.

In my case, I found TLS after I had already taken the LSAT. So in reality, those scores that I re-took should just be PT's I took on my own at home. I don't see how someone who just PT's for 6 months and gets, say a 170, is any different than someone else who took the test a couple of times without doing much research, and eventually gets a 170 on the last try, predictability wise.

[JayJones78]

I get what you're saying. But doesn't the same thing holds for MCAT/GRE & GMAT? Why is it different there and with the LSAT? It makes no sense.

Plus the same thing can be said about GPA. I can choose to take another year of undergrad and take more classes that will improve my GPA and make it higher.

But the LSAC doesn't set the policies for those other exams, or for the amount of time/credits it takes to get an undergrad degree.

It still doesn't mean that they should not have the same policies as other post grad exams. That's just my opinion. If people who want to go to med school can take the MCATs until they get the score they need to go to the school they want, there's no reason the same can't apply for law school applicants.

My request was denied.

I agree with this. I'd also have to disagree with the notion that taking the LSAT multiple times diminishes the predictive ability of the test. Since it's testing logical concepts, which apparently has a correlation with success in law school. Some people may take more time to understand the logical principles the exam tests, but I don't think that really means that their predictability would be any different than someone who took the LSAT fewer times, since it's not knowledge based.

In my case, I found TLS after I had already taken the LSAT. So in reality, those scores that I re-took should just be PT's I took on my own at home. I don't see how someone who just PT's for 6 months and gets, say a 170, is any different than someone else who took the test a couple of times without doing much research, and eventually gets a 170 on the last try, predictability wise.

Sorry to hear, although not surprised unfortunately. I think all post grad standardized test should have the same requirements for test takers. There is no difference between someone wanting to go to med school or a phd prog than someone who wants to go law school. It's okay for me to spend an undisclosed time prepping for the exam, spend thousands of dollars on prep, maybe hire someone who will proctor the exam in the exact same conditions but I can only take it 3 times in two years? Why? Again, when other post grad applicants have different opportunities, this makes no sense.

I will also won't be surprised if LSAC will remove this rule in the near future, making up some reason for it while the real truth will be the declining number of LSAT test takers they are just looking for more $$ for themselves.

[enigmabk]

i petitioned for a 4th (friend died in a car crash right before the test), i thought it was compelling but got denied pretty quickly. wonder what it takes

[PRgradBYU]

i petitioned for a 4th (friend died in a car crash right before the test), i thought it was compelling but got denied pretty quickly. wonder what it takes

This is documented proof that LSAC workers are soulless.

[WhatOurBodiesAreFor]

i petitioned for a 4th (friend died in a car crash right before the test), i thought it was compelling but got denied pretty quickly. wonder what it takes

Wondered this myself. (I petitioned recently and was denied. My reasons were similar to crossingfingers - less than good circumstances at each of my sittings and a dramatic upward trend across my three exams).

When I was writing my petition I found myself trying to follow their logic. After reading about so many people who were denied despite good reasons for one of the tests, I reasoned that you probably have to have good reasons for all three exams.

Personally, I don't think LSAC would hold that you must have documented proof for your excuse, as not all excuses can be documented and just because you bring in a doctor's note doesn't mean you were more sick than the guy who had to go to the bathroom to barf in the middle of the 2nd section.

Wait.... I'm pretty sure they would.

I actually concluded, especially after receiving my denial, that LSAC is a perfect example of a monopoly. It's lazy and robotic. One documentable piece of evidence would help you greatly, two even more, three you are a shoo-in. I'm sure they glanced through my text but, since I didn't provide any proof to my case, they denied me.

Here's lazy. From "TTL"; subject "3x2 Decision Letter"; the email had no text, only the attachment; attachment name was: 4780789043; attachment said basically: "...your request has been denied...all decisions are final"

LSAC did grant me a fee waiver, however. But because my case was documentable. They granted me a fee waiver because I lived entirely off my savings last year and when I applied I only had like $400 to my name and no job. I bet my decision was rendered in a few minutes and mostly by robotic protocol.

I bet someone out there also deserved the fee waiver but didn't get it. Maybe he had 5K in savings but was planning to go abroad to volunteer or something. Or maybe she was technically dependent on her parents but in reality her parents weren't giving her anything.

Anyway, in short, although they have never done any calamitous, they are also very unreasonable and quite the incompetent foundation to this incredibly important process.

We deserve better.

[JayJones78]

i petitioned for a 4th (friend died in a car crash right before the test), i thought it was compelling but got denied pretty quickly. wonder what it takes

Wondered this myself. (I petitioned recently and was denied. My reasons were similar to crossingfingers - less than good circumstances at each of my sittings and a dramatic upward trend across my three exams).

When I was writing my petition I found myself trying to follow their logic. After reading about so many people who were denied despite good reasons for one of the tests, I reasoned that you probably have to have good reasons for all three exams.

Personally, I don't think LSAC would hold that you must have documented proof for your excuse, as not all excuses can be documented and just because you bring in a doctor's note doesn't mean you were more sick than the guy who had to go to the bathroom to barf in the middle of the 2nd section.

Wait.... I'm pretty sure they would.

I actually concluded, especially after receiving my denial, that LSAC is a perfect example of a monopoly. It's lazy and robotic. One documentable piece of evidence would help you greatly, two even more, three you are a shoo-in. I'm sure they glanced through my text but, since I didn't provide any proof to my case, they denied me.

Here's lazy. From "TTL"; subject "3x2 Decision Letter"; the email had no text, only the attachment; attachment name was: 4780789043; attachment said basically: "...your request has been denied...all decisions are final"

LSAC did grant me a fee waiver, however. But because my case was documentable. They granted me a fee waiver because I lived entirely off my savings last year and when I applied I only had like $400 to my name and no job. I bet my decision was rendered in a few minutes and mostly by robotic protocol.

I bet someone out there also deserved the fee waiver but didn't get it. Maybe he had 5K in savings but was planning to go abroad to volunteer or something. Or maybe she was technically dependent on her parents but in reality her parents weren't giving her anything.

Anyway, in short, although they have never done any calamitous, they are also very unreasonable and quite the incompetent foundation to this incredibly important process.

We deserve better.

I agree with you. As I said before I would not be surprised if in the next yer or so LSAC will remove this rule, stating some or other reason to cover it up when the real reason would be to give them more of the $ they lost because of declining numbers of test takers.

[talesofyore]

i petitioned for a 4th (friend died in a car crash right before the test), i thought it was compelling but got denied pretty quickly. wonder what it takes

I actually concluded, especially after receiving my denial, that LSAC is a perfect example of a monopoly. It's lazy and robotic.

Anyway, in short, although they have never done any calamitous, they are also very unreasonable and quite the incompetent foundation to this incredibly important process.

We deserve better.

This. Also, one of the most pointless things in life one can ever do is to call/email LSAC's customer service department with any hopes of help. They reply verbatim whatever little information is already available on the website.

With regards to the fee waiver, I concluded that one has to be homeless (documented with a picture of living under a cardboard box) for them to respond positively.

I really that more law schools begin accepting the GMAT.

[bp shinners]

I get what you're saying. But doesn't the same thing holds for MCAT/GRE & GMAT? Why is it different there and with the LSAT? It makes no sense.

Plus the same thing can be said about GPA. I can choose to take another year of undergrad and take more classes that will improve my GPA and make it higher.

But the LSAC doesn't set the policies for those other exams, or for the amount of time/credits it takes to get an undergrad degree.

It still doesn't mean that they should not have the same policies as other post grad exams. That's just my opinion. If people who want to go to med school can take the MCATs until they get the score they need to go to the school they want, there's no reason the same can't apply for law school applicants.

That's just as much an argument for other post-grad exams to switch to the LSAT model as the other way around. If the LSAC thinks that this is the best policy, there's no reason for them to switch to what they view as a sub-par policy just because every other post-grad regime does it. Something about jumping off a bridge comes to mind.

And as to the poster who said that they don't believe the predictive value goes down, I'm not just saying that - the LSAC has done studies to that effect (if I'm remembering correctly). So you can argue with their data/methodology, but they aren't just making this stuff up. They spend millions every year doing studies to make their test as effective as possible.

[JayJones78]

I get what you're saying. But doesn't the same thing holds for MCAT/GRE & GMAT? Why is it different there and with the LSAT? It makes no sense.

Plus the same thing can be said about GPA. I can choose to take another year of undergrad and take more classes that will improve my GPA and make it higher.

But the LSAC doesn't set the policies for those other exams, or for the amount of time/credits it takes to get an undergrad degree.

It still doesn't mean that they should not have the same policies as other post grad exams. That's just my opinion. If people who want to go to med school can take the MCATs until they get the score they need to go to the school they want, there's no reason the same can't apply for law school applicants.

That's just as much an argument for other post-grad exams to switch to the LSAT model as the other way around. If the LSAC thinks that this is the best policy, there's no reason for them to switch to what they view as a sub-par policy just because every other post-grad regime does it. Something about jumping off a bridge comes to mind.

And as to the poster who said that they don't believe the predictive value goes down, I'm not just saying that - the LSAC has done studies to that effect (if I'm remembering correctly). So you can argue with their data/methodology, but they aren't just making this stuff up. They spend millions every year doing studies to make their test as effective as possible.

Of course you can see it both ways. But if EVERY post grad exam does it, maybe there's some logic there as well? Look, at the end of the day my view is that this exam should help me get into law school. I truly don't believe that it will tell how well or bad I do in school but the debate over the effectiveness of standerized test is really off topic. At the end of the day, here and in so many other occasions they are acting like a monopoly and I can only hope someone will come in and burst the bubble sometime soon.

And, as I said before I won't be surprised if in the near future they will cancel this restriction, stating this or other reason when the real premise will be getting more of their lost revenue over the declining #s of LSAT test takers.

[WhatOurBodiesAreFor]

I believe in the value of the LSAT, and to a large extent the policies and restrictions surrounding it. My qualm is in the administration and the oversight of it at present - not the creating of it in the first place. The logic behind their creating of these policies must allow for exceptions. But they aren't proactive enough to allow themselves to consider these exceptions. Fully evaluating my case and the cases of the posters above would have required some leg work. It seems they did not do this.

I can imagine their policy being something along the lines of: "Grant their petition only if they have documentable proof of illness or significant classroom disruption, or they suffered from an extraordinary circumstance." Then I imagine the same people having to do a large amount of programming and administrative work if they grant a petition. They can stretch the word extraordinary as large or small as the want to, in this case I bet it's extremely limited. They skimmed my testimony; made some crappy PDF document; used the default headings and subject lines; and clicked send. Probably in about 2 minutes.

This is all speculation of course. I don't even think my case was necessarily flawless and should have been granted. I'm just making a case based on many observations I've had regarding LSAC - from this to fee waiver requests to simple customer service. They aren't a competent enough overseer of this process; they need to have more incentive to do good work.

[enigmabk]

i petitioned for a 4th (friend died in a car crash right before the test), i thought it was compelling but got denied pretty quickly. wonder what it takes

Wondered this myself. (I petitioned recently and was denied. My reasons were similar to crossingfingers - less than good circumstances at each of my sittings and a dramatic upward trend across my three exams).

When I was writing my petition I found myself trying to follow their logic. After reading about so many people who were denied despite good reasons for one of the tests, I reasoned that you probably have to have good reasons for all three exams.

Personally, I don't think LSAC would hold that you must have documented proof for your excuse, as not all excuses can be documented and just because you bring in a doctor's note doesn't mean you were more sick than the guy who had to go to the bathroom to barf in the middle of the 2nd section.

Wait.... I'm pretty sure they would.

I actually concluded, especially after receiving my denial, that LSAC is a perfect example of a monopoly. It's lazy and robotic. One documentable piece of evidence would help you greatly, two even more, three you are a shoo-in. I'm sure they glanced through my text but, since I didn't provide any proof to my case, they denied me.

Here's lazy. From "TTL"; subject "3x2 Decision Letter"; the email had no text, only the attachment; attachment name was: 4780789043; attachment said basically: "...your request has been denied...all decisions are final"

LSAC did grant me a fee waiver, however. But because my case was documentable. They granted me a fee waiver because I lived entirely off my savings last year and when I applied I only had like $400 to my name and no job. I bet my decision was rendered in a few minutes and mostly by robotic protocol.

I bet someone out there also deserved the fee waiver but didn't get it. Maybe he had 5K in savings but was planning to go abroad to volunteer or something. Or maybe she was technically dependent on her parents but in reality her parents weren't giving her anything.

Anyway, in short, although they have never done any calamitous, they are also very unreasonable and quite the incompetent foundation to this incredibly important process.

We deserve better.

180

[enigmabk]

i petitioned for a 4th (friend died in a car crash right before the test), i thought it was compelling but got denied pretty quickly. wonder what it takes

This is documented proof that LSAC workers are soulless.

the workers are all bots right? makes sense

[JayJones78]

I believe in the value of the LSAT, and to a large extent the policies and restrictions surrounding it. My qualm is in the administration and the oversight of it at present - not the creating of it in the first place. The logic behind their creating of these policies must allow for exceptions. But they aren't proactive enough to allow themselves to consider these exceptions. Fully evaluating my case and the cases of the posters above would have required some leg work. It seems they did not do this.

I can imagine their policy being something along the lines of: "Grant their petition only if they have documentable proof of illness or significant classroom disruption, or they suffered from an extraordinary circumstance." Then I imagine the same people having to do a large amount of programming and administrative work if they grant a petition. They can stretch the word extraordinary as large or small as the want to, in this case I bet it's extremely limited. They skimmed my testimony; made some crappy PDF document; used the default headings and subject lines; and clicked send. Probably in about 2 minutes.

This is all speculation of course. I don't even think my case was necessarily flawless and should have been granted. I'm just making a case based on many observations I've had regarding LSAC - from this to fee waiver requests to simple customer service. They aren't a competent enough overseer of this process; they need to have more incentive to do good work.

Agreed. I'll just add one last time that I truly think they will change this restriction in the near future to supplement their lost revenue from declining numbers of test takers.