February and Late Applicants
Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2013 11:24 pm
When applying using ONLY the February LSAT, is it best to submit the other portion of your file (inc. LoRs, transcript, and resume) in January?
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=220610
re: the former point, that seems to contradict Spivey's insight.midwest17 wrote:Many schools won't take the February LSAT, and you're going to be at a significant disadvantage even at those schools that do take it. You're almost certainly better off waiting and applying at the beginning of next cycle.
Which insight was that? I vaguely remember him saying that the February LSAT can be used for scholarship negotiations, but I don't remember anything about admissions.Baby_Got_Feuerbach wrote:re: the former point, that seems to contradict Spivey's insight.midwest17 wrote:Many schools won't take the February LSAT, and you're going to be at a significant disadvantage even at those schools that do take it. You're almost certainly better off waiting and applying at the beginning of next cycle.
1. I have seen it happen many times every cycle. If I thought I could do better this is exactly what I would do, take the Feb LSAT. There is no downside and the upside could be an admit for tens of thousands of dollars in $$$,
I'm going to say all of this with emphasis and it is likely a repeat but bears noting. It is career suicide for a dean of admissions to average scores or to not look at Feb scores as part of the cycle. if other schools are doing it (and they are) than you better too or you will be packing your bags to transition to being the Dean of Admissions at Touro.
midwest17 wrote:Which insight was that? I vaguely remember him saying that the February LSAT can be used for scholarship negotiations, but I don't remember anything about admissions.Baby_Got_Feuerbach wrote:re: the former point, that seems to contradict Spivey's insight.midwest17 wrote:Many schools won't take the February LSAT, and you're going to be at a significant disadvantage even at those schools that do take it. You're almost certainly better off waiting and applying at the beginning of next cycle.
There are schools that will consider applications with the February LSAT, obviously. But you're still going to be at a disadvantage at those schools because of rolling admissions. You're better off waiting.
i've always assumed that referred to retakes, since it also mentioned averaging scores there. it would be career suicide for a dean of admissions to not look at a february retake, but i doubt it would be career suicide if, when faced with a 4.0 180 vs. a 4.0 who knows, the dean extends an offer to the 180.Baby_Got_Feuerbach wrote:Spivey:1. I have seen it happen many times every cycle. If I thought I could do better this is exactly what I would do, take the Feb LSAT. There is no downside and the upside could be an admit for tens of thousands of dollars in $$$,
I'm going to say all of this with emphasis and it is likely a repeat but bears noting. It is career suicide for a dean of admissions to average scores or to not look at Feb scores as part of the cycle. if other schools are doing it (and they are) than you better too or you will be packing your bags to transition to being the Dean of Admissions at Touro.
Thanks, Mike!
This seems to be underselling the "wait for next cycle" advice. The main downside to that, as you say, is "you have no idea what the applicant pool will look like next year." But that cuts both ways, and it doesn't seem like there's any reason to expect it to be worse for applicants rather than better.
Well, perhaps I should have been more clear about the hierarchical order of (1), (2), and (3). if possible, 1. if not then 2. if you must apply this cycle feel good about (3). There will be a good number of people who, for whatever reason, need to apply this cycle. For those people they should be confident in 3. For the rest, I would advise 1 or 2, which make more sense than 3.midwest17 wrote:This seems to be underselling the "wait for next cycle" advice. The main downside to that, as you say, is "you have no idea what the applicant pool will look like next year." But that cuts both ways, and it doesn't seem like there's any reason to expect it to be worse for applicants rather than better.
Sure, people may still get good offers with just a February LSAT, but you agree that the outcome will still be worse than it would otherwise be.
I'm not trying to question your expertise, but even granting your premises doesn't seem to lead to your conclusion.
That seems fair.MikeSpivey wrote:Well, perhaps I should have been more clear about the hierarchical order of (1), (2), and (3). if possible, 1. if not then 2. if you must apply this cycle feel good about (3). There will be a good number of people who, for whatever reason, need to apply this cycle. For those people they should be confident in 3. For the rest, I would advise 1 or 2, which make more sense than 3.midwest17 wrote:This seems to be underselling the "wait for next cycle" advice. The main downside to that, as you say, is "you have no idea what the applicant pool will look like next year." But that cuts both ways, and it doesn't seem like there's any reason to expect it to be worse for applicants rather than better.
Sure, people may still get good offers with just a February LSAT, but you agree that the outcome will still be worse than it would otherwise be.
I'm not trying to question your expertise, but even granting your premises doesn't seem to lead to your conclusion.