Top Law Schools

I took the LSAT today and during my 3rd section, a fire alarm goes off. I continue to try to fight through it, but 5 minutes later they decide to evacuate us. I'm in the middle of my RC and upon coming back in, I have to reread the passage and we're not given any additional time.

During the 4th section, I received a second RC section, it happens AGAIN. The LSAC approached us and basically said cancel our scores or continue with the test and take out scores as is, but both sound unfair to me considering the time of the year and the competitiveness of getting into law school. Out proctor decided to file an "irregularity report," but does anything come of that?

I'd love to hear some feedback on what happens in this circumstance. Has anyone else experience anything like this? If so, what happened with your score?

Stanzy1 wrote:I took the LSAT today and during my 3rd section, a fire alarm goes off. I continue to try to fight through it, but 5 minutes later they decide to evacuate us. I'm in the middle of my RC and upon coming back in, I have to reread the passage and we're not given any additional time.

During the 4th section, I received a second RC section, it happens AGAIN. The LSAC approached us and basically said cancel our scores or continue with the test and take out scores as is, but both sound unfair to me considering the time of the year and the competitiveness of getting into law school. Out proctor decided to file an "irregularity report," but does anything come of that?

I'd love to hear some feedback on what happens in this circumstance. Has anyone else experience anything like this? If so, what happened with your score?

What do you mean the LSAC approached you?

There were several LSAC representatives, they told us our options in regard to the event.

My understanding is that the typical course of action is to offer a free retake at the next examination (aka February).

I was at the Rutgers administration of today's test, too (in my room during section 3, the proctor didn't make note of where the timer stopped when we were evacuated so she "estimated" how much time we had left, which was appalling to me and I'm sure anyone else who always preps under strict testing conditions) . However, I didn't see any LSAC reps, but from what you've said about your two 'options', that sounds more than unfair. I sent an email to LSAC basically going over today's fiasco in agonizing detail. Who knows if they'll get back to me/offer a free retake. I can't help but think that they'd be super willing to let us have another, fairer shot (after all, I definitely saw some people taking advantage of the chaos outside and whispering amongst themselves, prob about test sections etc). I can't imagine they'd be chill with even a chance of cheating going on.

Yeah, unfortunately it sucks to be you. Obviously they can't let you retake the December test, and it's not realistic to have LSAC whip up a special exam for just a handful of people who had their test interrupted. It is possible that schools will give you special leeway to take the Feb test without a lateness penalty, but I'm not sure if that's feasible.

Yep, both options are abstractly unfair, but there's not much the LSAC can do about it when there's an abnormality at the testing center - so I guess I'm saying that it's more life being unfair than the LSAC. The cancel is usually connected with a free retake.

bp shinners wrote:Yep, both options are abstractly unfair, but there's not much the LSAC can do about it when there's an abnormality at the testing center - so I guess I'm saying that it's more life being unfair than the LSAC. The cancel is usually connected with a free retake.

I'm a little surprised that when there's a serious irregularity that affects an entire test center, they don't offer a make-up exam like they do for weather cancellations. Presumably the weather-cancelled people aren't taking the same version of the test as everyone else (that would seem manifestly unfair), so they could do the same thing for the irregularity people.

midwest17 wrote:

bp shinners wrote:Yep, both options are abstractly unfair, but there's not much the LSAC can do about it when there's an abnormality at the testing center - so I guess I'm saying that it's more life being unfair than the LSAC. The cancel is usually connected with a free retake.

I'm a little surprised that when there's a serious irregularity that affects an entire test center, they don't offer a make-up exam like they do for weather cancellations. Presumably the weather-cancelled people aren't taking the same version of the test as everyone else (that would seem manifestly unfair), so they could do the same thing for the irregularity people.

So you think they should just let everyone with an irregularity take the exact same test twice?

Robbin Blue wrote:

midwest17 wrote:

bp shinners wrote:Yep, both options are abstractly unfair, but there's not much the LSAC can do about it when there's an abnormality at the testing center - so I guess I'm saying that it's more life being unfair than the LSAC. The cancel is usually connected with a free retake.

I'm a little surprised that when there's a serious irregularity that affects an entire test center, they don't offer a make-up exam like they do for weather cancellations. Presumably the weather-cancelled people aren't taking the same version of the test as everyone else (that would seem manifestly unfair), so they could do the same thing for the irregularity people.

So you think they should just let everyone with an irregularity take the exact same test twice?

No, I think midwest is suggesting that the people affected at Rutgers should be treated just as those whose tests get canceled due to weather and other irregularities.

neprep wrote:

Robbin Blue wrote:

midwest17 wrote:

bp shinners wrote:Yep, both options are abstractly unfair, but there's not much the LSAC can do about it when there's an abnormality at the testing center - so I guess I'm saying that it's more life being unfair than the LSAC. The cancel is usually connected with a free retake.

I'm a little surprised that when there's a serious irregularity that affects an entire test center, they don't offer a make-up exam like they do for weather cancellations. Presumably the weather-cancelled people aren't taking the same version of the test as everyone else (that would seem manifestly unfair), so they could do the same thing for the irregularity people.

So you think they should just let everyone with an irregularity take the exact same test twice?

No, I think midwest is suggesting that the people affected at Rutgers should be treated just as those whose test get canceled due to weather and other irregularities.

Ah, you're right, sorry, I misread. My bad!

Robbin Blue wrote:Ah, you're right, sorry, I misread. My bad!

No worries!

Yeah, my understanding is that the people who were canceled for weather won't take 71, they'll take a previous Sabbath or February undisclosed test. I can understand LSAC not wanting to schedule readministrations when there's an irregularity in a single room, but something this major that affects an entire testing center seems to justify a do-over.

midwest17 wrote:

Robbin Blue wrote:Ah, you're right, sorry, I misread. My bad!

No worries!

Yeah, my understanding is that the people who were canceled for weather won't take 71, they'll take a previous Sabbath or February undisclosed test. I can understand LSAC not wanting to schedule readministrations when there's an irregularity in a single room, but something this major that affects an entire testing center seems to justify a do-over.

I absolutely agree, I made my complaint so we'll see. I'll keep you guys posted.

midwest17 wrote:

Robbin Blue wrote:Ah, you're right, sorry, I misread. My bad!

No worries!

Yeah, my understanding is that the people who were canceled for weather won't take 71, they'll take a previous Sabbath or February undisclosed test. I can understand LSAC not wanting to schedule readministrations when there's an irregularity in a single room, but something this major that affects an entire testing center seems to justify a do-over.

I think (though this is just a guess) that it probably has to do with the scheduling. If they cancel a test for weather, they have a day or two lead time to make sure that they can get something set up the next weekend, if possible. If something like this happens, they have a business day or two to investigate the situation, make a call, get in touch with everyone to let them know their options, hear back, and schedule it. If they push it back much more than a week, then it's going to possibly delay score releases.

It also might just be a bright-line rule because rescheduling an LSAT sucks, and they don't want people complaining for borderline cases that someone else who had a slightly worse case got to retake it a week later. It's easier to administrate a blanket prohibition than a case-by-case determination.

I have an update on this post:

The LSAC emailed us and let us know that we have the option to take a make up test this upcoming Saturday or that we can report or score and take a free February make up. I am happy with the options they gave us, I honestly thought we may have been up shit's creek on this situation. We still are, but it is a little bit better now.

Stanzy1 wrote:I have an update on this post:

The LSAC emailed us and let us know that we have the option to take a make up test this upcoming Saturday or that we can report or score and take a free February make up. I am happy with the options they gave us, I honestly thought we may have been up shit's creek on this situation. We still are, but it is a little bit better now.

I am surprised by this; it seems uncharacteristically generous of LSAC.

Another issue with treating weather issues the same as "alarm" issues is that the latter can be caused intentionally:
"Didn't feel great about that section? Misbubbled? Pull the alarm for a free make up next week!"

Yeah, this is pretty generous for LSAC. There was a fire alarm last year in Winston Salem, but the building wasn't evacuated. They didn't stop the timer and LSAC said that they didn't see scores significantly affected by it, so they didn't do anything.