Impact of Lower Score Forum

[lawjag2015]

Hi Everyone,

I have a 163 (I know, nothing special) from the June 2014 LSAT, and I took the LSAT in September again. Would a lower score in the September LSAT hurt my admissions?

I have to make a decision on cancellation. Much appreciated!

[BigZuck]

No

[lawjag2015]

No

Don't some schools consider the average score? My apologies for asking basic questions, but, I am in a tough spot, there is a chance that I might go lower as I completely bombed a section.

[MistakenGenius]

Post removed.

[lawjag2015]

So I got no chance at top 10 even if I score big the next time? I am planning to retake it in December.

[BigZuck]

No

It's not quite as cut and dry as BigZ is saying (retakes can definitely hurt you at HYS). Since you're pretty much out there anyway and for your situation, I don't see how it could have any impact at all. With the decline in applications, schools need numbers anyway they can get them. Don't worry about it. You're fine.

At schools that would take a 163 and (lower score) I think it's pretty cut and dry that a lower score will not hurt the OP

I didn't get the sense that the OP will be HYS bound at any point, but if he goes, say 163, 160, 175 and wants to wonder what that looks like then I guess that's something to be addressed. I'm kind of doubting we get there though.

[lawjag2015]

No

It's not quite as cut and dry as BigZ is saying (retakes can definitely hurt you at HYS). Since you're pretty much out there anyway and for your situation, I don't see how it could have any impact at all. With the decline in applications, schools need numbers anyway they can get them. Don't worry about it. You're fine.

At schools that would take a 163 and (lower score) I think it's pretty cut and dry that a lower score will not hurt the OP

I didn't get the sense that the OP will be HYS bound at any point, but if he goes, say 163, 160, 175 and wants to wonder what that looks like then I guess that's something to be addressed. I'm kind of doubting we get there though.

Well, I pretty much nailed LRs and RC in the September LSAT. I had time to snooze after couple sections. My fifth section, the only LG section, killed me. I have not worked hard at LG, I know there are no points for that, But, I know I have a weakness and that there is a reason for that! I am hoping to nail the Decemeber LSAT, my last LSAT, and I have a very good chance of doing it. I think I am looking at 173+ come December.

[Rigo]

So I got no chance at top 10 even if I score big the next time? I am planning to retake it in December.

Can you please point me to where anyone said this?

[lawjag2015]

So I got no chance at top 10 even if I score big the next time? I am planning to retake it in December.

Can you please point me to where anyone said this?

Well, I just expanded on the HYS reference to include the territory that matters to me. And, I do want to have a hope for the 'H'!

[banjo]

You will still be FINE for H with one retake. Some advice from a former admissions dean at Harvard:

Karen — How does Harvard look at 3+ takes? I took the LSAT 4 times and though my numbers themselves are competitive (4.03/171), I fear that my 4 takes will be a major knock against my candidacy at HLS.

It really depends on the situation, timing of the tests, and the rest of the application. In general (not just for HLS) when someone takes the test more than 3 times, there has to be a good reason for it (bad luck with cancelling, sickness, string of bad days, etc.)

Do you fit in the category of MORE than three times? No, not even close.

I have been studying and PTing over the last 20 tests with an average of 169. I'm worried that the three bad scores will hurt me even if I get a really good score in September (assuming I score around what my average has been).

What would you suggest I do when application time comes?

The time gap helps, and at the end of the day, the high score is what they'll report. You can add a very brief addendum, if that's what you are asking... but they might assume that anyway
good luck and go for it!
Cheers,
KB

Above all, only your highest score gets reported to US News, so that still counts the most.

[lawjag2015]

You will still be FINE for H with one retake. Some advice from a former admissions dean at Harvard:

Karen — How does Harvard look at 3+ takes? I took the LSAT 4 times and though my numbers themselves are competitive (4.03/171), I fear that my 4 takes will be a major knock against my candidacy at HLS.

It really depends on the situation, timing of the tests, and the rest of the application. In general (not just for HLS) when someone takes the test more than 3 times, there has to be a good reason for it (bad luck with cancelling, sickness, string of bad days, etc.)

Do you fit in the category of MORE than three times? No, not even close.

I have been studying and PTing over the last 20 tests with an average of 169. I'm worried that the three bad scores will hurt me even if I get a really good score in September (assuming I score around what my average has been).

What would you suggest I do when application time comes?

The time gap helps, and at the end of the day, the high score is what they'll report. You can add a very brief addendum, if that's what you are asking... but they might assume that anyway
good luck and go for it!
Cheers,
KB

Above all, only your highest score gets reported to US News, so that still counts the most.

Wow! Nice! Thanks for allaying my fears! I might still get more than 163 in the September LSAT, but, I do not want to settle for any below 170. December is the last chance!

[MistakenGenius]

Post removed.

[lawjag2015]

You will still be FINE for H with one retake. Some advice from a former admissions dean at Harvard:

Karen — How does Harvard look at 3+ takes? I took the LSAT 4 times and though my numbers themselves are competitive (4.03/171), I fear that my 4 takes will be a major knock against my candidacy at HLS.

It really depends on the situation, timing of the tests, and the rest of the application. In general (not just for HLS) when someone takes the test more than 3 times, there has to be a good reason for it (bad luck with cancelling, sickness, string of bad days, etc.)

Do you fit in the category of MORE than three times? No, not even close.

.

Not quite Banjo. You completely misread Karen's post. What she said was that other factors are included in the decision but that you better have a good excuse if you take it more than 3 times for every school. Having a retake won't completely kill you if you have a very strong application in all other regards. However, it takes some pretty massive assumptions to get "you'll be completely fine" out of what she said. A retake WILL be a negative point and hurt you at HYS. Just look at people with strong stats on LSN who were rejected because of their retakes. It depends on how strong a candidate you are in other regards as to how much of a role it will play.

BigZ, I don't think we'll be dealing with that either, but I wanted to point out that fact since other people will likely read this page and the OP might well get a 175 at some point. OP, don't lump HYS in with the rest of T10. It's comparing Apples to Oranges. While Columbia and the others are incredible schools, there aren't enough high numbers with good softs to fill all their classes. They have to take the high numbers irrelevant of softs. Only the T3 can afford to be picky in that regard (harvard less than YS). You get the numbers for the other 7, and your retakes won't matter.

Wow! Such condescension! How old are you guys? and what have you seen in life? Still believe in 'innate ability or nothing' nonsense? I have proved many like you wrong in the past, and will do it again. Grow up!

[BigZuck]

I've just been on this site for a while and seen plenty of people (myself included) counting their Butlers before they are hatched and never even breaking 170 after multiple tries. The type of person who goes 163, (lower than 163), 170+ is a special snowflake indeed.

Just playing the odds here dawg. But I know, never tell you the odds.

[lawjag2015]

I've just been on this site for a while and seen plenty of people (myself included) counting their Butlers before they are hatched and never even breaking 170 after multiple tries. The type of person who goes 163, (lower than 163), 170+ is a special snowflake indeed.

Just playing the odds here dawg. But I know, never tell you the odds.

Before September LSAT, lowest PT 168, highest PT 176, median PT 173.....messed up the LG section over there! Not going to happen again!

[banjo]

I've just been on this site for a while and seen plenty of people (myself included) counting their Butlers before they are hatched and never even breaking 170 after multiple tries. The type of person who goes 163, (lower than 163), 170+ is a special snowflake indeed.

Just playing the odds here dawg. But I know, never tell you the odds.

Before September LSAT, lowest PT 168, highest PT 176, median PT 173.....messed up the LG section over there! Not going to happen again!

I went 164 --> 176. It just takes practice. For the record, I did get rejected from HLS, but I think that had to do with some unrelated factors and a below-25th GPA.

MistakenGenius, I'm not using KB's statements as my only support for "you'll be fine." That conclusion comes from observing my own cycle, LSN data, late waitlist movement, and a host of other things that can't be boiled down to hard data. HLS, like CLS and NYU and other big schools, is still struggling to keep its medians up. I wanted to offer KB's advice as evidence that even 3+ retakes is not necessarily fatal at HLS (as OP thought earlier in the thread), and in the right circumstances might not even require an addendum.

[lawjag2015]

I've just been on this site for a while and seen plenty of people (myself included) counting their Butlers before they are hatched and never even breaking 170 after multiple tries. The type of person who goes 163, (lower than 163), 170+ is a special snowflake indeed.

Just playing the odds here dawg. But I know, never tell you the odds.

Before September LSAT, lowest PT 168, highest PT 176, median PT 173.....messed up the LG section over there! Not going to happen again!

I went 164 --> 176. It just takes practice. For the record, I did get rejected from HLS, but I think that had to do with some unrelated factors and a below-25th GPA.

MistakenGenius, I'm not using KB's statements as my only support for "you'll be fine." That conclusion comes from observing my own cycle, LSN data, late waitlist movement, and a host of other things that can't be boiled down to hard data. HLS, like CLS and NYU and other big schools, is still struggling to keep its medians up. I wanted to offer KB's advice as evidence that even 3+ retakes is not necessarily fatal at HLS (as OP thought earlier in the thread), and in the right circumstances might not even require an addendum.

Just as I indicated in the posts above, I really was there in PTs, although, I recognize that I somehow was managing to do the LG sections fine in PTs without feeling in complete control, and that's what got me in the real LSAT. A lot of practice, lots and lots of practice, and I will be fine in LG too.

Banjo, thanks for the right perspective!

[appind]

I've just been on this site for a while and seen plenty of people (myself included) counting their Butlers before they are hatched and never even breaking 170 after multiple tries. The type of person who goes 163, (lower than 163), 170+ is a special snowflake indeed.

Just playing the odds here dawg. But I know, never tell you the odds.

Before September LSAT, lowest PT 168, highest PT 176, median PT 173.....messed up the LG section over there! Not going to happen again!

I went 164 --> 176. It just takes practice. For the record, I did get rejected from HLS, but I think that had to do with some unrelated factors and a below-25th GPA.

MistakenGenius, I'm not using KB's statements as my only support for "you'll be fine." That conclusion comes from observing my own cycle, LSN data, late waitlist movement, and a host of other things that can't be boiled down to hard data. HLS, like CLS and NYU and other big schools, is still struggling to keep its medians up. I wanted to offer KB's advice as evidence that even 3+ retakes is not necessarily fatal at HLS (as OP thought earlier in the thread), and in the right circumstances might not even require an addendum.

For 164->176 you mentioned practice, but I think the test is not fully learnable. Can you describe how you improved?
.
I am beginning to have hard time buying the theme that the test is fully learnable.

Wouldn't op need to retake to avoid negative impact of downward trend if he scores lower (163->160) even though schools only take the highest score?

Re the multiple takes admissions effect, there is enough data to think that 3 takes wouldn't effect chances at H if one has a strong highest score. It would be hard to believe that H will take someone with 3 takes but not accept the same person if he had 4.

[PeanutsNJam]

I think each section of the test is fully learnable.

That said, I also believe people are predisposed to be more logical/calculating, or emotionally driven/intuitive.

LSAT obviously favors logical/objective thinkers, and greatly punishes people who approach the questions with any amount of subjectivity.

On the other hand, I believe it's possible to fight your predisposition.

In conclusion:

Theoretically, anybody without a physiological learning disability can score a 180. However, it is vastly easier for some individuals to do so than it is for others. Scoring a 180, unlike winning an olympic gold medal, does not require abnormally specialized genetic superiority.

[banjo]

I've just been on this site for a while and seen plenty of people (myself included) counting their Butlers before they are hatched and never even breaking 170 after multiple tries. The type of person who goes 163, (lower than 163), 170+ is a special snowflake indeed.

Just playing the odds here dawg. But I know, never tell you the odds.

Before September LSAT, lowest PT 168, highest PT 176, median PT 173.....messed up the LG section over there! Not going to happen again!

I went 164 --> 176. It just takes practice. For the record, I did get rejected from HLS, but I think that had to do with some unrelated factors and a below-25th GPA.

MistakenGenius, I'm not using KB's statements as my only support for "you'll be fine." That conclusion comes from observing my own cycle, LSN data, late waitlist movement, and a host of other things that can't be boiled down to hard data. HLS, like CLS and NYU and other big schools, is still struggling to keep its medians up. I wanted to offer KB's advice as evidence that even 3+ retakes is not necessarily fatal at HLS (as OP thought earlier in the thread), and in the right circumstances might not even require an addendum.

For 164->176 you mentioned practice, but I think the test is not fully learnable. Can you describe how you improved? I was PTing at average of mid 170s (retake of PTs) and had my last exactly timed fresh PT before the june test at 173. Still, I knew I didn't do well under real conditions on my retake and went from 165->162. I am beginning to have hard time buying the theme that the test is fully learnable.

I've been in your shoes. At points, I felt completely discouraged about the LSAT and hated myself for being not-good-enough at the things I always thought I was good at (reading, forming arguments). But you have to keep working at it. If you can get a 160, you probably have the mental ability necessary to get a 170+. You can certainly do it if you're already PTing in the 170s. In fact, it sounds like you just had anxiety on test day.

In my case, I eventually ended up taking the Testmasters classroom course and treating the class like the most important thing ever. I attended every session, came early to ask questions, did every homework problem, and even consulted other prep books (specifically Cambridge LSAT and PowerScore) to see if they had better techniques for each type of problem. I basically cleared out the rest of my life schedule to focus on this. I know not everyone can do that, but total immersion can be useful.

What they do right -- and you can replicate this without a prep course -- is give you tons and tons of practice doing a single question type at a time. For example, one Saturday I did necessary assumption questions literally all day. Like a hundred at a time. One thing I did right was stopping after almost every LSAT question I did to analyze what I could do better. I critiqued my internal thought processes, trying to see where I thought too much or too little. I critiqued how quickly I eliminated answer choices and exactly how many seconds I could save by doing this or that differently. I was optimizing everything.

[appind]

Before September LSAT, lowest PT 168, highest PT 176, median PT 173.....messed up the LG section over there! Not going to happen again!

I went 164 --> 176. It just takes practice. For the record, I did get rejected from HLS, but I think that had to do with some unrelated factors and a below-25th GPA.

MistakenGenius, I'm not using KB's statements as my only support for "you'll be fine." That conclusion comes from observing my own cycle, LSN data, late waitlist movement, and a host of other things that can't be boiled down to hard data. HLS, like CLS and NYU and other big schools, is still struggling to keep its medians up. I wanted to offer KB's advice as evidence that even 3+ retakes is not necessarily fatal at HLS (as OP thought earlier in the thread), and in the right circumstances might not even require an addendum.

For 164->176 you mentioned practice, but I think the test is not fully learnable. Can you describe how you improved? I was PTing at average of mid 170s (retake of PTs) and had my last exactly timed fresh PT before the june test at 173. Still, I knew I didn't do well under real conditions on my retake and went from 165->162. I am beginning to have hard time buying the theme that the test is fully learnable.

I've been in your shoes. At points, I felt completely discouraged about the LSAT and hated myself for being not-good-enough at the things I always thought I was good at (reading, forming arguments). But you have to keep working at it. If you can get a 160, you probably have the mental ability necessary to get a 170+. You can certainly do it if you're already PTing in the 170s. In fact, it sounds like you just had anxiety on test day.

In my case, I eventually ended up taking the Testmasters classroom course and treating the class like the most important thing ever. I attended every session, came early to ask questions, did every homework problem, and even consulted other prep books (specifically Cambridge LSAT and PowerScore) to see if they had better techniques for each type of problem. I basically cleared out the rest of my life schedule to focus on this. I know not everyone can do that, but total immersion can be useful.

What they do right -- and you can replicate this without a prep course -- is give you tons and tons of practice doing a single question type at a time. For example, one Saturday I did necessary assumption questions literally all day. Like a hundred at a time. One thing I did right was stopping after almost every LSAT question I did to analyze what I could do better. I critiqued my internal thought processes, trying to see where I thought too much or too little. I critiqued how quickly I eliminated answer choices and exactly how many seconds I could save by doing this or that differently. I was optimizing everything.

I do hope you're right that it's fully learnable. Having done all the known real lsat material, I know pretty much what the questions are asking. And given enough time can almost always find the right answer. So one could say that I have learned the test. But execution is a different beast altogether. I couldn't bring it to the real test day conditions.

The test material probably is, but perhaps test execution isn't fully learnable?

In my two scored administrations, the worst I did on an lr section was -10 and the best -2, the worst on an lg section -5 and the best -1, the worst on an rc -9 and the best -8. Rc is the only consistently bad section for me, but for lr and lg I have done fine on some their sections and bad on others. If it's anxiety, then is overcoming anxiety during test fully learnable and how to do so?

Did the testmasters material include problems other than the ones from PTs? I have run out of all material with some PTs taken multiple times so need other material. Any material harder than lsat questions so real lsat feels easy?

e: info

[BillsFan9907]

Re the multiple takes admissions effect, there is enough data to think that 3 takes wouldn't effect chances at H if one has a strong highest score. It would be hard to believe that H will take someone with 3 takes but not accept the same person if he had 4.

To what data are you referring? For me, I have been here a good while, and I have seen tons of people with multiple retakes get in. Last year, one girls got into HYS with three LSATs. Her message could not have been more blunt - "they don't give a shit."

[ms9]

Hi Everyone,

I have a 163 (I know, nothing special) from the June 2014 LSAT, and I took the LSAT in September again. Would a lower score in the September LSAT hurt my admissions?

I have to make a decision on cancellation. Much appreciated!

It will do nothing, they will only care about your higher score.

[lawjag2015]

Hi Everyone,

I have a 163 (I know, nothing special) from the June 2014 LSAT, and I took the LSAT in September again. Would a lower score in the September LSAT hurt my admissions?

I have to make a decision on cancellation. Much appreciated!

It will do nothing, they will only care about your higher score.

So I would not need to retake just because I had a drop in scores, in case that happens? The reason I am asking is that someone else mentioned that to be case somewhere in this thread.

As for learning the exam, talking from experience, I can say that learning this test to be effective in the real test means developing the ability to do each section well within time. Only then one can make sure that come what may, the test is going to be okay. I have developed this ability in LR and RC. LG is next. LG needs to be done in 28 minutes or so. Once you are able to do it consistently, you know that even in the worst case scenario you will finish the section fine.

[Rigo]

Hi Everyone,

I have a 163 (I know, nothing special) from the June 2014 LSAT, and I took the LSAT in September again. Would a lower score in the September LSAT hurt my admissions?

I have to make a decision on cancellation. Much appreciated!

It will do nothing, they will only care about your higher score.

So I would not need to retake just because I had a drop in scores, in case that happens? The reason I am asking is that someone else mentioned that to be case somewhere in this thread.

Listen to Spivey. His take on things is TCR.
As for the poster who said retakes will hurt you, it is most likely he was talking about the act of retaking. It's the act of retaking that HYS are believed to frown upon, regardless of what you score. However, at this point, the deed is done. Either you'll have to retake again (assuming you didn't improve that much this past attempt) or HYS definitely won't be an option.