Can I ask them to reconsider? Forum

[Scruffy]

So I applied to GWU law in early Oct 2014 with my GPA of 3.X and LSAT score of 16X. I knew I would be taking the lsat again, but I figured that if they looked at my application before my next score came back then I would probably just get waitlisted. I didn't think I was an automatic reject. In early December I got rejected from GW with those numbers.

I took the LSAT again in Dec and got a 16X. Now I have the same GPA and GW's median LSAT score. I'm a target applicant for them. Can I ask them to reconsider my application for the same cycle? It is still fairly early.

I don't have any C&F issues or anything else I can think of that would have caused them to reject me.

Thoughts?

[Auxilio]

Honestly I think the only good answer you can get in this thread is to just email the admissions office.

[Scruffy]

Honestly I think the only good answer you can get in this thread is to just email the admissions office.

Yeah I thought about doing that I just wanted to make sure that it isn't completely inappropriate to do so. I have never heard of someone doing it so I was wondering if it has been done before. Thanks.

[pylon]

Can I ask them to reconsider my application for the same cycle?

This is an interesting question. I didn't think was possible, and unfortunately doubt schools grant these sort of requests. It opens up the doors to a whole slew of re-applicants and extra work. However it doesn't hurt to ask (I would call rather than e-mail).

[Clearly]

Can you remember to come back and post what they say? I'm genuinely curious.

[leslieknope]

I remember reading at some school's FAQ that they don't entertain requests like this unless there were extraordinary circumstances outside the applicant's control because it's not fair to other applicants given the rolling admissions scheme. I'd still try, though, especially given that the deadline hasn't passed.

[BigZuck]

I know UT will reconsider. Someone this cycle went from reject to large scholarship.

Wouldn't surprise me if other schools didn't have any shame either

[KMart]

Can you remember to come back and post what they say? I'm genuinely curious.

[thatsnotmyname]

I had a friend who was in the same situation as you in last year's cycle and they initially rejected him and then accepted him after his retake. I don't think that he even asked to be reconsidered because he didn't know it was an option, they reached out to him and changed the decision and offered scholarship money. His change was a lot more drastic though, I think it was 160ish to 170.

[anonid]

Yeah, if there were ever a case of 'what's the worst they could do? repeat themselves?'

[banjo]

You should just retake again and try to get another 5 points.

[mickey_mouse]

Can you remember to come back and post what they say? I'm genuinely curious.

This please. It's still relatively early in the cycle, I feel like there's a shot they'll entertain the request. Like others have said though, only one way to find out.

[SPerez]

Honestly I think the only good answer you can get in this thread is to just email the admissions office.

This is pretty much the response I want to type in for basically 90% of the questions I read on here, haha.

Like others said, you can ASK anything you want. The worst they can say is no. If they don't entertain such requests, the answer will still be no.

You can imagine why schools wouldn't want to broadly advertise that you can make such requests as we would be inundated (well, other schools would be, Tech wouldn't really ) with people begging to be admitted because they made Who's Who or something.

Realistically, a new, higher LSAT score is the only kind of change that is significant enough to get me to change my mind.

Dean Perez
Texas Tech University

[Scruffy]

So I heard back from them today regarding the reconsideration request. They said that they will reconsider my application but they will do so in June after all other applications have been considered. They also say that the decision will probably stay the same.

[BigZuck]

Honestly I think the only good answer you can get in this thread is to just email the admissions office.

This is pretty much the response I want to type in for basically 90% of the questions I read on here, haha.

Like others said, you can ASK anything you want. The worst they can say is no. If they don't entertain such requests, the answer will still be no.

You can imagine why schools wouldn't want to broadly advertise that you can make such requests as we would be inundated (well, other schools would be, Tech wouldn't really ) with people begging to be admitted because they made Who's Who or something.

Realistically, a new, higher LSAT score is the only kind of change that is significant enough to get me to change my mind.

Dean Perez
Texas Tech University

I totally get why (LSAT is important for rankings, obvi) but does that make you feel weird or anything as an adcom? Say someone is rejected, then goes out and scores 5 points higher and then they are reconsidered and accepted. But what about them has changed? They aren't any smarter, and there is no indication that they will do any better in law school/be a better lawyer. They just figured out how to order mauve dinosaurs (or whatever). Kinda proves the whole holistic review process is a flame, yes?

[ilikebaseball]

Honestly I think the only good answer you can get in this thread is to just email the admissions office.

This is pretty much the response I want to type in for basically 90% of the questions I read on here, haha.

Like others said, you can ASK anything you want. The worst they can say is no. If they don't entertain such requests, the answer will still be no.

You can imagine why schools wouldn't want to broadly advertise that you can make such requests as we would be inundated (well, other schools would be, Tech wouldn't really ) with people begging to be admitted because they made Who's Who or something.

Realistically, a new, higher LSAT score is the only kind of change that is significant enough to get me to change my mind.

Dean Perez
Texas Tech University

I totally get why (LSAT is important for rankings, obvi) but does that make you feel weird or anything as an adcom? Say someone is rejected, then goes out and scores 5 points higher and then they are reconsidered and accepted. But what about them has changed? They aren't any smarter, and there is no indication that they will do any better in law school/be a better lawyer. They just figured out how to order mauve dinosaurs (or whatever). Kinda proves the whole holistic review process is a flame, yes?

I was sorta thinking the same thing. It sorta indicates "oh, the numbers are great now due to the extra 2 months of LSAT studying. We can surely admit this student now!" Its not like any life changing events to add diversity, or anything intelligence wise clicked with the applicant. It just looks like they admit them to keep numbers.

TCR from an adcom seems to be what GWU said to OP. "We're gonna review all of our current applications first and go back to yours in June. But the result will likely not change." At least they're willing to review it again, but its the last priority

[Clearly]

I disagree. They want kids who will do well in law school, and the lsat is the best indicator of that currently.

[ilikebaseball]

I disagree. They want kids who will do well in law school, and the lsat is the best indicator of that currently.

LSAT may be the best indicator, but it seems to be widely thought to not be a proper indicator. Certain sections, perhaps. But not all of it. Also, one's score, as mine did, can be severely altered by a crazy LG section, or a horrible curve. One could have literally the same or even less skill and make a higher score just because of the different test that they took

[BigZuck]

I disagree. They want kids who will do well in law school, and the lsat is the best indicator of that currently.

Naw.

At the risk of DF posting:

Maybe one's "pure" LSAT score is the best predictor but why would someone really busting their ass to improve their LSAT score be a great predictor? The retaking scenario I was talking about was a kid squeezing out a few more points. Why would learning how to better game the lsat= do better in law school? Learning how to do better on logic games or better understanding the construction of LR questions has nothing to do with how one will do in law school.

This hypothetical person going from, say, 158 to 163 is literally the same person and is not going to do any better in law school just because they have a better understanding of ordering games.

[Clearly]

I disagree. They want kids who will do well in law school, and the lsat is the best indicator of that currently.

Naw.

At the risk of DF posting:

Maybe one's "pure" LSAT score is the best predictor but why would someone really busting their ass to improve their LSAT score be a great predictor? The retaking scenario I was talking about was a kid squeezing out a few more points. Why would learning how to better game the lsat= do better in law school? Learning how to do better on logic games or better understanding the construction of LR questions has nothing to do with how one will do in law school.

This hypothetical person going from, say, 158 to 163 is literally the same person and is not going to do any better in law school just because they have a better understanding of ordering games.

I'm not sure I buy that. I'd love data to know if retakers ultimate 1L grades more closely align with the first or second score, but short of that I do think the data stands. Retake data still shows that the vast majority of retakes don't wildly improve, even if they could game the test. A large percentage of kids that bust their assess still don't score high. Even if it just shows they are better at gaming tests or performing under pressure, those are both skills that translate to law school and a higher ultimate lsat still indicates a better applicant. My opinion is biased because I've taught the lsat and seen how many people out of a class that did everything they needed to do still underperformed, but if I was in admissions I wouldn't feel shallow for taking the kid that improved over the one who didn't. It's not about him getting smarter between scores, it's that ultimately he displayed his intelligence when it counted.

[hill1334]

I disagree. They want kids who will do well in law school, and the lsat is the best indicator of that currently.

Naw.

At the risk of DF posting:

Maybe one's "pure" LSAT score is the best predictor but why would someone really busting their ass to improve their LSAT score be a great predictor? The retaking scenario I was talking about was a kid squeezing out a few more points. Why would learning how to better game the lsat= do better in law school? Learning how to do better on logic games or better understanding the construction of LR questions has nothing to do with how one will do in law school.

This hypothetical person going from, say, 158 to 163 is literally the same person and is not going to do any better in law school just because they have a better understanding of ordering games.

I'm not sure I buy that. I'd love data to know if retakers ultimate 1L grades more closely align with the first or second score, but short of that I do think the data stands. Retake data still shows that the vast majority of retakes don't wildly improve, even if they could game the test. A large percentage of kids that bust their assess still don't score high. Even if it just shows they are better at gaming tests or performing under pressure, those are both skills that translate to law school and a higher ultimate lsat still indicates a better applicant. My opinion is biased because I've taught the lsat and seen how many people out of a class that did everything they needed to do still underperformed, but if I was in admissions I wouldn't feel shallow for taking the kid that improved over the one who didn't. It's not about him getting smarter between scores, it's that ultimately he displayed his intelligence when it counted.

I would also add that in improving his score he also demonstrated effort when it counted. Efforts certainly matters in law school, albeit so do many other factors.

[SPerez]

Honestly I think the only good answer you can get in this thread is to just email the admissions office.

This is pretty much the response I want to type in for basically 90% of the questions I read on here, haha.

Like others said, you can ASK anything you want. The worst they can say is no. If they don't entertain such requests, the answer will still be no.

You can imagine why schools wouldn't want to broadly advertise that you can make such requests as we would be inundated (well, other schools would be, Tech wouldn't really ) with people begging to be admitted because they made Who's Who or something.

Realistically, a new, higher LSAT score is the only kind of change that is significant enough to get me to change my mind.

Dean Perez
Texas Tech University

I totally get why (LSAT is important for rankings, obvi) but does that make you feel weird or anything as an adcom? Say someone is rejected, then goes out and scores 5 points higher and then they are reconsidered and accepted. But what about them has changed? They aren't any smarter, and there is no indication that they will do any better in law school/be a better lawyer. They just figured out how to order mauve dinosaurs (or whatever). Kinda proves the whole holistic review process is a flame, yes?

Not at all. Look, as they say in law school the "facts matter". A lot depends on exactly how many points improvement there are and from what score to what score, in addition to all the other stuff in a file. It's not like I'm denying someone 1 point below median, then accepting them when they go up 2 points. For us, if someone was denied with a 140 jumps to a 150, but they still have horrible writing and a 2.6 GPA it's still not going to matter. So the 158 who goes to a 163 is, you're right, no "smarter" or better qualified for law school after the second test, but before the second test there was no evidence of a "163-level" of ability. We can only go based on what we see. Until we have that 163, the evidence is that the person's abilities ARE around a 158.

When I say that it's the only thing significant enough to get me to reverse a denial I mean that because there's really nothing else in the file a student can change significantly once the cycle has begun. The two big factors are LSAT and GPA, not because they're used for USNWR (although that does make them important, of course), but because they are predictive of various aspects of academic ability. You can't really significantly change your GPA in your final semester, and what else is there? The only other thing I can think of would be a scenario where a student has some kind of academic discipline in a class, e.g. plagiarism, but then is able to submit an LOR from the professor in which that occurred and the prof says the student got a raw deal or that it was accidental but policy dictated the outcome and they wholeheartedly recommend the student. But that's a pretty specific and rare situation, I'd imagine.

So for example, a few years ago when things were better I had a lot of applicants with basically average LSAT scores (152/153) and pretty good GPAs (3.5-ish) that I waitlisted, then ended up denying. They weren't denied because I didn't think they had the ability to make it in law school (the vast majority likely went elsewhere and did just fine, and we always have students admitted with numbers like those who end up on Law Review, top 10%, etc.). It just came down to not having room for all of them and having to balance the pressures of hitting all my various goals for the class.

As to what the higher LSAT scores "mean", that's going to depend on the person. All LSAC wants us to use them for is a predictor (with UG GPA) of first year performance. That's it. (They also still recommend using the average of multiple tests as being a more accurate predictor.) The vast majority of repeat takers I see (which right there, admittedly, is a small group that's not likely representative) do not improve significantly, but I have been seeing an increase in the number of apps with 5+ point jumps. One could read all kinds of things into an improved score. The first one was a bad day and the higher one is the "real" indicator (every applicant's argument). It could mean they just learned some tricks to squeeze out those points, but I have no way of knowing that, or especially whether or not someone who only did the same thing compared to their diagnostics and just took it once. It could mean the person actually DID "learn" and get better at the core concepts of the LSAT, indicating an ability to learn and adapt, which certainly is a good skill to have in law school. Like Hill1334 said, one might read into an improved score that the applicant redoubled their efforts and showed up when it counted. One might also say it "counted" the first time so why didn't they put in that same level of time/study/whatever for the first test? Is the kid just lazy and only works when they absolutely have to?

Best of luck to you, OP. If GWU is where you want to be, then while it make take longer to find out than you wanted, hopefully it will all work out in the end.

Dean Perez
Texas Tech Law

[BigZuck]

Thanks Dean Perez, appreciate the detailed response