Top Law Schools

.

I prob wouldn't (and didn't) write one, but if I did, I'd strongly avoid language like "simply put"

Don't write an addendum like this.

You probably don't need an addendum.

If you really want the right answer, call the school's admission office. I was in a similar situation. Most schools don't care, but a few do.

The problem with an addendum for a score change is that there really is no great answer for most people. Obviously you did not think your first score was a good representation of your abilities, and that is why you registered to take the test again.

Does it honestly matter if you had a cold, was distracted, had bubbling errors, or simply had a bad day? You saw a problem and you fixed it. Almost ever school admits now that they will only consider you top score the rest seems mostly like noise. There is a chance that given another candidate with the same scores, but who only took the test once, or took it twice and had a closer score range, a school may rank them higher than you, but that is slicing things pretty slim.

.

At this rate, why not retest again in another two years & get a 182. Then an addendum will really be necessary.


On a more serious note, a very brief addendum is okay but not necessary due to the time in between the two sittings, in my opinion.

.

One thing that ought to be obvious is that no law school is ever going to care about the actual reason that you had a big point jump on the LSAT, because every possible explanation is equally uninteresting/irrelevant, except, I suppose, for "I had a ringer take the test again for me."

What are the possible explanations? Didn't study enough the first time and took the test anyway? Was sick/emotionally upset and took the test anyway? Misbubbled a section and didn't notice until afterwards? Nobody cares.

Schools put requests for addenda on applications because underemployed admins who have to justify their existence are constantly coming up with bureaucratic complications of this sort, and then other schools copy this stuff because that's what they do. A subliminal factor in all this is that it's actually a good strategy to make people think you're doing them a favor when you take their money (see Madoff, Bernie), so you create lots of pointless hoops to jump through.

I read through the TLS law school profiles of the top 17 ranked law schools. Several recommend an addendum for LSAT discrepancies. (NYU, as of July 29, 2014 still claims that it averages multiple LSAT scores).

Chicago = LSAT addendum for an LSAT score jump of more than 8 or 9 points.

NYU = If they really still do average multiple LSAT scores, then an addendum might help.

Virginia = LSAT addendum.

Michigan = Addendum since applicants don't want adcomms guessing as to why the difference occurred.

Northwestern = Addendum makes sense.

Cornell = Seems inclined to prefer an addendum.

Georgetown = Likes addendums.

UCLA = LSAT addendum to explain significant differences between or among scores.

Vanderbilt = Expects/recommends an LSAT addendum for a difference of 6 points or more in one's LSAT scores.

CanadianWolf wrote:I read through the TLS law school profiles of the top 17 ranked law schools. Several recommend an addendum for LSAT discrepancies. (NYU, as of July 29, 2014 still claims that it averages multiple LSAT scores).

Chicago = LSAT addendum for an LSAT score jump of more than 8 or 9 points.

NYU = If they really still do average multiple LSAT scores, then an addendum might help.

Virginia = LSAT addendum.

Michigan = Addendum since applicants don't want adcomms guessing as to why the difference occurred.

Northwestern = Addendum makes sense.

Cornell = Seems inclined to prefer an addendum.

Georgetown = Likes addendums.

UCLA = LSAT addendum to explain significant differences between or among scores.

Vanderbilt = Expects/recommends an LSAT addendum for a difference of 6 points or more in one's LSAT scores.

I wonder his much of this is is a carryover from the days the schools claimed to care about averaging scores?

With the reduced number of applicants, only a select few can afford to let things like this bother them.

These are recent profiles in response to TLS interview questions.

Also, often how one explains something is just as important as one's explanation for "why" something occurred --according to some adcomms interviewed.