Top Law Schools

My tablet froze during the final section of the October LSAT (!) and I am still waiting for LSAC to release my score because it is on hold as they review the test center complaint. My applications are all ready to submit but I don't have another score to report. I don't want to wait till January to take again because that is later in the application cycle than I'd planned for.

What would you do if you were me?

1). Be patient, wait it out and see the options once my score is finally released? I submitted the complaint right after the October LSAT. The test center also submitted a separate report. LSAC says it takes up to three weeks or even longer to make a decision. They won't release my score until a decision is made.

2). Cancel my complaint just so my score can be released? I can still cancel and retake in January if necessary. But I'm afraid I'd be giving up a better option that LSAC might offer in their decision. Could they grade it on a different curve?

3). Submit without a score? From what I've read, this is basically pointless as it seems like most schools don't even look at your application until you have a reported LSAT score.

All thoughts, comments, advice and kind words are very much appreciated.

Actually just learned I can't cancel my score when it's released if I request the complaint be withdrawn... But I would almost certainly have that option once the score is released should I wait for the decision.

LSAC is driving me bonkers with this.

I don’t think you’re going to get some kind of different/better curve even if LSAC finds in your favor; my understanding was that if there’s a problem with your test the remedy is a free retake, not an adjustment of your score.

nixy wrote:I don’t think you’re going to get some kind of different/better curve even if LSAC finds in your favor; my understanding was that if there’s a problem with your test the remedy is a free retake, not an adjustment of your score.

Figured as much. I just hope they can actually score it. Only missed the last five questions but the main page of the exam showed that the entire final section was incomplete even after changing tablets and after the exam technically ended.

Because schools just care about the highest score, you are effectively penalized for reporting problems to LSAC as you are delayed in getting your score back and have the emotional headache of being ignored during the investigation, which really won't provide any meaningful benefit to you (they won't increase your score, and because your account is frozen, it can be more difficult to apply and/or sign up for another test).

Someone I worked with had several minutes lost because the proctor inadvertently started the clock during the closed book period and couldn't figure out how to stop it for a few minutes. In addition, there was not enough power for everyone to take the test at once so they were delayed for hours upon hours, which caused an issue for students who had issues with hypoglycemia. In addition to losing time on the test itself and being delayed >3 hours, there was also a legitimate concern someone in the testing center could die during the test but, of course, they weren't allowed to use glucose gel or the like and also didn't want to have to leave the test as they had presumably tried and failed to get accommodations. The result was obviously not only superfluous stress for the person with the medical issue, but for everyone uncomfortable with the prospect of someone falling into a coma during the test.

I've only heard this story anecdotally and can't personally vouch to the accuracy of these events and the individuals at this test center were understandably shaken, which makes objectivity difficult. However, I have no reason to doubt this person's credibility as they were always honest and candid, and I feel guilty for recommending they and others in their test center report these issues to LSAC as I assumed LSAC was primarily concerned with administering a fair and objective test.

The outcome of reporting these issues? One month later, the response of LSAC to the student(s) in the center who reported these issues has been to mostly ignore them and place holds on their account. After seeing how these things are handled by the present administration, I would not advise anyone to report issues to LSAC. It's best to suck them up as you are essentially punished for reporting testing irregularities. As someone who sees the LSAT as the most brilliantly crafted standardized test out there, I think it is unfortunate that poor management and disregard for those taking the test is damaging the test's reputation and undermining its long term viability as the test used to apply to law school.

LSATWiz.com wrote:Because schools just care about the highest score, you are effectively penalized for reporting problems to LSAC as you are delayed in getting your score back and have the emotional headache of being ignored during the investigation, which really won't provide any meaningful benefit to you (they won't increase your score, and because your account is frozen, it can be more difficult to apply and/or sign up for another test).

Someone I worked with had several minutes lost because the proctor inadvertently started the clock during the closed book period and couldn't figure out how to stop it for a few minutes. In addition, there was not enough power for everyone to take the test at once so they were delayed for hours upon hours, which caused an issue for students who had issues with hypoglycemia. In addition to losing time on the test itself and being delayed >3 hours, there was also a legitimate concern someone in the testing center could die during the test but, of course, they weren't allowed to use glucose gel or the like and also didn't want to have to leave the test as they had presumably tried and failed to get accommodations. The result was obviously not only superfluous stress for the person with the medical issue, but for everyone uncomfortable with the prospect of someone falling into a coma during the test.

The outcome of reporting these issues? No response beyond the score and accounts being delayed. I think it is unfortunate that poor management is essentially ruining the objectivity and long term viability of a once brilliant test. But for the purposes of this thread, after seeing how these things are handled by the present administration, I would not advise anyone to report issues to LSAC. It's best to suck them up as you are essentially punished for reporting testing irregularities.

Jesus. Do you know for how long your colleague's score was delayed/their account was on hold?

LSATWiz.com wrote:

And, as noted earlier ITT, I understand the "remedy" is laughable: a "free" retake. I put "free" in quotes because, of course, the retake isn't actually free. All you save is the $200 test fee. There's still the additional time and energy spent on (re)studying, additional expenses in traveling to and spending over half a Saturday at the test center (which, depending on where you live and whether you typically work on Saturdays, can easily far exceed $200), and possibly additional expenses on buying (additional) prep materials.

QContinuum wrote:

LSATWiz.com wrote:

And, as noted earlier ITT, I understand the "remedy" is laughable: a "free" retake. I put "free" in quotes because, of course, the retake isn't actually free. All you save is the $200 test fee. There's still the additional time and energy spent on (re)studying, additional expenses in traveling to and spending over half a Saturday at the test center (which, depending on where you live and whether you typically work on Saturdays, can easily far exceed $200), and possibly additional expenses on buying (additional) prep materials.

The excuse LSAC likes to fall back on is that "you can still submit your law school applications" even if the score is on hold/not released. Since basically all reputable law schools apparently don't even consider your application without a reported LSAT score, I think it would be a great service to applicants if law schools updated their admissions process so that they will consider ONLY those applications that include a reported LSAT score. I think this will benefit far more applicants than it could potentially hurt.

As it stands, the current admissions process only gives LSAC the benefit of monopolizing the entire admissions process. Accepting the GRE was probably supposed to help solve this. Law schools can do more by just changing the application policy as regards LSAT score reporting.

QContinuum wrote:

LSATWiz.com wrote:

And, as noted earlier ITT, I understand the "remedy" is laughable: a "free" retake. I put "free" in quotes because, of course, the retake isn't actually free. All you save is the $200 test fee. There's still the additional time and energy spent on (re)studying, additional expenses in traveling to and spending over half a Saturday at the test center (which, depending on where you live and whether you typically work on Saturdays, can easily far exceed $200), and possibly additional expenses on buying (additional) prep materials.

Agree 100%, and the additional issue is that if you are surpassing your target score leading up to the test and making sure to have everything in order, you aren't necessarily signing up for all future tests. The correct solution for LSAC would be to at least offer the student to take another test even if that test isn't free. Instead, they freeze the account, which I believe but may be wrong on, precludes someone from signing up for another test for an undisclosed period of time.

My understanding is that it is kind of similar to the punishment for cheating on the LSAT. You're banned from taking the test for a period of time, and have the fact you cheated on a previous test disclosed to schools you apply to. By reporting testing irregulaties, students are, at least in my understanding, also banned from taking the test for a period of time and there's no real way of winning of dispute if you consider $200 immaterial to your legal career. This sends the message that LSAC really doesn't want students issues with the administration of their test.

The most frustrating part of it is that most of these issues are firmly within LSAC's control. They said that the tablet platform won't materially alter the test, but aimed to cram as many students in a test center as possible to boost profits without considering the fact that maybe 1,000 tablets won't be able to connect to the server at the same time. They also make timing electronic but don't adequately train their proctors on how to use the electronic equipment, and offer no recourse if these underpaid proctors who are often from a generation less adept at handling technology make an error using the software they have not been trained to use.

I would not even call these issues problems with the individual testing center as they are largely predictable and within LSAC's control. Surely, LSAC knows how many people can connect to its server at a given time, and surely LSAC is able to do a better job training its proctors. Obviously it costs them money to rent out test centers and train proctors so simply raise the cost of the test. The business model of trying to minimize expenditures to such a degree so as to effectively ensure that a certain percentage of students will potentially have their legal careers altered is wrong on its face. If they can't give an objective test for $200 a head, make it $300.

I know this forum likes to stay away from saying anything legal, and while this statement can be perceived to have legal implications, that is not my intention: I doubt these test center issues (eg: cramming 1,000 people into a test center when only 500 can connect to the server) are occurring in wealthy, suburban areas. I've always disagreed with the notion that the way the test is written discriminates against certain minorities, which has been the basis of several cases in the past.

Structuring the administration of the test to put test takers in urban areas at a disadvantage is an entirely different issue, and one that obviously impacts some racial groups more than others. What's more is that they effectively penalize those who report the issue by holding their accounts and not offering an adequate remedy.

LSATWiz.com wrote:I know this forum likes to stay away from saying anything legal, and while this statement can be perceived to have legal implications, that is not my intention: I doubt these test center issues (eg: cramming 1,000 people into a test center when only 500 can connect to the server) are occurring in wealthy, suburban areas. I've always disagreed with the notion that the way the test is written discriminates against certain minorities, which has been the basis of several cases in the past.

Structuring the administration of the test to put test takers in urban areas at a disadvantage is an entirely different issue, and one that obviously impacts some racial groups more than others. What's more is that they effectively penalize those who report the issue by holding their accounts and not offering an adequate remedy.

At the risk of further derailing this thread, I really don't think it's fair to characterize an issue with urban test sites - which is serious - as somehow an issue with racial/socioeconomic discrimination. There are plenty of wealthy, white, city-dwellin' 0Ls. I'd even suspect that overall, city-dwelling 0Ls are likely to be wealthier than rural 0Ls.

QContinuum wrote:

LSATWiz.com wrote:I know this forum likes to stay away from saying anything legal, and while this statement can be perceived to have legal implications, that is not my intention: I doubt these test center issues (eg: cramming 1,000 people into a test center when only 500 can connect to the server) are occurring in wealthy, suburban areas. I've always disagreed with the notion that the way the test is written discriminates against certain minorities, which has been the basis of several cases in the past.

Structuring the administration of the test to put test takers in urban areas at a disadvantage is an entirely different issue, and one that obviously impacts some racial groups more than others. What's more is that they effectively penalize those who report the issue by holding their accounts and not offering an adequate remedy.

At the risk of further derailing this thread, I really don't think it's fair to characterize an issue with urban test sites - which is serious - as somehow an issue with racial/socioeconomic discrimination. There are plenty of wealthy, white, city-dwellin' 0Ls. I'd even suspect that overall, city-dwelling 0Ls are likely to be wealthier than rural 0Ls.

I'm sure it's not intentional, but you can make a disparate impact argument. For example, 25% of New York City is black whereas about 5% of Westchester and Long Islander are black. You'd find similar ratios among Hispanic communities. I haven't researched it but I'd imagine these follow suit nationwide. While I'm sure it's just incompetence and an evolving mindset of just not giving a shit about quality control, the effect of LSAC's incompetence and disregard for quality control disparately impacts some groups more than others. Under Title VII, you only need to demonstrate impact, not intent, which is why LSAC's blatant disregard for quality control under its new leadership is so shocking. Unless they change course, the eventual outcome of this disregard is blatantly obvious.

My strong suspicion is that this is going to be an issue that either leads to dramatic changes in LSAC as an organization, to the GRE ultimately replacing the LSAT or some combination of the two. The problem for LSAC's long term viability is they are behaving as though they are a monopoly that doesn't have to answer to market forces at a time when more and more schools are accepting other tests in lieu of the LSAT. It's obviously bad for anyone in the LSAT industry, but I doubt the LSAT will be the major test used for law school admissions in a decade. The number of problems I hear about has been becoming increasingly egregious and commonplace to the point that LSAC simply blocks the accounts of those complaining and doesn't implement changes to address the complaints. Some would see such negative reinforcement as sending a clear message that they are less interested in fulfilling their responsibility than in being left alone.