Top Law Schools

My scores in order: 168 - 170 - 164
I am obviously devastated by the 164.
Since my GPA is barely above 3, I was hoping to improve on the 170, and ED to NU or UVA.
Now, I'm not sure what to do.
Is my situation hopeless?

it's a big drop. wow. if it was a 169 id say no big deal. this is confusing. id still ed to uva though.

I don't think this would be treated much differently than if you got the 170 on your third attempt. You're score will probably be treated as somewhere between the average of the 3 and 170.

A huge drop, I know. I still can't believe it.
I couldn't concentrate at all on the first LR section, because the proctor was whispering to a student right beside me. And there were about 4 formal logic questions that I just couldn't understand. I thought I did reasonably well on the other sections, so I did not cancel.
But now I wish I had.

is a 4th go possible? idk how to do this but i think it makes sense.

bkred wrote:My scores in order: 168 - 170 - 164
I am obviously devastated by the 164.
Since my GPA is barely above 3, I was hoping to improve on the 170, and ED to NU or UVA.
Now, I'm not sure what to do.
Is my situation hopeless?

Quit crying. 95% of the people who took that test would kill for either of those three scores

flexityflex86 wrote:it's a big drop. wow. if it was a 169 id say no big deal. this is confusing. id still ed to uva though.

Wow, that was really helpful.

OP I see this as no different than if you got the 170 the third time. Write an addendum and just go ahead and apply.

yngblkgifted wrote:

flexityflex86 wrote:it's a big drop. wow. if it was a 169 id say no big deal. this is confusing. id still ed to uva though.

Wow, that was really helpful.

OP I see this as no different than if you got the 170 the third time. Write an addendum and just go ahead and apply.

i think you're wrong here. that's not how schools will see it. the same way schools say they discount other scores if you improve 3+ points, can't that work vice versa too? not saying the 170 becomes a 164, but to say this will be perceived as a straight 170 is idiotic.

welcome to the club man, same thing happened to me. went down 6+ points from a low 170 score. you need to suck it up and move on.

flexityflex86 wrote:

yngblkgifted wrote:

flexityflex86 wrote:it's a big drop. wow. if it was a 169 id say no big deal. this is confusing. id still ed to uva though.

Wow, that was really helpful.

OP I see this as no different than if you got the 170 the third time. Write an addendum and just go ahead and apply.

i think you're wrong here. that's not how schools will see it. the same way schools say they discount other scores if you improve 3+ points, can't that work vice versa too? not saying the 170 becomes a 164, but to say this will be perceived as a straight 170 is idiotic.

Not saying it will be perceived as a straight 170. I'm saying that there is not a significant difference between 168,170,164 and 168,164,170. The 164 will not be discounted, but the 164 doesn't some how negate the 170 or even diminish it's value any more than it would if it was the first score OP got as opposed to the last one. Ad comms will look at the entire group of scores regardless of the order in which they were received. The point is op was smart enough to get a 170, and the ad comms will know this. I know someone whose second score dropped 4 points from their first and their third try was equal to their first and they are sitting at UVa law right now. All of the scores by the way were in the 160's (Of course they had a crazy high GPA but still...)

yngblkgifted wrote:

flexityflex86 wrote:

yngblkgifted wrote:

flexityflex86 wrote:it's a big drop. wow. if it was a 169 id say no big deal. this is confusing. id still ed to uva though.

Wow, that was really helpful.

OP I see this as no different than if you got the 170 the third time. Write an addendum and just go ahead and apply.

i think you're wrong here. that's not how schools will see it. the same way schools say they discount other scores if you improve 3+ points, can't that work vice versa too? not saying the 170 becomes a 164, but to say this will be perceived as a straight 170 is idiotic.

Not saying it will be perceived as a straight 170. I'm saying that there is not a significant difference between 168,170,164 and 168,164,170. The 164 will not be discounted, but the 164 doesn't some how negate the 170 or even diminish it's value any more than it would if it was the first score OP got as opposed to the last one. Ad comms will look at the entire group of scores regardless of the order in which they were received. The point is op was smart enough to get a 170, and the ad comms will know this. I know someone whose second score dropped 4 points from their first and their third try was equal to their first and they are sitting at UVa law right now. All of the scores by the way were in the 160's (Of course they had a crazy high GPA but still...)

this person's lsat is 6 points lower than his 1st, not = to his first like the person you know.

also that person was above a median at uva.

I think a retake is out of the question for me. I can't wait another year for this.
Right now, I think I would be happy if my scores were 164-168-170.
Oh well.

this person's lsat is 6 points lower than his 1st, not = to his first like the person you know.

also that person was above a median at uva.

I'm not saying OP will get into UVA, I'm just saying that the order in which the scores were received doesn't mean that the OP is hopeless.

Still many think four points is significant. Also, the person I know wrote an addendum and received admission before they got their third score back.But that's beyond the point. All I'm saying is that the highest score will weigh the most heavily no matter when the applicant gets that score. The highest score is representative of someone's potential. No one lucks into a 170 or even a 168 for that matter. OP had a bad day, and I think ad comms will be forgiving of this as long as it is addressed in the application.

Just write an addendum OP and apply insanely early and hope for the best.

Thanks yngblkgifted.
Yeah, at this point, I guess I don't have anything to lose by going ahead and applying.

I've always wondered about this question.

The TLS logic has always been that all that matters is GPA and LSAT b/c those are the factors that US News uses to determine rankings. Everything else is a "soft" factor, and soft factors generally dont matter. Well, the only things that US News requires schools to report are LSAC GPA and the highest LSAT.

TLS always chirps about how LSAC GPA is all thats important, if anything, your UG GPA (if its different) is just another soft factor. Why don't we apply the same logic to the LSAT? If they only have to report the highest LSAT, and we all acknowledge that law schools are ranking whores, why wouldn't the lower scores just be considered soft factors like UG GPA?

Sure some schools say they "average" scores, but most of them also say they use a complex admissions process that takes serious account of everyone's LORs and Personal Statements. I'm honestly not sure what the right answer is, but believing that schools actually care about multiple LSATs doesn't fit with the general TLS assumptions.

*Just to stay on topic, I think you'll be fine, there’s really not a terribly dramatic difference in your scores. I got a 171 then a 169 and my cycle played out just like I had a 171.

Thanks for the kind words, QuailMan.
I don't think I will get into T14 now, but I guess it won't hurt to apply anyways.

On that note, which school would be better strategically for me to ED: NU or UVA?

Apply as if your LSAT score is a 170---because it is. The only harm is that if you were targeting Harvard or NYU.

P.S. In reading through your earlier posts, it seems that your GPA might be an issue if it is a 3.06 out of a possible 4.5. Did LSAC calculate a GPA for you ?

Also, consider writing an addendum for your third LSAT score because the disturbance of the proctor talking to the student seated next to you is a reasonable explanation---especially if that section of the test brought down your score.

Don't write an addendum. Most schools are going to take the 170. Congrats on your success on the LSAT.
Apply to every school you consider a good match for your long term goals. If UVA is your top choice, then ED without an addendum. Why bring additional attention to your lowest score? I'd bet the Adcomms are more focused on that 170 staring them in the face. If your score had dropped from 170 to 160, then you might want to explain how the testing environment was less than ideal.

Do you have an account with http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com ? If so, we would like to follow your cycle.

Good luck.

If you are applying to Top 17 law schools, then an LSAT addendum might be helpful since your situation is readily understood. Opinions will vary, but few can state with certainty whether or not an LSAT addendum will affect your application. My opinion is that the circumstances favor you--so why not explain ?
I do, however, agree that for law schools outside of the Top 17 that an addendum is unnecessary.

CanadianWolf wrote:Apply as if your LSAT score is a 170---because it is. The only harm is that if you were targeting Harvard or NYU.

P.S. In reading through your earlier posts, it seems that your GPA might be an issue if it is a 3.06 out of a possible 4.5. Did LSAC calculate a GPA for you ?

Also, consider writing an addendum for your third LSAT score because the disturbance of the proctor talking to the student seated next to you is a reasonable explanation---especially if that section of the test brought down your score.

My gpa is 3.06 but I went to college outside US, so when I sent my transcript to LSAC, they only listed it as "Above Average", so I'm assuming that schools will see my gpa as 3.06.

Several of the test takers in the same room complained about the proctor to the authorities in Korea (where I took the test), and I heard the proctor was banned from further tests. Doesn't really help my situation though.
The thing is, I knew I did horribly on the first section, but felt that I did reasonably well on the other sections. So I was praying like crazy that the first section was the experimental one, which seemed highly probable to me because of the high number of formal logic questions. I had been PTing in the high 170s, so I felt that even if the first section was not the experimental section, I could get at least a score in the low 170s. Obviously I was wrong, and I don't really have an excuse. I guess I just choked.

KingMenes wrote:Don't write an addendum. Most schools are going to take the 170. Congrats on your success on the LSAT.
Apply to every school you consider a good match for your long term goals. If UVA is your top choice, then ED without an addendum. Why bring additional attention to your lowest score? I'd bet the Adcomms are more focused on that 170 staring them in the face. If your score had dropped from 170 to 160, then you might want to explain how the testing environment was less than ideal.

Do you have an account with http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com ? If so, we would like to follow your cycle.

Good luck.

I don't have a lawschoolnumbers account yet, but I will get one soon.
Thanks for your input.

Do you really think you can significantly break a 170 on retake? Is 170 an outlier compared to your mean on recently taken, recently published PTs? People typically improve several points over multiple LSAT exams. If you can't score much above a 170 on a good day I wouldn't chance it again.