Top Law Schools

I took the LSAT a year ago and scored a 163. I retook it in October, and scored a 169.
Should I write an addendum explaining the difference, or is that unnecessary?

If you have no other reason besides studying more, then no it probably wouldn't really help your application.

It's not that I studied more, but at the same time I feel that the reason seems a bit less like a genuine reason and more like an excuse.
The first testing location was about 100 yards from a railroad track, and two trains came through, so I had to sit through two ten minute sessions of train horns and track rattling - not the best thing for concentrating on logical reasoning questions.

DerpKnight wrote:It's not that I studied more, but at the same time I feel that the reason seems a bit less like a genuine reason and more like an excuse.
The first testing location was about 100 yards from a railroad track, and two trains came through, so I had to sit through two ten minute sessions of train horns and track rattling - not the best thing for concentrating on logical reasoning questions.

It is up to you. That is not really an excuse; it is a legitimate reason why you may not have scored as highly on your first take.

However, I think there is a strong argument to not include an addendum since most schools will only look at your higher score anyways when deciding to admit you.

some schools specifically ask for addenda about jumps of 5+ points. Do these, but don't send it to the others. I jumped 10 points and only sent to the schools that absolutely require it

Hey JamMasterJ, do you recall which schools asked for this? I've been looking over my applications and I don't really remember any schools that have asked for one.

Worker and Parasite wrote:Hey JamMasterJ, do you recall which schools asked for this? I've been looking over my applications and I don't really remember any schools that have asked for one.

I may be wrong on this one but I think Michigan asks.

cool, thanks for the headsup

just over halfway down

http://www.top-law-schools.com/retaking-the-lsat.html

DerpKnight wrote:The first testing location was about 100 yards from a railroad track, and two trains came through, so I had to sit through two ten minute sessions of train horns and track rattling - not the best thing for concentrating on logical reasoning questions.

I vote include it with the reasons. Let them know that you expected better from yourself and you are disappointed even when it isn't your fault. Let them know that you didn't study more you simply didn't have to compete with 20 minutes of train horns the second time.