Top Law Schools

I took the Law School Admissions Test on September 26th, 2009 and scored a 160. While my overall score was disappointing, I was more disappointed that one section, the games, was the main cause of my low score. On that section I correctly answered only 10 of 23 questions. On the other 3 sections, comprising 78 questions, I missed a total of 13. Following this poor showing, I worked to improve my score on the games section and succeeded by scoring a 19 out of 23 on the games section during the December 5th, 2009 test. I believe my December score of 167 is more reflective of my ability and shows I am capable of developing skills that at first are unfamiliar and difficult for me.

I thought you were only supposed to submit an addendum in cases where something unusual caused you to score low

Some schools (Loyola for one, I believe) ask you to submit an addendum as long as you have any sort of change of more than a few points between scores. That can make it very tricky for a lot of people to write decent addendums because schools are basically asking you to write up an excuse when you don't have one.

If I had to write an addendum for a increase of something like 5-7 points I'd probably just say something to the effect of: I wanted to retake the LSAT to show that my first score was not indicative of my skills, identified areas I could improve on, and increased my score. Writing more than a sentence or two when you really don't have anything to say isn't going to help.

I would definitely lose all the specifics about logic games and the exact number of questions missed.

also, "games" is a little informal. it's called "Analytical Reasoning".

UVA does not specifically ask for one, but Trujillo explained in an interview that one does not hurt...

Do you plan to email them this addendum? I'm curious. I assume they are busy this week due to being closed for holidays.

sternc wrote:I took the Law School Admissions Test on September 26th, 2009... 160... 10 of 23 questions... 3 sections... 78 questions... 13... 19 out of 23... December 5th, 2009... 167

Too long, with too many numbers, and you spend way too much time discussing your weaknesses (i.e. explaining the bad score).

Delete all the section breakdowns and numbers of missed questions. The adcomm doesn't care about any of that. And don't use full dates, either. The adcomm already knows what day the December 2009 test was held -- what's the point of telling them it was on the 5th? Don't try to snow them under with facts and specifics. It won't work.

Also, I'm a bit unclear about the core message. It seems to be: "I scored badly, worked hard, and scored better." Ooookay... but they can see that from the score report, with no need for an addendum. You say that you "believe the new score is more reflective" of your ability, but that's just an unsupported opinion. Where's the meat of your argument? Besides being higher, why is the new score more accurate than the old one?

Yes - I'm with the others on this one. I don't think you necessarily need an addendum unless something BIG happened to throw you off.

I say this because I keep getting the impression that adcomms do not want to be pestered by us applicants unless there is something huge at hand.

I could be wrong though

My score went up 17 points between my first and second times taking it (2 years apart), and I don't plan on submitting addendums because I don't have a good reason other than preparing for it the second time. I think the raise speaks for itself.

"I took the LSAT and did not do as well as I was capable of. Then I took it again and did better, showing I could do better than I did before. This is why I did better the second time."

This is essentially what adcomms are going to see when they read this. Either that, or this:

"I took the LSAT and did poorly because I am not the type of person who prepares properly before a test. Then I took it again, and did better the second time around. However, I won't need two chances to do well in law school, promise."

I went up 10 points Sept - Dec, and I'm struggling with an addendum myself. Some of my schools specifically state something like "information that would be relevant for the admissions committee should be submitted in an addendum," but I'm also a bit swayed by the "let the scores speak for themselves." Then I go on LSAC and see this nonsense:

Should I take the test again?

If you believe that your test score does not reflect your true ability, you should consider taking the test again. Data show that scores for repeat test takers often rise slightly. However, be aware that your scores may drop. You should also notify law schools of any facts relevant to the interpretation of your test results, such as illness or extenuating circumstances. If there is no reason to believe that one score represents a truer estimate of an applicant’s ability, schools are advised that the average score is probably the best estimate of ability—especially if the tests were taken over short period of time. Law schools must have access to your complete test record, not just the highest score; therefore, LSAC will not honor requests for partial score reports.

leftofthedial wrote:If there is no reason to believe that one score represents a truer estimate of an applicant’s ability, schools are advised that the average score is probably the best estimate of ability—especially if the tests were taken over short period of time. Law schools must have access to your complete test record, not just the highest score; therefore, LSAC will not honor requests for partial score reports.

That is BS to me. A score should be seen as the highest achievement on record, which it is. Not a measure of inherent "ability." We all know that's not precisely true. I don't think athletes who set records should have those marked down if they have correspondingly bombed events before.

I can understand they don't want to feed the fire of "must re-take until I get a 180" but even so...

Kulax22 wrote:I don't think athletes who set records should have those marked down if they have correspondingly bombed events before.

...unless you are trying to recruit an athlete who can perform well consistently during his three years on your team.

If I were an adcomm and the candidates were otherwise equal, I would recruit 170/172 before 150/172. Wouldn't you?

It's perfectly valid for adcomms to consider all your scores.

You come across as unprofessional. And thats only allowed on anonymous discussion boards.

Bottom line: that letter will hurt more than it will help. It really says nothing substantive.

aether wrote:

Kulax22 wrote:I don't think athletes who set records should have those marked down if they have correspondingly bombed events before.

...unless you are trying to recruit an athlete who can perform well consistently during his three years on your team.

If I were an adcomm and the candidates were otherwise equal, I would recruit 170/172 before 150/172. Wouldn't you?

It's perfectly valid for adcomms to consider all your scores.

Not necessarily. The 170/172 has "stalled" but the 150/172 might be capable of even more progress. I'm just trying to propose another view.

I certainly don't find it outrageous they consider both scores, but only as a "soft" factor. If they want sure consistency, then they should have all of us take the LSAT multiple times.

Kulax22 wrote:they should have all of us take the LSAT multiple times.

Shhh, Kulax! You'll give the adcomms dangerous ideas!

aether wrote: Shhh, Kulax! You'll give the adcomms dangerous ideas!

I would erase it but I'm sure they've already spotted it. Maybe one day I can become an admissions officer