Top Law Schools

If schools are now not averaging scores but really only looking at top scores what would be the harm in:

- Taking October while studying for only a month
- Immediately start preparing again for December via practice tests
- Receive October score and decide whether or not December is necessary

I figure it gives you another chance, gives you test experience, and could potentially save months of study (that may be unnecessary). If you bomb the October, just right an addendum and do better in December.

The only down sides are the cost / 3 weeks of potentially wasted studying when waiting for your October score...not really a big deal.

Thoughts?

A lot of the better schools still are averaging.

3|ink wrote:A lot of the better schools still are averaging.

Even if they say they're averaging, I have to wonder. The way LSAT score reporting is handled now, taking someone with one high score will improve their ranking regardless of his other tests. How can they not be tempted by someone with a 152, 155, 178, for example?

Some of the T14 say they average, though people have said anecdotally that it varies. I think their stated policies are an attempt to seem holistic when in reality they just play the numbers game.

Its better to have the higher score than not.

What if you get rejected before they even receive your higher December score?

Adjudicator wrote:

3|ink wrote:A lot of the better schools still are averaging.

Even if they say they're averaging, I have to wonder. The way LSAT score reporting is handled now, taking someone with one high score will improve their ranking regardless of his other tests. How can they not be tempted by someone with a 152, 155, 178, for example?

I think this will depend on whether they have enough applicants and presumptive admits (who accept) to meet their median and 75th targets. In that case, they can afford to reject the 152/155/178. My guess is that they have enough at HYS.

Cromartie wrote:

Adjudicator wrote:

3|ink wrote:A lot of the better schools still are averaging.

Even if they say they're averaging, I have to wonder. The way LSAT score reporting is handled now, taking someone with one high score will improve their ranking regardless of his other tests. How can they not be tempted by someone with a 152, 155, 178, for example?

I think this will depend on whether they have enough applicants and presumptive admits (who accept) to meet their median and 75th targets. In that case, they can afford to reject the 152/155/178. My guess is that they have enough at HYS.

Right but what about a lower tier?

id say it depends on where you are at right now. If you are still learning the basic concepts and issues, then I would say wait for December. If you are starting out in the 160's and higher, then you can take the october exam, have a solid score, use the 3 weeks to finalize all of your applications, then take the test in December( and send out the applications the monday after the exam- they will wait for the test to make a decision).

IMO it doesnt make sense to take a test while planning on taking it in December. Why waste a test if you know you arent totally prepared? ( you only get 3 chances in a 2 year plan. As soon as you sign in, you automatically use a chance, even if you cancel. Admissions will generally overlook 1 no show, but 2 or more and you begin to look like a flake)

Except for NYU, don't schools say that "they take both into consideration" rather than flat-out saying that they average? I don't think the two mean the same thing.

However, to answer OP's question I don't think it's a good idea - it's basically setting yourself up for failure on the October exam. Even if schools don't literally average a 155/178 is probably looked at in a worse light than just a plain 178. I would think that the previous 152/155 would be seen as a negative, and you would have to write an addendum, where "I just wanted to try the exam out for experience" probably wouldn't work..........

kazu wrote:Except for NYU, don't schools say that "they take both into consideration" rather than flat-out saying that they average? I don't think the two mean the same thing.

However, to answer OP's question I don't think it's a good idea - it's basically setting yourself up for failure on the October exam. Even if schools don't literally average a 155/178 is probably looked at in a worse light than just a plain 178. I would think that the previous 152/155 would be seen as a negative, and you would have to write an addendum, where "I just wanted to try the exam out for experience" probably wouldn't work..........

Yeah, averaging is not the same as taking all scores into consideration, but I think the general sentiment is that HYS truly average. Check out this guy's cycle. He's a 167/178. R at Yale, WL > R at Harvard and WL > R at Stanford. In at Columbia, NYU... I know this is just one case and hardly qualifies as a valid sample, but his case provides a pretty good indicator of schools actually averaging.

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/BenJ

Regardless, I agree that OP should take the LSAT only when he/she is truly ready to take it.

Harvard says they average but I know of someone who got in with an average score way below their acceptance level. It's far more likely they accepted his second score.

Given the economic climate, a lot of people are applying to law school. More competition = less demand for applicants. This will probably be less pronounced in t14 though (I'm counting on that).

Cromartie wrote:Check out this guy's cycle. He's a 167/178. R at Yale, WL > R at Harvard and WL > R at Stanford. In at Columbia, NYU... I know this is just one case and hardly qualifies as a valid sample, but his case provides a pretty good indicator of schools actually averaging.

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/BenJ

3|ink wrote:Harvard says they average but I know of someone who got in with an average score way below their acceptance level. It's far more likely they accepted his second score.

Exactly.. I think they just count it as a small negative then literally averaging. We don't know for sure that averaging was what happened in BenJ's case. Maybe his slightly-below-median GPA hurt him, maybe his late-ish apps hurt, maybe his application wasn't strong overall. Additionally, Y and S are black boxes - I don't think we can say they strictly average when a lot of the time they seem to pay less attention to just the numbers, and often admit lower #s with better softs than the other way around.

kazu wrote:

Cromartie wrote:Check out this guy's cycle. He's a 167/178. R at Yale, WL > R at Harvard and WL > R at Stanford. In at Columbia, NYU... I know this is just one case and hardly qualifies as a valid sample, but his case provides a pretty good indicator of schools actually averaging.

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/BenJ

3|ink wrote:Harvard says they average but I know of someone who got in with an average score way below their acceptance level. It's far more likely they accepted his second score.

Exactly.. I think they just count it as a small negative then literally averaging. We don't know for sure that averaging was what happened in BenJ's case. Maybe his slightly-below-median GPA hurt him, maybe his late-ish apps hurt, maybe his application wasn't strong overall. Additionally, Y and S are black boxes - I don't think we can say they strictly average when a lot of the time they seem to pay less attention to just the numbers, and often admit lower #s with better softs than the other way around.

Your argument about his GPA actually helps support the case of averaging. That is, because his LSAT scores were averaged, the averaged score was not sufficient to make up for the below median GPA. Otherwise, the 178 puts him comfortably above the 75th percentile for all of these schools. Same goes with the late app... the general consensus is that even if you apply late, if you have the numbers, the lateness will not hurt you as much. In his case, he wasn't even really that late. As for weakness of application, he did get into C and N with money to boot, so his application couldn't have been that weak.

It also doesn't follow that if HYS average, they automatically reject an applicant who falls below the median based on the averaged score, just as it doesn't necessarily follow that they will reject a one time taker with a score below the median. So there may still be applicants who get in even if they are retakers and their averaged scores are below median (based on softs, perhaps?).

However, we can only really conjecture since we don't know how the adcoms really work, so your guess is just as good as mine.

Cromartie wrote: It also doesn't follow that if HYS average, they automatically reject an applicant who falls below the median based on the averaged score, so there may still be applicants who get in even if they are retakers and their averaged scores are below median.

However, we can only really conjecture since we don't know how the adcoms really work, so your guess is just as good as mine.

This also works the other way around - even if HYS doesn't average, they don't automatically accept everyone who's over their 75% (or median). I'm just saying that we can't say conclusively that BenJ was rejected because Harvard averages. We have no clue what went on with his apps, and he could've been rejected for some other reason beside his numbers. There are enough people on both sides (accepted/rejected w/ below median average LSAT but above 75% highest) for us not to know for sure.

But I agree with you that we're both conjecturing. And I feel like we've dragged this thread a bit off-topic . Truce?

kazu wrote:

Cromartie wrote: It also doesn't follow that if HYS average, they automatically reject an applicant who falls below the median based on the averaged score, so there may still be applicants who get in even if they are retakers and their averaged scores are below median.

However, we can only really conjecture since we don't know how the adcoms really work, so your guess is just as good as mine.

This also works the other way around - even if HYS doesn't average, they don't automatically accept everyone who's over their 75% (or median). I'm just saying that we can't say conclusively that BenJ was rejected because Harvard averages. We have no clue what went on with his apps, and he could've been rejected for some other reason beside his numbers. There are enough people on both sides (accepted/rejected w/ below median average LSAT but above 75% highest) for us not to know for sure.

But I agree with you that we're both conjecturing. And I feel like we've dragged this thread a bit off-topic . Truce?

lol, sounds good

I've taken Sep 09, am on track for retake Oct 10 , and see no harm in taking Dec 10 if my Oct 10 score is something I think I can improve upon... because lets face it, chances are my Oct 10 score won't be so amazing as to rule out improvement on a retake.

I've been convinced to just take it in December because if I take it in October and feel like I did well (but really tanked) then I would probably not use those 3 weeks to their maximum.

So my question now is, if I take the Dec LSAT and plan on starting in Fall 11, should I have everything on my application already completed for a wide range of schools and then send them in as soon as the score is available? Is this too late?

I'm really looking hard at NW and getting an LSAT score that matches with my GPA...I have a few years of AWESOME W/E...

There's 136 reasons....unless you're PTing at the score you want I guess