Multiple LSAT Addendum Help Forum

[ryno8cubs5]

Sorry if this doesn't belong here, but I feel it relates to the board since it is about the LSAT. I was wondering if anyone could read my addendum and help me decide on what to change.

Addendum for Multiple LSAT Scores

My father died on May 31st, 2009. This was the end of my junior year, and the time in which I should have began studying for the LSAT. I found myself in a state of depression and grief following his death and did not study. I took the December, 2009 LSAT without as much preparation as I should have and scored poorly. I tried to rush to be able to apply for the 2010 school year by taking the February, 2010 LSAT with only three additional weeks of studying. After scoring poorly on the February LSAT I took the summer to properly prepare for the October, 2010 LSAT. I was able to improve my score by 10 points from the February, 2010 LSAT to the October, 2010 LSAT. I feel the 157 I received on the October, 2010 LSAT is more representative of my abilities, and should be the score taken into account for my law school decision.

[3|ink]

No excuses IMO.

PS: Seriously sorry about your dad, but I think that an excuse would look worse than a bad LSAT score no matter the circumstances.

[ryno8cubs5]

No excuses IMO.

PS: Seriously sorry about your dad, but I think that an excuse would look worse than a bad LSAT score no matter the circumstances.

I really don't want to provide an addendum, but I have read many places that an increased score of 8 points or more automatically needs an addendum, as well as 3 time test takers. I am in both of those ranges. I think it's an excuse as well, and I wish I didn't need one. But, I tried to say, "Hey, I didn't study as hard as I needed. Then I studied and my score went up." in a more formal way.

[LogicGamez]

No excuses IMO.

PS: Seriously sorry about your dad, but I think that an excuse would look worse than a bad LSAT score no matter the circumstances.

No an addendum(excuse) explaining a 10 point gap is definitely better than no addendum. I suggest that you read the Ivey guide to law school admissions.

Stop giving advice if you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Sandro]

way too much detail and info. There are ways to impart the general message of "Im sending you a multiple LSAT addendum" without spelling out exactly when your dad died, exactly what you tried to do for Feb test, and exactly what you did during the summer for october test.

[ryno8cubs5]

No excuses IMO.

PS: Seriously sorry about your dad, but I think that an excuse would look worse than a bad LSAT score no matter the circumstances.

No an addendum(excuse) explaining a 10 point gap is definitely better than no addendum. I suggest that you read the Ivey guide to law school admissions.

Stop giving advice if you have no idea what you're talking about.

Thanks, I will look into that. Do you have a link by chance? Or is it pretty easy to find?

way too much detail and info. There are ways to impart the general message of "Im sending you a multiple LSAT addendum" without spelling out exactly when your dad died, exactly what you tried to do for Feb test, and exactly what you did during the summer for october test.

Would something like, "My father passed away, causing me to be under prepared for the December, 2010 test. My poor score on that LSAT resulted in my rushing to take the February test with little more preparation. After studying over the summer more thoroughly I saw a 10 point jump, and I feel that this score of 157 is more representative of my abilities." be better?

[gambelda]

way too much detail and info. There are ways to impart the general message of "Im sending you a multiple LSAT addendum" without spelling out exactly when your dad died, exactly what you tried to do for Feb test, and exactly what you did during the summer for october test.

x2. Saying you were unprepared is the WORST thing you could ever possibly admit to. Think of ways to explain why you have 3 exams that don't describe you just in general being unprepared.

[3|ink]

No excuses IMO.

PS: Seriously sorry about your dad, but I think that an excuse would look worse than a bad LSAT score no matter the circumstances.

No an addendum(excuse) explaining a 10 point gap is definitely better than no addendum. I suggest that you read the Ivey guide to law school admissions.

Stop giving advice if you have no idea what you're talking about.

I wonder what Ivey league school he's going to with a 157. Perhaps you should heed your own advice and read before typing. Besides, I'm sure the 10 point gap advice pertains more to the upper ranges of LSAT scores than the lower ranges. How dated is that source of yours anyway? Schools don't average anymore (at least no school that accepts a 157). Please get lost.

[Ragged]

No excuses IMO.

PS: Seriously sorry about your dad, but I think that an excuse would look worse than a bad LSAT score no matter the circumstances.

No an addendum(excuse) explaining a 10 point gap is definitely better than no addendum. I suggest that you read the Ivey guide to law school admissions.

Stop giving advice if you have no idea what you're talking about.

I wonder what Ivey league school he's going to with a 157. Perhaps you should heed your own advice and read before typing. Besides, I'm sure the 10 point gap advice pertains more to the upper ranges of LSAT scores than the lower ranges. How dated is that source of yours anyway? Schools don't average anymore (at least no school that accepts a 157). Please get lost you conceited #@$*.

Ivey is a law school guide, not a school.


OP, sorry about your dad. I doubte the addendum will make any difference IMO, but you can send it in if you want, since it probably won't hurt either.

[gdane]

No excuses IMO.

PS: Seriously sorry about your dad, but I think that an excuse would look worse than a bad LSAT score no matter the circumstances.

No an addendum(excuse) explaining a 10 point gap is definitely better than no addendum. I suggest that you read the Ivey guide to law school admissions.

Stop giving advice if you have no idea what you're talking about.

I wonder what Ivey league school he's going to with a 157. Perhaps you should heed your own advice and read before typing. Besides, I'm sure the 10 point gap advice pertains more to the upper ranges of LSAT scores than the lower ranges. How dated is that source of yours anyway? Schools don't average anymore (at least no school that accepts a 157). Please get lost you conceited #@$*.

Haha. I think youre confused.

Ivey as in Anna Ivey, the so called admissions guru, not Ivy as in Ivy league school.

I think the score doesnt warrent an addundum. If it was a 162 or 165, yea, but with a 157 I dont know.

Try it out though. It really cant hurt and might help the schools get a better idea of you.

Good luck!

[albanach]

I wonder what Ivey league school he's going to with a 157. ... Please get lost.

Perhaps you should give yourself a few minutes before hitting submit.

Oh, and take a look at this when you have a minute:

http://www.amazon.com/Ivey-Guide-Law-Sc ... 0156029790

[3|ink]

No excuses IMO.

PS: Seriously sorry about your dad, but I think that an excuse would look worse than a bad LSAT score no matter the circumstances.

No an addendum(excuse) explaining a 10 point gap is definitely better than no addendum. I suggest that you read the Ivey guide to law school admissions.

Stop giving advice if you have no idea what you're talking about.

I wonder what Ivey league school he's going to with a 157. Perhaps you should heed your own advice and read before typing. Besides, I'm sure the 10 point gap advice pertains more to the upper ranges of LSAT scores than the lower ranges. How dated is that source of yours anyway? Schools don't average anymore (at least no school that accepts a 157). Please get lost you conceited #@$*.

Haha. I think youre confused.

Ivey as in Anna Ivey, the so called admissions guru, not Ivy as in Ivy league school.

I think the score doesnt warrent an addundum. If it was a 162 or 165, yea, but with a 157 I dont know.

Try it out though. It really cant hurt and might help the schools get a better idea of you.

Good luck!

I conceed my ignorance of the difference between "Ivy" and "Ivey", but I stand by my point that a 10 poitn gap addendum is unnecessary when applying to a school that doesn't average scores anyway.

[3|ink]

I wonder what Ivey league school he's going to with a 157. ... Please get lost.

Perhaps you should give yourself a few minutes before hitting submit.

Oh, and take a look at this when you have a minute:

http://www.amazon.com/Ivey-Guide-Law-Sc ... 0156029790

It has customer reviews dating back to 2005. It's outdated in a world where the LSAT isn't averaged.

[LogicGamez]

No excuses IMO.

PS: Seriously sorry about your dad, but I think that an excuse would look worse than a bad LSAT score no matter the circumstances.

No an addendum(excuse) explaining a 10 point gap is definitely better than no addendum. I suggest that you read the Ivey guide to law school admissions.

Stop giving advice if you have no idea what you're talking about.

I wonder what Ivey league school he's going to with a 157. Perhaps you should heed your own advice and read before typing. Besides, I'm sure the 10 point gap advice pertains more to the upper ranges of LSAT scores than the lower ranges. How dated is that source of yours anyway? Schools don't average anymore (at least no school that accepts a 157). Please get lost.

Can a moderator ban this moron please

For the rest of you, here are two FAQs from T6 schools concerning multiple LSAT scores:
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/node/1454
http://www.law.nyu.edu/admissions/jdadm ... /index.htm

[3|ink]

No excuses IMO.

PS: Seriously sorry about your dad, but I think that an excuse would look worse than a bad LSAT score no matter the circumstances.

No an addendum(excuse) explaining a 10 point gap is definitely better than no addendum. I suggest that you read the Ivey guide to law school admissions.

Stop giving advice if you have no idea what you're talking about.

I wonder what Ivey league school he's going to with a 157. Perhaps you should heed your own advice and read before typing. Besides, I'm sure the 10 point gap advice pertains more to the upper ranges of LSAT scores than the lower ranges. How dated is that source of yours anyway? Schools don't average anymore (at least no school that accepts a 157). Please get lost.

Can a moderator ban this moron please

I think they're more likely to ban a conceited troll than an ignoramus. I may be one of those, but you qualify for both if you think that a book that dates before schools stopped averaging scores is relevant.

For the rest of you, here are two FAQs from T6 schools concerning multiple LSAT scores:
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/node/1454
--LinkRemoved-- ... /index.htm

Here’s what you didn’t show them:

For the class entering in 2010, the median LSAT score is 171

--LinkRemoved--

NYU’s applicants face an ultra-selective admissions process. Over 7,000 applicants are vying for 450 seats in an entering class which boasts a median GPA of 3.78 and a median LSAT score of 171

http://www.top-law-schools.com/nyu-law-school.html

[LogicGamez]

I think they're more likely to ban a conceited troll than an ignoramus. I may be one of those, but you qualify for both if you think that a book that dates before schools stopped averaging scores is relevant.

Yes the latest edition, released October 2010 is "before schools stopped averaging scores"

--LinkRemoved--

I bet you don't have any friends IRL, which is why you troll TLS all day giving shit advice to people.

[incompetentia]

troll TLS all day giving shit advice to people.

Trolling so effectively, the mods have bought it. Now that's almost as good as a 180

[LogicGamez]

Here’s what you didn’t show them:

For the class entering in 2010, the median LSAT score is 171

--LinkRemoved--

NYU’s applicants face an ultra-selective admissions process. Over 7,000 applicants are vying for 450 seats in an entering class which boasts a median GPA of 3.78 and a median LSAT score of 171

http://www.top-law-schools.com/nyu-law-school.html

What? How is that even relevant to this discussion???

[3|ink]

I think they're more likely to ban a conceited troll than an ignoramus. I may be one of those, but you qualify for both if you think that a book that dates before schools stopped averaging scores is relevant.

Yes the latest edition, released October 2010 is "before schools stopped averaging scores"

--LinkRemoved--

I bet you don't have any friends IRL, which is why you troll TLS all day giving shit advice to people.

Please point out other posts where I have given 'shitty' advice since you have clearly investigated this. Besides, you must be ignorant if you think your behavior on this thread doesn't amount to trolling. I gave advice. Instead of respectfully disagreeing as any healthy individual would do, you posted a conceited response from a less than relevant source. I don't see anything in your link from the 2010 version that says an addendum is necessary.
I’m not the only person on this thread who disagrees with you. I suppose we’re all just jerks handing out shitty advice.

[LogicGamez]

I think they're more likely to ban a conceited troll than an ignoramus. I may be one of those, but you qualify for both if you think that a book that dates before schools stopped averaging scores is relevant.

Yes the latest edition, released October 2010 is "before schools stopped averaging scores"

--LinkRemoved--

I bet you don't have any friends IRL, which is why you troll TLS all day giving shit advice to people.

Please point out other posts where I have given 'shitty' advice since you have clearly investigated this. Besides, you must be ignorant if you think your behavior on this thread doesn't amount to trolling. I gave advice. Instead of respectfully disagreeing as any healthy individual would do, you posted a conceited response from a less than relevant source. I don't see anything in your link from the 2010 version that says an addendum is necessary.
I’m not the only person on this thread who disagrees with you. I suppose we’re all just jerks handing out shitty advice.

I can tell you're a miserable person just by your writing style.

Whatever, my job is done here.

[3|ink]

Here’s what you didn’t show them:

For the class entering in 2010, the median LSAT score is 171

--LinkRemoved--

NYU’s applicants face an ultra-selective admissions process. Over 7,000 applicants are vying for 450 seats in an entering class which boasts a median GPA of 3.78 and a median LSAT score of 171

http://www.top-law-schools.com/nyu-law-school.html

What? How is that even relevant to this discussion???

Besides, I'm sure the 10 point gap advice pertains more to the upper ranges of LSAT scores than the lower ranges.

I think the score doesnt warrent an addundum. If it was a 162 or 165, yea, but with a 157 I dont know.

Good luck!

OP, sorry about your dad. I doubte the addendum will make any difference IMO, but you can send it in if you want, since it probably won't hurt either.

[3|ink]

I think they're more likely to ban a conceited troll than an ignoramus. I may be one of those, but you qualify for both if you think that a book that dates before schools stopped averaging scores is relevant.

Yes the latest edition, released October 2010 is "before schools stopped averaging scores"

--LinkRemoved--

I bet you don't have any friends IRL, which is why you troll TLS all day giving shit advice to people.

Please point out other posts where I have given 'shitty' advice since you have clearly investigated this. Besides, you must be ignorant if you think your behavior on this thread doesn't amount to trolling. I gave advice. Instead of respectfully disagreeing as any healthy individual would do, you posted a conceited response from a less than relevant source. I don't see anything in your link from the 2010 version that says an addendum is necessary.
I’m not the only person on this thread who disagrees with you. I suppose we’re all just jerks handing out shitty advice.

I can tell you're a miserable person just by your writing style.

Whatever, my job is done here.

I knew I remembered you from somewhere.

Average: 180
Prediction: 180
Hope: 181 (bcuz my essay will be sooo good that LSAC will give me an extra point)\\









This thread is fucking retarded by the way. There will be like a billion threads popping up once the scores are released.

Anyone want to take stab at the flaw in this argument?

Lol, no. He just seems like a miserable person.

If by miserable you mean not a huge loser who spends his or her life on TLS then yes, I'm a miserable person.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0#p3553440

[gdane]

Hahaha! Are you dillholes still on here arguing?

Come on!

Let it go. The OP has to work on his addendum.

[ryno8cubs5]

Sorry to take away from the argument, but less about being under prepared and more about reasons why i took it three times? Like death of father effected my scores on the first two and the third was not as effected by it? Granted I will write it better than that. Maybe something how I worked harder to achieve my 3rd score?

[incompetentia]

As far as I can tell, effective addendums should be more focused on circumstances beyond your control.
If somebody sees a 152 and a 166 on a report with no addendum, they'll probably already assume that the person either slacked/got nervous and wound up on the 152 or pushed themselves extra hard on the 166. I'd think a score addendum should go beyond that.