LSAC changes its long-standing policy on "3x in 2 yrs" limit Forum

[justbubbles]

This is just outrageous! As if LSAC wasn't already a "gatekeeper" to law school hopefuls, but now this just gives them more power.

Some important changes:

-> LSAC themselves will determine whether or not to grant an exception to the rule;
-> LSAC member law schools will no longer be involved in the waiver granting decision process;
-> Missed tests and cancellations will count against the rule;
-> Any and all appeals will be handled by LSAC themselves, acting as judge, jury and executioner.

More on this: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/ls ... hange.html

[Bildungsroman]

Good. If someone can't get it right after 3 chances within two years they should probably give up.

[dr123]

If you're considering taking the LSAT for a fifth time, Id say thats a sign that you should probably just explore other options.

[justbubbles]

Good. If someone can't get it right after 3 chances within two years they should probably give up.

We all have bad days. I took the test for the 2nd time.

What if I couldn't make it due to some unforeseeable circumstances?

I doubt LSAC would be sympathetic, given that how stingy they are with accommodations.

I wouldn't be surprised if some lawsuits against LSAC were initiated in the event someone was denied this rule. The LSAC cannot act as a gatekeeper to one's educational pursuit. This rule is bullsh*t to begin with.

[Bildungsroman]

Good. If someone can't get it right after 3 chances within two years they should probably give up.

We all have bad days. I took the test for the 2nd time.

What if I couldn't make it due to some unforeseeable circumstances?

Then you'd be able to take it a third time.

[bk1]

Then you'd be able to take it a third time.

This, fucking this.

If you can't get it right in three tries then I don't know what to tell you.

[Kilpatrick]

Three times is plenty.

[CanadianWolf]

"...or if your score is otherwise not reported." = Does not necessarily include missed tests or absences, in my opinion. Is there any specific reference regarding missed tests or absences ? Thanks !

P.S. I agree that three sittings within a 2 year period is enough, but absences due to illness or traffic accidents & the like should not count, in my opinion.

[avemundi]

-> Missed tests and cancellations will count against the rule;

Where does it say this, exactly? I seem to be missing it.... does that mean a previous 'absent' (when it was not possible withdraw the day before the test), will count as a take as well?

[soj]

If anything, they probably did this to make it easier to take the LSAT more than three times in two years. More $$

[justbubbles]

-> Missed tests and cancellations will count against the rule;

Where does it say this, exactly? I seem to be missing it.... does that mean a previous 'absent' (when it was not possible withdraw the day before the test), will count as a take as well?

Read the link that I posted. I quote: "This policy applies even if you cancel your score or if your score is not otherwise reported."

[justbubbles]

If anything, they probably did this to make it easier to take the LSAT more than three times in two years. More $$

I doubt it. If LSAC wanted to make more $$, they wouldn't have had this rule in the first-place.

This is bizarre given the changes enforced by the ABA quite recently. The ABA does not want member law schools to average out multiple LSAT scores, but instead taking only the highest regardless of how many times an applicant sat for the test.

Business schools, med schools, etc. all have had this policy in place for ages now.

[CanadianWolf]

Right, but you may be reading too much into the "... or otherwise not reported." This may only refer to cheating or other irregularities, or it may include missed tests & absences--we need clarification.

[CanadianWolf]

Law schools probably don't want to be bothered by such requests because if they agree to one, then they may feel obligated to agree to all requests.

[avemundi]

but wouldn't 'score otherwise not reported' mean that there was a score to potentially report in the first place? in that, the person was actually exposed to the test materials, filled out answers, etc?
If the person didn't take the test at all there would be no 'score' for them to 'not report'. When I read that I thought they meant if they decided to not report the score due to, I dunno, misconduct or something. I'd LSAC and ask but drat they're closed for the weekend. ARGH.

[justbubbles]

Let's keep in mind that LSAC recently amended its policy on cancellations, ie - you can cancel right up until the test day.

In light of that, it's a pretty safe bet to assume that anything absent a formal cancellation would counted as a "formal seating".

If anyone is curious, your best bet is to contact LSAC directly for further clarification.

If my June 2011 score is good (and I expect/hope that it will be), I don't see myself sitting for another test.

[Jack Smirks]

From what I read on the lsatblog post LSAC isn't changing the three times in two years rule at all, they're eliminating the exemption which is the fourth lsat in two years or "the waiver" you request specifically from schools. And they're not even eliminating it, they're just making you request the waiver through them (LSAC) now instead of the schools. Am I sleep deprived or does OP not know what he's talking about?

[soj]

From what I read on the lsatblog post LSAC isn't changing the three times in two years rule at all, they're eliminating the exemption which is the fourth lsat in two years or "the waiver" you request specifically from schools. And they're not even eliminating it, they're just making you request the waiver through them (LSAC) now instead of the schools. Am I sleep deprived or does OP not know what he's talking about?

ITA. That's why I posted:

If anything, they probably did this to make it easier to take the LSAT more than three times in two years. More $$

[bk1]

What's so outrageous about LSAC determining whether you can take it a 4th time as opposed to a law school?

[justbubbles]

What's so outrageous about LSAC determining whether you can take it a 4th time as opposed to a law school?

Because if one law school denies you, you can always go to another.

You don't have that amenity when it's one body you are dealing with.

[bk1]

What's so outrageous about LSAC determining whether you can take it a 4th time as opposed to a law school?

Because if one law school denies you, you can always go to another.

You don't have that amenity when it's one body you are dealing with.

I understand that is how it used to work. I still don't see any valid reason for it being outrageous.

You seem to think you are somehow entitled to taking it a 4th time.

[CanadianWolf]

Which is one reason why the policy may have been changed.

[Jack Smirks]

From what I read on the lsatblog post LSAC isn't changing the three times in two years rule at all, they're eliminating the exemption which is the fourth lsat in two years or "the waiver" you request specifically from schools. And they're not even eliminating it, they're just making you request the waiver through them (LSAC) now instead of the schools. Am I sleep deprived or does OP not know what he's talking about?

ITA. That's why I posted:

If anything, they probably did this to make it easier to take the LSAT more than three times in two years. More $$

Yeah they're probably just looking at an angle to make more money, you probably have to pay them for the request and a bunch of bullshit. It doesn't seem like the policy has really changed but instead LSAC trying to find a way to make some extra cash.

[justbubbles]

Which is one reason why the policy may have been changed.

Yep. My thoughts exactly. Before you could plead your case to any of the 200+ schools. Now you just have one listening ear.

PS - And yes, people, it is in fact a change of policy. Now instead of pleading your reason(s) to the schools, you do it directly LSAC. This is a significant shift in policy, IMO.

[Bildungsroman]

What's so outrageous about LSAC determining whether you can take it a 4th time as opposed to a law school?

Because if one law school denies you, you can always go to another.

You don't have that amenity when it's one body you are dealing with.

Yeah, I think that's the point. Switch it from "just three times in two years unless you get an exemption which is as easy as asking one of 200 schools to do it" to "just three times in two years unless you get an exemption ". This policy change makes the policy actually make sense.