LSAT: Are Three Great Scores Better than One? Forum

[DyingDeclaration]

Could a demonstration of LSAT mastery factor into the admissions process alongside other variables like work experience? Or does Admissions not factor that sort of thing in out of fairness?

Example: Applicant #1
uGPA: 3.5
LSAT: 174
Coming directly from undergrad, no work experience

Applicant #2
uGPA: 2.7
LSAT: 180
LSAT2: 179
LSAT3: 180
2 years out of undergrad, law office experience

[calidancer2]

Could a demonstration of LSAT mastery factor into the admissions process alongside other variables like work experience? Or does Admissions not factor that sort of thing in out of fairness?

Example: Applicant #1
uGPA: 3.5
LSAT: 174
Coming directly from undergrad, no work experience

Applicant #2
uGPA: 2.7
LSAT: 180
LSAT2: 179
LSAT3: 180
2 years out of undergrad, law office experience

Those aren't two comparable things. The variables are all vastly different (gpa, WE, lsat score)

[moneybagsphd]

[DyingDeclaration]

Those aren't two comparable things. The variables are all vastly different (gpa, WE, lsat score)

True. The examples are meant to illustrate how everything "factors in" to the weight of their application; I should have been more specific.

But what I was curious about was whether those multiple great LSAT scores factor in at all, the way W/E and such do; not necessarily who was the better applicant.

[ColtsFan88]

OPs question is interesting but the example is wrong. What about these two applicants.

3.7/174

3.7/174/174/174

Would the second person have any noticeable advantage in their application?

[moneybagsphd]

OPs question is interesting but the example is wrong. What about these two applicants.

3.7/174

3.7/174/174/174

Would the second person have any noticeable advantage in their application?

Why would they?

[09042014]

OPs question is interesting but the example is wrong. What about these two applicants.

3.7/174

3.7/174/174/174

Would the second person have any noticeable advantage in their application?

I'd ding their asses for retaking a 174 twice. Double ding for not improving.

[willwash]

Example: Applicant #2
uGPA: 2.7
LSAT: 180
LSAT2: 179
LSAT3: 180
2 years out of undergrad, law office experience

Because the FIRST fuckin' thing I'm doing when I get my 180 is signing up for a retake!

[cornblight]

Yeah, I think the real flaw in the logic here is that the implicit assumption of a law school admissions committee is going to be that you possess the ability to get the same score you already achieved again... To take it multiple times will only demonstrate something they will already assume. They have no lingering suspicions that a 180 is a fluke: if you managed to get it, I think theyll give the benefit of the doubt and assume you would get within 3 points of that in a retake.

Also your number will only count once to USNews. So...to them it's immaterial.

[moneybagsphd]

Also your number will only count once to USNews. So...to them it's immaterial.

this.

[062914123]

.

[Jeffort]

OPs question is interesting but the example is wrong. What about these two applicants.

3.7/174

3.7/174/174/174

Would the second person have any noticeable advantage in their application?

I'd ding their asses for retaking a 174 twice. Double ding for not improving.

Lol this, pretty much. Seems like a pretty dumb move.

+1

Also, retaking after achieving 180 is a dumba$$ move if you really are going to apply to and attend law school. The only rational reason for doing it I can think of is if you are in the test prep biz and do it to bolster your credibility for marketing purposes.

[IAFG]

idk, do schools get to report more than one score to ABA/USNWR?

this thread shows a misunderstanding about why schools care about numbers

[Jeffort]

idk, do schools get to report more than one score to ABA/USNWR?

this thread shows a misunderstanding about why schools care about numbers

Schools report one LSAT score per admitted student that matriculates.

I agree that the thread shows a misunderstanding about why schools care about the numbers. Many threads and posts on this board demonstrate all sorts of misunderstandings about the numbers used in the law school admissions process. The most common and bothersome ones are misconceptions about how the LSAT is scored, what the percentile rank of each scaled score chart represents and how the percentile rankings in the chart are generated.

Law schools obviously care about the numbers of the students they admit and that enroll for ranking purposes, but that is just one small piece of the puzzle. Admission committees are more concerned about putting together a diverse class of students that are capable, motivated, hopefully ethical, that will perform well academically in their law school, graduate, and then hopefully pass the bar exam.

[DyingDeclaration]

Admission committees are more concerned about putting together a diverse class of students that are capable, motivated, hopefully ethical, that will perform well academically in their law school, graduate, and then hopefully pass the bar exam.

This. Right here, this is what I'm getting at.

I was curious as to whether or not three high LSATs could qualify as a "soft" factor that could contribute to the distinction of the applicant positively. Not just how the raw scores/rankings play into this.

[thederangedwang]

Admission committees are more concerned about putting together a diverse class of students that are capable, motivated, hopefully ethical, that will perform well academically in their law school, graduate, and then hopefully pass the bar exam.

This. Right here, this is what I'm getting at.

I was curious as to whether or not three high LSATs could qualify as a "soft" factor that could contribute to the distinction of the applicant positively. Not just how the raw scores/rankings play into this.

No? I mean how could it be a soft? A person who gets a 180 doesnt get it by pure luck, the ad comms know it takes a certain amount of skill to get that score

[paratactical]

Don't be a law student.

[snailio]

Ok, the answer is no fucking way.


P.S. see poast above.

[DyingDeclaration]

No? I mean how could it be a soft? A person who gets a 180 doesnt get it by pure luck, the ad comms know it takes a certain amount of skill to get that score

Given that the LSAT is valued for predicting success, it's not illogical to wonder if showing *consistent* mastery of LSAT skills would be valued in its own right, in some way, to Ad Comms. I already assume "no" to be the case. But I was wondering if anyone had heard of a unique circumstance.

Don't be a law student.

For the last time, I've made up my mind Mom.

[curiouscat]

Um... LOL. All it would show is questionable judgment. The risk of the score going down after a 180 (or anything in the 175+ range) is so high that it might cast some doubt on the applicant's common sense - not to mention their priorities, especially if prepping for the three 180s came at the expense of time dedicated to more worthwhile softs.

[DyingDeclaration]

Um... LOL. All it would show is questionable judgment. The risk of the score going down after a 180 (or anything in the 175+ range) is so high that it might cast some doubt on the applicant's common sense - not to mention their priorities, especially if prepping for the three 180s came at the expense of time dedicated to more worthwhile softs.

I don't disagree with this post to the extent that an LSAT score actually went down.

But to be fair, Ad Comms actually appraising an applicant *negatively* for demonstrating consistency in LSAT excellence (i.e. 175, 177, 178) is hard to imagine, especially if the applicant also demonstrated committing time to worthwhile softs before law school; but I'm always open to learn from specific situations.

Ad Comms not caring at all about multiple LSAT scores I can understand. People actually saying that pulling this off would be mocked by Ad Comms, without any specific examples to back this up, are understandably going off trends; but I don't make trends the Bible.

[suspicious android]

There are a lot of people who have taught LSAT prep for a year or two who have multiple 175 scores, then apply to law school. I imagine that adcomms would just assume that was the case for an applicant with the score profile you're suggesting. I doubt many of them would think about it much at all. For those those that do, I'm guessing they'd assume the applicant to be a neurotic perfectionist, and/or just looking to increase their marketability as a tutor.

[ben4847]

Inasmuch as it is understood that people will score along a range, it would make a difference to know if you were near the top or bottom of your range.

So, if you have a 174, they will assume your range is somewhere about 171-177. If you have 174-174-174, then they would know it is the middle of your range. But, that changes nothing, since they already assumed it was the middle of your range. (Because there is no more reason to assume it is high than low.)

But, if you have a 180, they will assume your range is somewhere 177-180. So if you can show them that your range is actually 180-180, that is higher.

Therefore, it only makes sense to ever retake if you have a 180.

[AbhiJ]

LSAT score is one data point - its not how many times you take - it will always be one data point. Its much better to improve other aspects of your application that make you more than a data point.

[D'Angelo]

Inasmuch as it is understood that people will score along a range, it would make a difference to know if you were near the top or bottom of your range.

So, if you have a 174, they will assume your range is somewhere about 171-177. If you have 174-174-174, then they would know it is the middle of your range. But, that changes nothing, since they already assumed it was the middle of your range. (Because there is no more reason to assume it is high than low.)

But, if you have a 180, they will assume your range is somewhere 177-180. So if you can show them that your range is actually 180-180, that is higher.

Therefore, it only makes sense to ever retake if you have a 180.

what...