Can LSAC some day impose a "lifetime limit" on LSAT retakes? Forum

[justbubbles]

I would think probably not because it would most likely infringe on one's basic freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution, especially given that LSAC is the "gatekeeper" for anyone who wishes to attend an ABA school.

Still, this "3 takes in 2 year" limit is outrageous and not to mention draconian.

Why the hell does LSAC care if an individual takes the test 3x or 8x in within a 2 year period? If anything, more test takes = means more money for LSAC.

Moreover, with the recent change in LSAT score consideration policy, the ABA now asks all ABA member schools to take in to consideration an applicant's highest score ONLY regardless of the number of retakes.

This 3 test limit in 2 years makes no sense whatsoever. What is LSAC's justification for this?

/rant

[bgdddymtty]

In before the storm of feces. Going to peruse the Constitution for the "right to unlimited LSAT retakes" clause.

[justbubbles]

You're a funny guy (or girl *shudder*). If you can't be bothered to add anything meaningful or remotely insightful, then please refrain from contributing.

[bgdddymtty]

Well, in that case...

The idea that you have a constitutional right to take the LSAT as often as you wish is absurd. I made this point in my previous post, albeit in a snarky way. I'm being as nice to you as anyone here is likely to be.

As for LSAC's dog in the fight, they have to ensure that LSAT scores correlate reasonably well with law school performance. This means eliminating factors such as randomness as much as is possible. This is particularly true when schools are only counting applicants' top scores. Giving students unlimited chances to get that one high score would destroy both the efficacy and credibility of the test. It would also put law schools in a tough position. Take a hypothetical student who sat for every administration of the test for two years and scored 148-151-149-153-155-155-151-163. Does a "163" law school admit him? The evidence suggests they may be doing him a disservice if they do.

[bk1]

If the 3 per 2 years limit is holding you back then LSAC is doing you a favor.

[justbubbles]

Well, in that case...

The idea that you have a constitutional right to take the LSAT as often as you wish is absurd. I made this point in my previous post, albeit in a snarky way. I'm being as nice to you as anyone here is likely to be.

As for LSAC's dog in the fight, they have to ensure that LSAT scores correlate reasonably well with law school performance. This means eliminating factors such as randomness as much as is possible. This is particularly true when schools are only counting applicants' top scores. Giving students unlimited chances to get that one high score would destroy both the efficacy and credibility of the test. It would also put law schools in a tough position. Take a hypothetical student who sat for every administration of the test for two years and scored 148-151-149-153-155-155-151-163. Does a "163" law school admit him? The evidence suggests they may be doing him a disservice if they do.

Ok, fine. I'll take the bait.

First of all, the fact that I am posting in the LSAT sub-forum should give you some indication that I am a 0L. I of course was not referring to the Constitution in verbatim or in its exact context, but rather in a general sense. eg - the fact that a private entity (ie - LSAC) can limit one's barrier towards seeking their choice of study (irrespective of attempts), is absurd and ridiculous. I am sure (again, speaking as a 0L) courts would uphold any such challenges, if contested.

Second, even if not the Constitution, right off my head I can think of the ADA statute. What if someone has cognitive disabilities? If s/he is unable to get a respectable score, does that mean that said individuals should be deemed 'unfit' to attend law school? Once again, courts have routinely ruled against LSAC where they had refused to make reasonable accommodations for the cognitively challenged. I don't see how this limitation would be any different.

Third, who says subjective stuff like incompetence or marginal intelligence has to do anything with attempts? I scored low-160s in my first attempt and I just took the February 2012. Let's say I had missed the test; based on LSAC's current policy that would be counted against me towards the # of attempts.

Finally, LSAC is not and should not act as the authority on legal education - this is under the ABA's jurisdiction. It's about time LSAC stopped acting like judge, jury and executioner.

[HBK]

Don't go to law school. You will only become a bigger asshole.

[MLBrandow]

justbubbles,

I may be mistaken but I'm fairly certain an absence for a test has never counted against the limit.

If you don't feel your score is reflective of your ability then retake the test and consider studying more. There is a June study group you are welcome to join. If you can't make a score reflective of your ability after three tests in two years just wait until the first score lapses.

Best of luck.


Edit; phone posting is difficult.

[Mal Reynolds]

Sweet self-tar MLBrandow.

[YankeeFan2]

Don't go to law school. You will only become a bigger asshole.

Justbubbles ^^^^^^^^^^ this is the advice you need.

[Curious1]

Well, in that case...

The idea that you have a constitutional right to take the LSAT as often as you wish is absurd. I made this point in my previous post, albeit in a snarky way. I'm being as nice to you as anyone here is likely to be.

As for LSAC's dog in the fight, they have to ensure that LSAT scores correlate reasonably well with law school performance. This means eliminating factors such as randomness as much as is possible. This is particularly true when schools are only counting applicants' top scores. Giving students unlimited chances to get that one high score would destroy both the efficacy and credibility of the test. It would also put law schools in a tough position. Take a hypothetical student who sat for every administration of the test for two years and scored 148-151-149-153-155-155-151-163. Does a "163" law school admit him? The evidence suggests they may be doing him a disservice if they do.

Ok, fine. I'll take the bait.

First of all, the fact that I am posting in the LSAT sub-forum should give you some indication that I am a 0L. I of course was not referring to the Constitution in verbatim or in its exact context, but rather in a general sense. eg - the fact that a private entity (ie - LSAC) can limit one's barrier towards seeking their choice of study (irrespective of attempts), is absurd and ridiculous. I am sure (again, speaking as a 0L) courts would uphold any such challenges, if contested.

Second, even if not the Constitution, right off my head I can think of the ADA statute. What if someone has cognitive disabilities? If s/he is unable to get a respectable score, does that mean that said individuals should be deemed 'unfit' to attend law school? Once again, courts have routinely ruled against LSAC where they had refused to make reasonable accommodations for the cognitively challenged. I don't see how this limitation would be any different.

Third, who says subjective stuff like incompetence or marginal intelligence has to do anything with attempts? I scored low-160s in my first attempt and I just took the February 2012. Let's say I had missed the test; based on LSAC's current policy that would be counted against me towards the # of attempts.

Finally, LSAC is not and should not act as the authority on legal education - this is under the ABA's jurisdiction. It's about time LSAC stopped acting like judge, jury and executioner.

Please go to law school. We need people like you to round out the bottom of the curve.

[Tom Joad]

I think it is draconian that the 2012 Super Bowl was only played once. If the Pats got another chance they might have came through.

[daydreamer]

I'm sure there are many on this forum who can reply much more eloquently than I, but I'll give it a shot...

I think LSAC has many compelling reasons to limit your attempts to 3x within 2 years. One reason is that they (I believe) is that they use the experimental sections of each tests on later tests - so there is a possibility that a repeat, serial, test-taker runs into the same section(s), giving them an unfair advantage over those seeing it for the first time. Another reason is to prevent delusional test-takers, who think they can score better despite failing to do so 3x in a row, from wasting their time and money - possibly a paternalistic reason but a good one nonetheless.

Also, I don't understand how you can call LSAC the "judge, jury, and executioner" when it is ultimately the law schools who choose to admit candidates. Law schools have the ability to admit candidates with less-than-stellar LSAT scores, in fact, many schools exercise this ability quite often. The LSAT, while certainly an important factor, isn't the only one law schools look at; if you have

If someone has cognitive disabilities that prevent them from doing well on the LSAT, why would increasing the number of times that a person can take the LSAT help this person? LSAC does things to accommodate for people with disabilities already. They even give you the option to appeal to take the LSAT a fourth time in 2 years. Also, law schools are the ones to determine if you are 'unfit' to attend their schools, not LSAC - so I'm not really sure at what you were getting at there.

[justbubbles]

I think LSAC has many compelling reasons to limit your attempts to 3x within 2 years.

None of which LSAC has disclosed publicly or otherwise.

Also, I don't understand how you can call LSAC the "judge, jury, and executioner" when it is ultimately the law schools who choose to admit candidates. Law schools have the ability to admit candidates with less-than-stellar LSAT scores, in fact, many schools exercise this ability quite often. The LSAT, while certainly an important factor, isn't the only one law schools look at; if you have

Agreed - but LSAC acts as a "gatekeeper". If LSAC dictates as to when, how and how many times one can take the test, it takes the discretion out of the ad com's hands.

If someone has cognitive disabilities that prevent them from doing well on the LSAT, why would increasing the number of times that a person can take the LSAT help this person? LSAC does things to accommodate for people with disabilities already. They even give you the option to appeal to take the LSAT a fourth time in 2 years.

That's my whole point, ie - appeals are heard by LSAC themselves. Same goes for accommodations for the disabled. Thus, LSAC had faced a litany of suits, including an action by the US Justice Dept. that LSAC settled back in 2002, for not offering reasonable accommodations to those in genuine need.

--

At the end of the day, none of this applies to me all that much. With my 160ish score, I already have a # of offers on the table from some the top schools; I took the Feb 2012 test to raise that to a high 160ish. In the hypothetical, if I want to take it again, I only have one more shot. Either way, I am confident I will end up at a T14 school of my choice. As a matter of fairness, I find this limitation to be obscene and discriminatory and anyone with a modicum of common sense should feel likewise.

[johansantana21]

After consulting my Chemerinsky book and asking my conlaw professor, I have come to the conclusion that while there is no direct precedent, the right to unlimited LSAT retakes is not a basic fundamental constitutional right.

[justbubbles]

As it stands, there is unlimited takes - just that one would have to adhere to LSAC's limitation periods, policy exeptions and waiver from LSAC notwithstanding.

More importantly, there is no direct authority on anything. This hasn't been tested before the courts, although surely, soon enough someone will bring this before the courts just like how the accommodation suits were brought before the courts that resulted in either rulings against LSAC or settlements with LSAC.

[20121109]

As it stands, there is unlimited takes - just that one would have to adhere to LSAC's limitation periods, policy exeptions and waiver from LSAC notwithstanding.

More importantly, there is no direct authority on anything. This hasn't been tested before the courts, although surely, soon enough someone will bring this before the courts just like how the accommodation suits were before the courts that either resulted in rulings against LSAC or settlements with LSAC.

You should do it.

[suits00]

justemptybubblesonthelsat: Would you trust your physician if you knew he had to take the MCAT twelve times?

[justbubbles]

Haha, I'll trust a physician who took the MCAT a million times over some trust fund princess who 'bought' an education through legacy points (see: YLS JD application).

[Tom Joad]

[lsatcrazy]

This sounds an awful lot like PKing. Dude, is LSAC also holding you back by not accommodating your crippling but unnamed disability?

[20121109]

The funny thing is no one has to take the LSAT once, and anyone can take the LSAT as many times as they like; they just have to wait for the clock to start on the new 2 year period. The problem here is that once you take the LSAT, you can't exactly fail it and even the lowest scores will open doors to some god awful schools. People take the LSAT repeatedly in order to raise their score to gain admission into better schools. Saying that there is a basic right to have unlimited chances to gain admission into better schools is nothing short of absurd, and screams entitlement. We all can't attend top law schools. If you can't meet the standards of a certain school after 3 takes in 2 years, lower your expectations or wait it out until you can take it again.

[SilverE2]

I think LSAC has many compelling reasons to limit your attempts to 3x within 2 years.

None of which LSAC has disclosed publicly or otherwise.

Also, I don't understand how you can call LSAC the "judge, jury, and executioner" when it is ultimately the law schools who choose to admit candidates. Law schools have the ability to admit candidates with less-than-stellar LSAT scores, in fact, many schools exercise this ability quite often. The LSAT, while certainly an important factor, isn't the only one law schools look at; if you have

Agreed - but LSAC acts as a "gatekeeper". If LSAC dictates as to when, how and how many times one can take the test, it takes the discretion out of the ad com's hands.

If someone has cognitive disabilities that prevent them from doing well on the LSAT, why would increasing the number of times that a person can take the LSAT help this person? LSAC does things to accommodate for people with disabilities already. They even give you the option to appeal to take the LSAT a fourth time in 2 years.

That's my whole point, ie - appeals are heard by LSAC themselves. Same goes for accommodations for the disabled. Thus, LSAC had faced a litany of suits, including an action by the US Justice Dept. that LSAC settled back in 2002, for not offering reasonable accommodations to those in genuine need.

--

At the end of the day, none of this applies to me all that much. With my 160ish score, I already have a # of offers on the table from some the top schools; I took the Feb 2012 test to raise that to a high 160ish. In the hypothetical, if I want to take it again, I only have one more shot. Either way, I am confident I will end up at a T14 school of my choice. As a matter of fairness, I find this limitation to be obscene and discriminatory and anyone with a modicum of common sense should feel likewise.

pleasedon'tgotomyschoolpleasedon'tgotomyschoolpleasedon'tgotomyschoolpleasedon'tgotomyschool

[justbubbles]

The funny thing is no one has to take the LSAT once, and anyone can take the LSAT as many times as they like; they just have to wait for the clock to start on the new 2 year period. The problem here is that once you take the LSAT, you can't exactly fail it and even the lowest scores will open doors to some god awful schools. People take the LSAT repeatedly in order to raise their score to gain admission into better schools. Saying that there is a basic right to have unlimited chances to gain admission into better schools is nothing short of absurd, and screams entitlement. We all can't attend top law schools. If you can't meet the standards of a certain school after 3 takes in 2 years, lower your expectations or wait it out until you can take it again.

I agree with most of your post - except the highlighted part. I will have to respectfully disagree.

That would be akin to saying, "Candidate X was rejected 10x for the same job at Company Y, therefore Candidate X shouldn't apply for the same job at Company Y for the 11th time!".

That's what's absurd. Unless the company (or schools, the ABA, etc. in this case) has stipulated that, one is free to take the test as many times as they want.

Going back to my example about those seeking accommodations, LSAC acted as "judge, jury and executioner" and routinely denied those that LSAC felt was undeserving of accommodations. In order to remedy LSAC's discriminatory ways, thankfully, reasoned, rational and informed members of the judiciary sided with those being discriminated against and ordered LSAC to amend their discriminatory polices.

[suits00]

justbubbles:

I'm assuming you sat for the test three times. What would be different the 4th? Maybe if you give your personal reasons for being so passionate about this others will empathize.