PLEASE HELP - I just took the September 2014 LSAT (not bubbl Forum

[euniecho1]

I just took the September 2014 LSAT, and my ENTIRE section 5 is NOT BUBBLED IN, however, I did write in light tick marks or lines for all of my answers. I was behind time during section 5, so I made tick marks on my answers, planning to darken them in later, but they called "time" and collected the scantrons immediately after.

Please help me. If you want to yell at me, I deserve it, so that's fine, but I spent the entire day after the LSAT bawling my eyes out and I'm still extremely stressed out. I heard that the LSAT scantron machine is very sensitive and that it will pick up on even light dots... if this is true, then will it pick up on my tick marks?

Here is an overview of my situation:
- sections 1-4 are all completely bubbled in
- section 5 is NOT bubbled in at all, but all of the answers are marked with lines or tick marks
- If they count all of my answers, I think I did fairly well on the test

My options:
- wait to see my score to see if they picked up the tick marks (but I risk getting an abominably low score)
- request a handscoring for $43 (but there is no guarantee that they will count my tick marks)
- CANCEL my score, retake it next year, and delay law school applications for another year (I really don't want to do this)

If you can give me any advice on what to do, or what you would do, I would really appreciate it. Thank you so much to anyone who helps in this rough time.

[sesto elemento]

these tick marks/lines are on the scantron itself not the booklet right?
Also have you tried to deduce whether or not your section 5 was experimental?

[euniecho1]

Yes, they are on the scantron and not the booklet! The scantron is completely marked; it's just that section 5 is very lightly marked. Also, section 5 was definitely NOT the experimental section. The experimental was one of the games sections and they were sections 3 or 4.

Thank you SO much for responding. I'm desperate.

[sesto elemento]

Hmm, well I've nvr used LSAC's hand scoring service but seems to me like you'd benefit from it if the machine didn't pick them up. Hopefully other posters with LSACs handscoring service will chime.


However, if you think you did well on the exam, I wouldn't cancel and I'd just take the gamble that the machine picks up the marks or you pay for hand scoring. If it turns out that neither of those options works out for you and you do end up with a low score cuz section 5 went ungraded, then I can see that as being something you can explain in an addendum and more importantly, schools won't care about the lower score since they only look at the highest score.

[euniecho1]

omg that is actually really great advice. Thank you so much. I'm glad you can think straighter than me because you're not going crazy! I will probably wait for my score and ask for hand-scoring if section 5 is not graded. WORST case scenario, like you sad, is that I have a low score that I can explain.

Thanks for the great answer, and I would appreciate feedback from anyone else, too - especially people who have experience with hand-scoring!

[hillz]

OP, check out the thread below if you haven't already...specifically, Dirigo's link to examples of bubbling. Based on the bubbling examples shown in the link, it seems like the machine won't pick up on that but whether it will be counted when hand scored is unclear.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=236977

So sorry this happened to you! Just remember that this score won't really matter if you retake and you'll be able to use the studying foundation you've built if you decide to take it again.

[The Avatar]

Call LSAC immediately and find out if they count light tick marks on scantron when handscoring. If not, cancel immediately.

For future reference always bubble LR every 2 pages, LG after every game and RC after each passage.

[Rigo]

I bolded the relevant parts.

I also know of a case where a test taker did not fill in several bubbles in a row completely (or at least not enough to satisfy the scanning machine. She had panicked when she checked how much time was left in the section and what question # she was on). There were also tons of questions in other sections where she barely filled in much of the oval but got the points, I'd have to find the file on my computer and look at it again, but I don't remember there being more than a few ovals completely filled in any of the four sections.  LSAC was kind enough to give her some of the points where the intended answer choice was clear but with less than 50% of the bubble filled in, but they did not give her the points for the ones where she had just made a small dot in the center of the oval.  She emailed me her answer sheet in a panic when scores were released asking what to do so I saw the bubbles in question before telling her she had nothing to lose but the fee and possibly also some points by requesting hand scoring due to her poor bubbling performance. With all of the questions she failed to adequately fill in the oval and was originally not given credit for, she had selected the credited response, just hadn't filled in the ovals enough.  

I think she got pretty lucky with her handscore, it bumped her scaled score up by two points, if they had also given her the points for the ones she had only put a dot in the oval, her score would have gone up by four scaled points. The person that did the handscore must have been in a generous mood at the time, it was for a December test in a year when the scores were released right around X-mas.  This is the only case I've every heard of where they gave the person the points for poorly filled in ovals the scoring machine refused to count, but I've heard of cases where in a handscore they took away points the machine grader had given because the handgrader person decided some bubbles were not filled in enough.

[deebanger]

Yes, they are on the scantron and not the booklet! The scantron is completely marked; it's just that section 5 is very lightly marked. Also, section 5 was definitely NOT the experimental section. The experimental was one of the games sections and they were sections 3 or 4.

Thank you SO much for responding. I'm desperate.

hey just curious, how did u find out that section 3 or 4 games were expt? because were there 2 games secs?

[Rigo]

Also, section 5 was definitely NOT the experimental section. The experimental was one of the games sections and they were sections 3 or 4.

hey just curious, how did u find out that section 3 or 4 games were expt? because were there 2 games secs?

That's the tip off.
If 3 LR, one is experimental.
If 2 LG, one is experimental.
If 2 RC, one is experimental.