Top Law Schools

I was just wondering if your admission chances are hindered by multiple retakes, even including cancellations. Has anyone had experience?

I assume it's "ok" as long as your score goes up or stays reasonably the same? No clue...

Thanks!

not a good one.

let/them/eat/cake wrote:not a good one.

lol

It should not hinder your chances as long as your score goes up. Although a very low score to begin with probably won't do you any good. If you started with something very low, it may hurt a little, but just do your best on the next ones. What you have to take into account is that different schools calculate your LSAT in different ways. While as most schools are now taking your latest score, some are still averaging. Check the schools you are interested in and see how they do things.

There are many debates as to what looks better, a cancel or a low score prior to a good score. I don't think anyone knows the actual answer and it would probably depend on quite a few things. Regardless, the best thing you could do is score a 180 on your first try

hahaha... i hope I don't need to "experience" the LSAT several times, but it EmVan seems to have said the general consensus, just one additional thing is that if you think you have a very low score in one test (i.e. no chance of anywhere near ur target) then a cancel is better. Thus a 158 and a 172 is worse than a cancel and a 172 for the majority of schools, and obviously for the ones that average.

What about a 165 and a 178? (Hypothetical/Man I Wish-ical). Does the lower, but still alright score, offset the second as it would in the prior example?

iminlstrick wrote:What about a 165 and a 178? (Hypothetical/Man I Wish-ical). Does the lower, but still alright score, offset the second as it would in the prior example?

For schools outside of HYS, with a high enough GPA, yes
for those 3 its hit and miss, I'd say H would be the easiest...with Y and S almost no shot unless ur entire app was really good/special

Well in that kind of hypothetical situation (165 v 178) your set in almost all schools as your second is so high... the only exceptions might be Columbia/Berkley/Georgetown which average & then HYS.

However, for the first 3, a 178 is so high that if your GPA is fine, I don't think they'll care as much. For HYS, it's a little murky...

Harvard states: "The LSAT need be taken only once. If you take the test more than once, all scores and their average will be reported and considered" while Stanford is completely silent about the matter... thus the key thing is that they say they "consider" all scores, but it doesn't really state weightings of average vs. highest vs. range of scores.

I would guess that it might be more of a 178 -> 174ish score instead of a full average if you could state a good reason for screwing up the first, as consideration doesn't seem like outright rejection of everything but an average and 178 is very high.

I took the LSAT three times and got a 169, 169, 172. It would've been a lot better had I not choked and just got a decent score the first time (my diag was a 169 and I was averaging 175.5 on practice tests going into my first test), but I'm glad I went ahead and took it the three times, because I don't think I'd be attending G'town without that 172 the third time I took it.

That being said, only take it three times if you're really, really sure your score isn't going to go down.

Dude, if I got a 169 I'd be satisfied. If you don't mind me asking, why did you take it two times after such a high score.


I got a 149 the first time I took the LSAT and took it again this June. That's the best decision I ever made - I know now that I'll most likely get a 158 but there's a good chance I'll get in the low 160''s. I'm a URM (I'm reluctant to use that term though -___-) so there's a chance that the schools I'm trying to get into are going to pick me anyway, but I don't regret taking the LSAT twice and I won't regret taking it again in September.

That score is going to close or open a lot of doors and it's more important than GPA so I don't see any reason why you shouldn't take it until you get a score you're satisfied with. The only thing that would possibly keeping me from doing so is whether my "dream school" or #1 realistic choice average LSAT scores. They don't - so I'm considering the LSAT an all you can eat buffet - take it as you wish (being serious, of course) until you feel you can go to town with your numbers.

billyez wrote:Dude, if I got a 169 I'd be satisfied. If you don't mind me asking, why did you take it two times after such a high score.

Refer to his name...

billyez wrote:Dude, if I got a 169 I'd be satisfied. If you don't mind me asking, why did you take it two times after such a high score.

mistergoft wrote: Refer to his name...

This, but also, refer to my comments about what I was practicing at and how I had never scored lower than a 169 on a practice test. I knew I had the ability to do better and it really annoyed me that I didn't perform to my highest the first couple times. I did it as much to prove myself to me as I did to improve my chances for LS admissions.

And as is implied in the name thing, my LSAT is more important than the average candidate because of my sub-par GPA.

I'm actually wondering about my situation and this as well--in Sept 06 I took the LSAT cold (I thought it was like every other standardized test--you show up and rock it!). However, I did not rock it at all.

I know a previous poster said that UWash said scores were good for 3 years--does Sept 06 fall within the 3 year mark if I'm applying in Sept 09 for 2010 cycle??? And is the 3 year limit on scores unusual?

I am going to submit an addendum either way most likely--I just need to work on thinking about how to say "I didn't want to go to law school and thought I could just show up" in a much better way.

Advice?

crombot wrote:I'm actually wondering about my situation and this as well--in Sept 06 I took the LSAT cold (I thought it was like every other standardized test--you show up and rock it!). However, I did not rock it at all.

I know a previous poster said that UWash said scores were good for 3 years--does Sept 06 fall within the 3 year mark if I'm applying in Sept 09 for 2010 cycle??? And is the 3 year limit on scores unusual?

I am going to submit an addendum either way most likely--I just need to work on thinking about how to say "I didn't want to go to law school and thought I could just show up" in a much better way.

Advice?

Sorry, it's five years for the vast majority of schools. Write a good addendum and you should be fine. I would say something along the lines of not taking the test seriously, but that you've grown up a lot in the past three years and are now a much more focused and dedicated person.

crombot wrote:I'm actually wondering about my situation and this as well--in Sept 06 I took the LSAT cold (I thought it was like every other standardized test--you show up and rock it!). However, I did not rock it at all.

I know a previous poster said that UWash said scores were good for 3 years--does Sept 06 fall within the 3 year mark if I'm applying in Sept 09 for 2010 cycle??? And is the 3 year limit on scores unusual?

I am going to submit an addendum either way most likely--I just need to work on thinking about how to say "I didn't want to go to law school and thought I could just show up" in a much better way.

Advice?

I am in a similar boat; I signed up for the GRE and LSAT at the same time senior year, and since I became "sure" that I was going to graduate school instead of law school, I ended up blowing off the small amount of LSAT prep I intended to do to try and fill my brain with words for GRE Verbal (with a good deal of success, I might add).

I think I did decent for taking it cold, except on the LG section. I spent way too much time on the first game, and ended up getting almost all of the questions for it wrong anyway. I maybe could have salvaged a 160 or so had I thought to do that game last. But I ended up in the mid-150s.

Given that there is a 2 year gap between that and my next LSAT (I plan to re-take in September), and that I have no HYS aspirations (GPA is a 3.5, so I'm not going to kid myself), how bad is that test going to hurt me? I'm pretty sure I'll be able to hit around the 170 mark on the second go-round, give or take a couple points. I want to stay in Chicago, so I'm pretty much aiming for UIUC, ND, or maybe WUSTL. I'll probably still apply to UofC, even if my chances are slim-to-none, just because it's my dream school (sub-question: would applying ED at UofC help any?). From what I've read, I'm under the impression that my highest score will be what matters at those schools. But I'm wondering if I should explain the circumstances of my first score at all, or just worry about doing better the second time and let the re-take speak for itself.

Splitt3r wrote: The three year limit on scores is standard and applies to all schools,

Really? According to the LSAC web, all scores (and cancellations) from the last five years are reported. As I understand things, it is up to the school to decide what to do with that information. It sounds like U of W considers scores from only the past three years, but I have not heard that this is a standard practice at all schools.

Dignan wrote:

Splitt3r wrote: The three year limit on scores is standard and applies to all schools,

Really? According to the LSAC web, all scores (and cancellations) from the last five years are reported. As I understand things, it is up to the school to decide what to do with that information. It sounds like U of W considers scores from only the past three years, but I have not heard that this is a standard practice at all schools.

Oops, totally misremembered that tidbit of information. You're absolutely right. That's what I get for being around here long enough to think I'm good enough to not double-check things. I'll edit my post accordingly.

Other that someone's opinion... where has it ever been stated that a cancel and a high score is better than a low score and a high score. Evidence people. I need evidence. And other than a few schools in the t14, please show me ANY school that averages anymore. Once again, EVIDENCE.

Remember, it was speculators who started this economic meltdown we're living in now. Don't be one of them.

Is there ANY evidence that schools (outside T5) make evaluations based on anything other than the highest score? If a school, as a matter of practice, admitted student based on averaging scores (rather than taking the highest), it would put itself at a disadvantage with respect to its competitors. For example, if a school admits systematically admits Candidate Bs (169) over Candidate As (166, 170), guess which school has a better chance of reporting a higher median to USNWR? At some point the rankings become self-fulfilling - to attract the best students you need to maintain your spot in the rankings.

I just don't see how the incentives, as currently structured, jive with a school making admissions decisions based on averages. The dean of admissions of such a school would be fired in a couple of years.

p.s: What Mr.Matlock said.

Here's the evidence... most of everything I've stated comes straight from a school's own policy website, and here you can find a collection of each schools policy on averaging LSATs (Dating from April 3, 2009):

--LinkRemoved--

As you can see, several schools outside top 6 including Berkley and UT-Austin still state on their admissions policy that they will average scores. However, the overwhelming majority of schools outside of top 6 now only take the top score.

In regards to a lower score being worse then a cancel, this is aimed more towards those wishing to gain admittance to a very top law school... as stated before top 6 still will often consider the entirety of your scoring, but specifics are murky and usually greater weight is applied to the highest score. Here's a source that goes more in depth:

http://www.vault.com/nr/newsmain.jsp?nr ... at_id=3091

Hope these help!

SolarWind wrote:Here's the evidence... most of everything I've stated comes straight from a school's own policy website, and here you can find a collection of each schools policy on averaging LSATs (Dating from April 3, 2009):

--LinkRemoved--

As you can see, several schools outside top 6 including Berkley and UT-Austin still state on their admissions policy that they will average scores. However, the overwhelming majority of schools outside of top 6 now only take the top score.

In regards to a lower score being worse then a cancel, this is aimed more towards those wishing to gain admittance to a very top law school... as stated before top 6 still will often consider the entirety of your scoring, but specifics are murky and usually greater weight is applied to the highest score. Here's a source that goes more in depth:

http://www.vault.com/nr/newsmain.jsp?nr ... at_id=3091

Hope these help!

Nice.

There's what schools say, and what they actually do. Lawschoolnumbers is probably a good way to see if the school is FOS. For example, if WUSTL or W&L tell you they look at soft factors, don't believe them. Hell, if they tell you they look at anything besides your LSAT score, don't believe them. However, the first article seems to jive with whats on LSN. Thanks.

rondemarino wrote:

SolarWind wrote:Here's the evidence... most of everything I've stated comes straight from a school's own policy website, and here you can find a collection of each schools policy on averaging LSATs (Dating from April 3, 2009):

--LinkRemoved--

As you can see, several schools outside top 6 including Berkley and UT-Austin still state on their admissions policy that they will average scores. However, the overwhelming majority of schools outside of top 6 now only take the top score.

In regards to a lower score being worse then a cancel, this is aimed more towards those wishing to gain admittance to a very top law school... as stated before top 6 still will often consider the entirety of your scoring, but specifics are murky and usually greater weight is applied to the highest score. Here's a source that goes more in depth:

http://www.vault.com/nr/newsmain.jsp?nr ... at_id=3091

Hope these help!

Nice.

There's what schools say, and what they actually do. Lawschoolnumbers is probably a good way to see if the school is FOS. For example, if WUSTL or W&L tell you they look at soft factors, don't believe them. Hell, if they tell you they look at anything besides your LSAT score, don't believe them. However, the first article seems to jive with whats on LSN. Thanks.

I appreciate the follow-up as well. I also appreciate that the first link follows the TRUE rankings and has Cooleys info listed at #12.

I also agree with the fact that outside the top 6 (even that may be pushing it) most play the rankings game, if you get a 150 and a 173... They'll only see the 173. ("Pay no attention, these are not the droids you're looking for")

A Fresca to the first poster to get the reference.

SolarWind wrote:Well in that kind of hypothetical situation (165 v 178) your set in almost all schools as your second is so high... the only exceptions might be Columbia/Berkley/Georgetown which average & then HYS.

Wrong.

Mr. Matlock wrote:

rondemarino wrote:

SolarWind wrote:Here's the evidence... most of everything I've stated comes straight from a school's own policy website, and here you can find a collection of each schools policy on averaging LSATs (Dating from April 3, 2009):

--LinkRemoved--

As you can see, several schools outside top 6 including Berkley and UT-Austin still state on their admissions policy that they will average scores. However, the overwhelming majority of schools outside of top 6 now only take the top score.

In regards to a lower score being worse then a cancel, this is aimed more towards those wishing to gain admittance to a very top law school... as stated before top 6 still will often consider the entirety of your scoring, but specifics are murky and usually greater weight is applied to the highest score. Here's a source that goes more in depth:

http://www.vault.com/nr/newsmain.jsp?nr ... at_id=3091

Hope these help!

Nice.

There's what schools say, and what they actually do. Lawschoolnumbers is probably a good way to see if the school is FOS. For example, if WUSTL or W&L tell you they look at soft factors, don't believe them. Hell, if they tell you they look at anything besides your LSAT score, don't believe them. However, the first article seems to jive with whats on LSN. Thanks.

I appreciate the follow-up as well. I also appreciate that the first link follows the TRUE rankings and has Cooleys info listed at #12.

I also agree with the fact that outside the top 6 (even that may be pushing it) most play the rankings game, if you get a 150 and a 173... They'll only see the 173. ("Pay no attention, these are not the droids you're looking for")

A Fresca to the first poster to get the reference.

Fresca me Biatch

so it says that NYU doesnt have a stated policy of averaging or higher score. I have a 153,160,cancel,172 (3.4 gpa). what does everyone think of my chances? not good? also how do i explain these scores in an Addendum?