The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Major LSAT change
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 15th, 2006 7:58 AM Author: henna market generalized bond http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2006/06/aba_to_require_.html
ABA to Require Schools to Report Highest LSAT Scores from Multiple Tests, Rather Than Average Scores
At its June 8-11 meeting in Cleveland, the Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar voted to change its data collection procedures to require law schools in computing the 75th percentile, median, and 25th percentile LSAT scores of their entering classes to report the highest score of matriculants who took the test more than once. The ABA's prior rules had required schools to report the average LSAT score of students who took multiple tests. The rule change follows similar action taken by the Law School Admission Council. Although the change will encourage students to take the LSAT more than once, current LSAC rules limits applicants to three tests in any two-year period.
June 14, 2006 in Law School | Permalink |
 |
Date: June 15th, 2006 7:59 AM Author: Emerald Racy Messiness This is big news... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991386) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 7:19 PM Author: Rusted Tanning Salon Cuck Just a way to make money by administering more LSATs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5996067) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 8:01 AM Author: Cowardly ticket booth I wonder how much this will up the 75 percentile of the lower T14 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991393) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:46 AM Author: cream school cafeteria dopamine quite a bit. I suspect at the very top this change won't matter much, but schools like Penn will probably receive a deluge of 160/170 splits (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991604) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:12 PM Author: mahogany big love of her life WTF? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992833) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 2:04 PM Author: Know-it-all bawdyhouse voyeur Wow, Northwestern is going to be a T10 when next year's rankings come out. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993277) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 2:37 PM Author: Know-it-all bawdyhouse voyeur As a numbers admit, let me just say I'm glad this didn't happen before i applied. Very glad. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993579) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 8:01 AM Author: passionate clear community account this is good news for blue smoke (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991397) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 8:13 AM Author: Snowy Heaven Why? Her 169 is high enough for any LS. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991422) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 8:20 AM Author: passionate clear community account she wants to take it again (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991435) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 8:23 AM Author: Snowy Heaven It would benefit her for law schools to ignore her 169? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991442) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 8:24 AM Author: passionate clear community account no, but if she fucks up, she still has the higher score.
so she can't lose. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 8:49 AM Author: Snowy Heaven Due to the new policy, will law schools only look at the highest score? Would applicants with a big score discrepancy between more than one testing administration be required to give an explanation? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991462) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 8:52 AM Author: garnet parlour Schools can do virtually whatever the hell they want with respect to their admissions processes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991465) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:11 AM Author: zippy scourge upon the earth have another cup of coffee and wake up and re-read!
what the ruling says is that law schools will have to REPORT the highest LSAT scores. it says nothing about whom they might choose to admit. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:25 AM Author: marvelous dragon Wake up and re-think dumbass. Schools have incentive to accept those applicants who increase their rankings. Before, a 160-175 split would NOT increase the reported LSAT scores for, say, Chicago. Now, it WOULD increase the reported LSAT scores for, say, Yale. Assuming that at least part of admissions is based on how it influences the class makeup and ranking, then a change in %ile reporting could very well have an effect on admissions. The grandparent is speculating on what those changes would be and inviting half-way intelligent posters to participate in further speculation. Like Toby says, "Go to bed!" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991515) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:32 AM Author: Snowy Heaven So a 160 to 172 (average of 166) would be perceived as better by schools than a 170? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991525) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:34 AM Author: slimy corner coldplay fan Of course. The 172 is what they would report. It would help their numbers to select that applicant. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991528) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:29 AM Author: slimy corner coldplay fan Wow. You must suck at connect the dots. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991519) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:34 AM Author: Pea-brained Juggernaut Holy shit! This is going to change the admissions prospect for a lot of people. The LSAT just went from a once in a life time test, to a exam you can take until you get a good score. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991529) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:36 AM Author: slimy corner coldplay fan Best out of 3 anyway. The OCD kids will love this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991533) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:37 AM Author: garnet parlour Not to mention the LSAC. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991540) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:36 AM Author: Mind-boggling lay background story When does it take effect, this coming cycle? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991534) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:37 AM Author: translucent excitant den i hope not (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991542) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:37 AM Author: Mind-boggling lay background story Why? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991545) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:38 AM Author: translucent excitant den i have yet to have a formal lsat score on my record. if this change goes into effect this cycle (i.e. on harvard/yale/stanford's websites, they say "we will accept the highest of your lsat scores, we will not average them") people who have already taken it, say, twice, can now take it a third time with little/no pressure and they can apply to schools with three lsats under their belt while i will yet to have taken one. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991554) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:40 AM Author: Mind-boggling lay background story I'm going to take it again probably this September, for a second score, especially if this change takes effect for this coming cycle.
|
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:41 AM Author: translucent excitant den you'd be foolish not to. and this particularly benefits those people who have a 169 or thereabouts and can now take it again with little/no pressure. almost everyone does better on big tasks/tests when they have little/no pressure. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991577) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:44 AM Author: Mind-boggling lay background story Well I have a mid 160s score and it would have been averaged previously, so I really needed to gross double the points to net the score increase that would make taking it again worthwhile, but now I can just get a 168 or 170 and have that score be the one that's considered. I hope hope hope this change takes effect and helps me out. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991592) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:49 AM Author: Snowy Heaven How many times have you attempted the LSAT and why do you keep canceling? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991610) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:50 AM Author: translucent excitant den took it once, cancelled it once (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991615) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:13 AM Author: Snowy Heaven What do you think you would have scored if you didn't cancel? Why haven't you taken it since? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991703) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:10 AM Author: maize trailer park This is a legit fear. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991690) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:38 AM Author: translucent excitant den wow, so basically everyone who isnt scoring a 175+ will have incentive to take the LSAT three times to see what their best score is? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991548) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:38 AM Author: Greedy Infuriating Stead hmmmm... just a money making scheme for LSAC? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991551) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:40 AM Author: translucent excitant den it's kind of nice for students not to have the tremendous pressure to do really well or otherwise cancel if they dont think they did well. but it just made the hypercompetitive world of top-tier LS admissions that much more competitive (and time-consuming). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991563) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 12:41 PM Author: flesh church Are the ABA and LSAC affiliated? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992623) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:38 AM Author: Pea-brained Juggernaut Exactly, this is bullshit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991553) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:39 AM Author: slimy corner coldplay fan I predict 95% of AZNs will take this test 3 times now. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991555) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 12:56 PM Author: bateful bronze native patrolman and people of other races wouldn't?
give me a friggin' break |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 7:25 PM Author: Dead Sable Property Milk I didn't know you were asian.
Hispanics and blacks, for the most part, probably won't bother. Whites might take it twice. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:41 AM Author: Aqua halford stage Wow (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991575) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:43 AM Author: Razzle burgundy point will this mess up the curves greatly? what if a lot of low 170s retake the exam again, assuming they score in the 170 plus the new test takers scoring in the 170s, thats a lot of high scorers on a curved exam. not good? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991583) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:44 AM Author: translucent excitant den for each high scorer with a 168+ retaking it, you will have 80,000 loser-fucker strivers with a 156 retaking only to see their score fall to a 152.
NB: i will likely fall into the latter category of test-takers. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:44 AM Author: Fuchsia Factory Reset Button All I can see is a jumble of confusion for the law schools and applicants. Will law schools stop caring about the average? They have incentive to if it's purely a numbers game, but I still think they'll look more highly on the person, as mentioned above, who gets a one-time 170 instead of the guy with a 160 and a 172. I guess we'll see how big of numbers whores these schools really are. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991590) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:46 AM Author: translucent excitant den this is an interesting proposition. does a LS prefer a one time 170 or a 160/172 split. fascinating. i imagine the upper tier law schools will look more favorably on the 170 while the lower tier law schools looking to up their USNWR ranking might have a propensity to favor the 172 since that candidate will now have a more favorable impact on their 25/median/75 rates. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991599) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:51 AM Author: slimy corner coldplay fan If a school preferred the 170 over the 160/172 they are basically admitting that the LSAT is bullshit. Remember, the LSAT allegedly tests your ability to read and reason. If you are able to score a 172, that is your ability. If you score a 170, that is your ability. The 160 becomes moot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991619) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:45 AM Author: Irradiated cuckold It's very easy to score 10 points below your average on the LSAT. It's almost impossible to score 10 points above it. When you see a 162/176 split, I think you can safely bet that the test-taker's practice average was a lot closer to 176 than 162.
Considering the average completely fucks people who happen to have one or two bad days. Hopefully the revised policy will lead to big changes in admissions. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:49 AM Author: translucent excitant den i wonder if this will be retroactive... i.e. people who applied two years ago and got shitty scores can now retake the test and hope they can improve on their 162 and get into a t14. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991608) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:50 AM Author: maize trailer park Holy shit. Looks like I'll be re-taking on 9/30
EDIT: probably in December, too. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:52 AM Author: Mind-boggling lay background story Have youd deferred? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991626) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:54 AM Author: maize trailer park I sent in my deferral letter. Have yet to hear back. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991632) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:54 AM Author: Mind-boggling lay background story Not satisfied with Vandy? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991634) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:55 AM Author: maize trailer park USC. I just wanted to travel for a yr before I start on this legal career BS. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991636) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:56 AM Author: Mind-boggling lay background story Oh, sorry. That sounds like fun. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991642) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:19 AM Author: iridescent hairless associate set where do you plan to go? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991740) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:22 AM Author: maize trailer park Teaching english is seoul starting 7/10. I'll do that for at least 6 months then I'll either stay on or go somewhere else. I'm thinking about getting one of those round the world tickets. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991756) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:24 AM Author: cream school cafeteria dopamine six months of seoul searching should be enough (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991767) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:26 AM Author: iridescent hairless associate set groan (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991782) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:29 AM Author: maize trailer park I'm thinking so. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991805) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:51 AM Author: Crawly idiotic center Nice. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991968) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 2:52 PM Author: Buck-toothed Principal's Office ha (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993719) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 4:25 PM Author: cream school cafeteria dopamine gross. i forgot about this thread (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5994513) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:27 AM Author: iridescent hairless associate set sounds great. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991784) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 12:47 PM Author: flesh church wait. if you defer aren't you barred from applying to other schools during the deferment? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992675) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:04 AM Author: Exciting State Weed Whacker Ugh. Are they just trying to make more money for the LSAC? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991660) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:12 AM Author: Frozen hairraiser ape space organizing, administering, grading tests while keeping it all secure is still very expensive. i doubt they make much money off giving the test out.
HOWEVER, reporting is a completely different story. i bet they get most of their profits from score reporting and registering w/ the LSDAS. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:31 AM Author: garnet parlour Administering is cheap. It's a few hundred bucks for the room (often free) and maybe $50 for the proctor. Grading is done automatically. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991820) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:20 AM Author: iridescent hairless associate set this is huge. i definitely would have taken it a second time. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991744) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:25 AM Author: Vibrant Range Keepsake Machete I don't think this will matter that much. Sure, more people now have an incentive to retake but how likely is it that someone will get lucky and score 5 - 6 points higher than normal? Not very. On the other hand, it's much easier to have an off day and score 5 to 6 points lower. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991772) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:29 AM Author: garnet parlour Why do you presume without justification that the the first score was the "normal" one? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991803) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:49 AM Author: Vibrant Range Keepsake Machete I guess my point was more along the lines of it's unlikely that the number of people scoring really really high is going to dramatically increase. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991954) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:53 AM Author: Irradiated cuckold "I guess my point was more along the lines of it's unlikely that the number of people scoring really really high is going to dramatically increase."
Let's arbitarily say that 175 is "really really high." What percentage of people who average 175 while taking prep tests actually end up no more than a couple points below that target on test day? From what I've heard, I'd guess the figure is a lot smaller than you'd think. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:59 AM Author: garnet parlour The LSAC releases retake stats. It's pretty much what you'd expect. People who scored really high are more likely to drop on a retest. People who scored really low are more likely to rise on a retest. People in the middle do about the same with a slight bump due to familiarity. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992045) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 11:01 AM Author: maize trailer park I remember seeing the stats on that. Do you have a link? or know where to find it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992063) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:50 AM Author: Irradiated cuckold "I don't think this will matter that much... On the other hand, it's much easier to have an off day and score 5 to 6 points lower."
Right. So, if true, this could end up being a very big deal. Many, many people fuck up the LSAT in a big way the first time they take it. Even those people who end up only a few points below their expected score will often have a big incentive to retake (the difference between a 165 and a 168 is often the difference between UMinn and Umich). |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:56 AM Author: maize trailer park *** from delaggios website ****
Good News! Law Services has officially changed their policy on averaging multiple LSAT scores. On Feb. 14, LSAC announced that their Board of Trustees had approved a change in their "Cautionary Policies Concerning LSAT Scores and Related Services." LSAC used to encourage the use of the average of multiple scores. The revised Cautionary Policies are silent on this topic. This change is intended to advise law schools that there is no need to always average multiple LSAT scores, and that they should use their best judgment in deciding which LSAT score best reflects the applicant's potential.
In a quick follow-up to the change in policy, the ABA has scheduled a discussion of whether to require law schools to report averaged LSAT scores of applicants who took the test more than once.
"Law Schools should be aware...that the Questionnaire Committee might recommend...shifting the LSAT reporting requirement in the Annual Questionnaire from the average score to the high score. "We will not know until ...June ... whether there will be any change in reporting requirements.
"At the very least, this means that if they are not doing so already schools should be collecting in their admissions databases the high score in addition to the average score...."
What this means to you is that, come June of 2006 and later, law schools might look for people with a high second LSAT score to pull from their wait list. So if you have two scores five or more points apart, and you sent most of your apps to schools that take your averaged LSAT scores, you might want to send a few more apps to schools that you're dying to attend and where your higher score is above the median. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:58 AM Author: Crawly idiotic center SWEET! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992033) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 11:00 AM Author: maize trailer park looks like it is in effect now. Could cause some waitlist havoc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992053) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 11:02 AM Author: Crawly idiotic center I would expect mass mailings being planned out from TTTs who want to gobble up some nice LSAT scores and who can now take splitters without damage. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992073) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 11:01 AM Author: aggressive aphrodisiac theater stage Good, I won't have to cancel at all, I can just retake in September. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992062) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 11:07 AM Author: erotic indian lodge boltzmann *high five*
This is sweet fucking news, esp. considering how badly I fucked up Oct 2005. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 11:08 AM Author: aggressive aphrodisiac theater stage I've been debating all week whether or not to cancel, now I'll just ride it out and go from there. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992124) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2006 12:08 AM Author: Hyperventilating amber senate same here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5998253) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 11:08 AM Author: floppy marketing idea Not good. This cycle's going to be madness. If you end up with a 172+, you'll be cursing this change. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992122) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 3:00 PM Author: Irradiated cuckold It's great. Be prepared for more competition from chokers like me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993769) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:27 PM Author: flesh church This is conjecture from a crackpot admissions counselor. It's very much less 'sweet' than the actual ABA announcement. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992932) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 2:59 PM Author: Irradiated cuckold High five. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993763) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 11:05 AM Author: maize trailer park With this change, I think it is in everyone's self-interest to take it three times or until you get a 175+. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992097) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 11:10 AM Author: floppy marketing idea Yeah, fuck. This sucks. I'm neurotic enough as it is. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992138) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 11:12 AM Author: Crawly idiotic center Credited, I think.
And the concept of knowing you have another chance or two to take the exam totally changes the psychology of the fucking test. Till now the LSAT was a PRESSURE exam. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 11:17 AM Author: floppy marketing idea I think it's likely that more high-scorers and over-achievers will re-take, making the upper range of scores more competitive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992184) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 12:26 PM Author: Charismatic locale I'm not so sure the consequences won't be ugly.
25-75 scores across the board will increase 2-3 points, thus raising the standard of admission at most schools. Students who achieved an average performance of their practice range on their LSAT will feel compelled to retake to achieve the high end of their range.
This change will intensify competition, not lessen it. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 12:31 PM Author: aggressive aphrodisiac theater stage So much more incentive to take the June/Sept LSAT and try and get in to the schools early by applying ASAP, before the re-takers get 173+ in Oct/December (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992548) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 12:52 PM Author: Charismatic locale As far as strategy for this cycle goes, I would be very much inclined to agree.
Ugh, I was glad it was over. But now I guess I'll have to study again for September, assuming I didn't max out my range. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:06 PM Author: aggressive aphrodisiac theater stage yeah, I'm feeling the same way (regarding the glad it's over stage), except the weight on me to cancel has just disappeared. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992794) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 12:51 PM Author: Onyx house-broken rigor WUSTTTL will have a field day!!! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992705) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:01 PM Author: bateful bronze native patrolman this just allayed my fears of the LSAT being an absolute pressure cooker. i'll just take in september, apply to schools, retake in december, and if i'm on a bunch of waitlists or whatnot i'll take it again a third time in february.
the bad part is that LSAT prep is going to become drawn out and all consuming for a number of months, instead of being a short and sweet (3-4 months) process. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 7:45 PM Author: diverse cruise ship this is my plan, except ill take it for the first time in june, then re-take in september. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5996342) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:10 PM Author: hot titillating area do u guys think that more test takers will now take the test w/ little to no prep???
this seems doubtful to me for a number of reasons but what do u think? |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:11 PM Author: Aqua halford stage Yes, this is a huge change. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992826) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:18 PM Author: hot titillating area well then wouldn't this balance out the effect of high scorers retaking, resulting in little if any scale change?? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992866) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:25 PM Author: floppy marketing idea We'll know soon. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992917) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:13 PM Author: spectacular prole Will this affect waitlists for this year? I was a 3.77/166/172 split and I inexplicably just got off the waitlist at chicago. Can I attribute this to the change? will I now get off the waitlists at nyu and columbia? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992837) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:15 PM Author: maize trailer park if this isn't flame, I assume the top law schools have figured out what the change meant very quickly. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992852) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:20 PM Author: spectacular prole its not flame
I just graduated my gpa is now 3.8
do i have a shot at H with 3.8/172? should i defer a year? |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:25 PM Author: maize trailer park yeah of course you ahve a shot at H. I don't know if you should defer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992914) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:26 PM Author: spectacular prole you think the rule change will affect waitlists for this year? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992922) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:27 PM Author: maize trailer park Yep. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992934) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:28 PM Author: floppy marketing idea This may be a stupid question, but can you defer a year and then reapply to other schools during that year? If I remember correctly from UG admissions, you'll have to sign some sort of commitment and if you do end up re-applying, you'll be auto-dinged at the other top schools. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992937) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:22 PM Author: floppy marketing idea How'd they notify you? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992895) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:29 PM Author: flesh church did you send a letter of continued interest? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992942) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:18 PM Author: mahogany big love of her life Under these conditions, I would absolutely have retaken - I didn't because I couldn't afford to drop my score even a point. Too bad I'm already in law school. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992865) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:27 PM Author: beta school This big news. Its also lame because its more $$$ for LSAC and will inflate the higher end scores. All the smart kids who pulled out a 172-175 their first time are screwed... because to keep up with the psycho studier retaking for the fourth time they are going to have to do just that much better.
Everyone is going to start doing multiple LSATS. Terrible. It will make the admissions process just that much crappier.
|
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:29 PM Author: aggressive aphrodisiac theater stage Like I said above, it provides a LOT more pressure for people to take the test early and apply as early as possible for the schools as well, in order to pre-empt those who will be taking the LSAT multiple times. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992941) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:31 PM Author: floppy marketing idea Agreed. I think this will increase the importance of soft factors, too. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992956) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:41 PM Author: hot titillating area por que? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993043) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 2:37 PM Author: floppy marketing idea I think it'll be important in scenarios like this: "Also, does this give Adcoms a reason to consider soft factors more when you have a (171, 167) vs. a (171)?" As Dr. Eckleburg points, there'll probably be a lot more gunners in 170+ range. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:37 PM Author: Onyx house-broken rigor This could be a blessing in disguise to those who study like hell and take the LSAT only once. There will be many who do not study as hard for this test knowing they can re-take it as many times as they need. Because of this, the curve will drop considerably for each session. This will allow those who prepared adaquately to achieve the top scores while those who did not prep as hard will re-take, continue to post mediocre scores, and will eventually settle or give up. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993002) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:40 PM Author: hot titillating area i think if someone retakes they would be more likely than not to score better. If they did poorly the first time, they will most likely change their prep.
hope you're right tho |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:41 PM Author: floppy marketing idea Also, fewer people who knowingly fucked up or had bad days will cancel. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993041) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:43 PM Author: Onyx house-broken rigor Exactly.
The curve will soften 3-4 points.
Guaranteed. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:46 PM Author: maize trailer park interesting (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993105) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:48 PM Author: hot titillating area if u know that u fucked up why would you knowingly keep that blight on your transcript? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993119) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:52 PM Author: Onyx house-broken rigor Because there is always a chance you may not have. Might as well wait and see. If it isn't any good, you re-take with no penalty in admissions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993160) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 2:01 PM Author: hot titillating area there is still a penalty.
all else being equal, a school will take the X - 170 over the 158 - 170 scorer
the borderline fuck ups would be better of waiting and seeing, but if you knowingly fucked up, still better to cancel as far as i can see. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 2:34 PM Author: floppy marketing idea the thing is, most people don't fuck up in a major or obvious way, it's more like "LR was tougher than usual dood" or "i'm nervous about the games, i think i may have missed a couple bcs i was in a hurry-- should i cancel?" now they won't cancel. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 2:30 PM Author: floppy marketing idea sarcashtick, who thinks he fucked on the LR section, was going to cancel; now he's not. i think most people would react similiarly. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993513) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:55 PM Author: concupiscible pale pervert the sat policy has always been this way, correct? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993199) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 3:09 PM Author: Irradiated cuckold Pretty much. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993824) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 2:08 PM Author: Contagious filthy indirect expression Here are some things I can see happening:
-On the one hand it removes the pressure on students to nail the test in one shot, on the other hand it ups the pressure to get a good score since the law of averages wont be dragging down as many students.
-There's probably going to be a rush to register for September as everyone tries to retake for the upcoming cycle who has a shot at higher scores. This next cycle, if this applies, might be really brutal as a result as everyone tries to figure out what it all means.
-From the Adcom perspective this means on the one hand that if they re-eval all their old files the LSAT numbers for their pool of applicants will be boosted across the board
-However, the big change I see is a jump in applications to T14 as everyone rolls the dice and see's what the new rules do to the admissions dynamics. This might increase the pressure on a lot of the applicants who scored well before but now find themselves in the middle of the pack instead of towards the front.
-Basically adcoms can expect to see an increase of apps from what used to be the lower end of their spectrum of applicants
-In the long term, I think this hurts the test prep industry a bit, and you'll see the LSAT score spectrum re-align. I see more people taking the test a first time without seriously prepping since there's no 'screw up once, pwn3d for life" pressure, and as a result a lot more low first time scores, since there'll be less prepping off the bat. THese will be long term re-alignments though. We're gonna have to ride out the storm.
-The real interesting question right now is what happens to all the folks who had low 170's and figured they were locks for T6? Also, does this give Adcoms a reason to consider soft factors more when you have a (171, 167) vs. a (171)? Or if the 167 followed a 171 does the Admissions office take that as a sign you were gunning for HYS and WLpwn you and take the guy who was happy with just the 171? These are trends that will play out later. Right now we're gonna be stuck in gunner-ville. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 2:22 PM Author: hot titillating area hopefully the low scorers are smart enough to know and comprehend this rule change. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993437) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 2:35 PM Author: Contagious filthy indirect expression there's a reason why LSD exists. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993554) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 7:27 PM Author: Dead Sable Property Milk I don't think it will hurt test prep. If people are taking the exam multiple times, they'll probably get more prep overall. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5996127) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2006 11:19 AM Author: Greedy Infuriating Stead it may balance out - a lot more people will use a real exam as practice before committing to a studying regime and cost of a course/books. Some group of them will see a terrible score and just decide to go to nursing school or something. But you're right, more multiple tests may mean more duplicated prep for the same testers. But testprep companies are going to have to rethink their repeat course policies. They've been fairly lenient up til now, but they may not want to give up that revenue possibility so easily now, if that group is going to grow substantially. But again, as with first time testers, that group may be less willing to pay exorbitant amounts of money (now a second time) without that fear/pressure of the impact of a bad score on your average. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#6000447) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 2:19 PM Author: carmine cruel-hearted haunted graveyard Wow. This is a huge change. I was a 161/172, 3.97 splitter. Granted I got into my first choice, but I didn't even bother applying to Yale or pursuing Harvard after the deferral/waitlist. If only I had waited a year... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993413) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 2:39 PM Author: Bearded Startled Resort Anyone have data for LSAT retakers in the past? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993598) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 2:44 PM Author: floppy marketing idea The paper practice test LSAC gives out (or use to give out) has it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993637) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 2:50 PM Author: Bearded Startled Resort Got it, thanks.
http://lsac.org/pdfs/2006-2007/informationbk2006.pdf (p.18)
Seems that after the 168ish range, very few people really go up. I think this may be more of an issue for the 150-165 people who need a few more points (consequently raising the 25th precentile more than the 75 percentile). |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 3:17 PM Author: Irradiated cuckold It also shows that very few people in the 169+ range bother to retake. That may well change now. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993884) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 6:31 PM Author: translucent excitant den this exchange would make a great "Weaken" LR question.
please shoot me. |
|
Date: June 28th, 2006 9:15 PM Author: shimmering step-uncle's house boiling water aha. i like the guy that got a 179, retook, and got 174. The guy with 139 who jumped to 170-180 is impressive too. Bubbling mistake? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#6097560) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 2:57 PM Author: Charismatic locale I disagree that a softening of the curve on individual tests will cancel out anything.
I agree that the curve on each individual test will soften 3-4 points, perhaps even more.
However, what will matter will be the new "curve" of all the highest scores put together for a given admissions cycle. And this curve is going to shoot up tremendously. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 3:03 PM Author: Onyx house-broken rigor You are overestimating the persistence and work ethic of TTT students. After one or two mediocre efforts, most will settle.
Project yourself into the mind of the TTT moron. If the ultimatim never exists (you have one chance, failure is not an option) the motivation to study hard for it won't either. There is always next time! |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 3:10 PM Author: Contagious filthy indirect expression The relevant demographic are the people who are testing between high 160's low 170's on practices and get a the high 160's on the actual test. They'll retest until they get a break into the 170's. The question is how many people is this and how many people will do it. This is in turn will probably push the "safe zone" of scores from 170-172 to 172-173.
Furthermore, past data on retest score improvements is useless since the number of retesters probably fell precipitously as the score got higher. The risk-reward ratio was heavily skewed towards not retaking for fear of getting selfpwn3d. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 3:13 PM Author: Irradiated cuckold "The relevant demographic are the people who are testing between high 160's low 170's on practices and get a the high 160's on the actual test."
You're still probably overestimating the motivation of most students. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 3:19 PM Author: Charismatic locale I agree with the Doctor. You're talking about TTT students, but students who are scoring in the high 160s or better, for the most part, did not get there by being lazy morons.
I probably got around a 170 on the June test, and I will probably study my ass off to score around a 172-3 on the September test, though I would never have even thought to do that before this new policy.
And there are thousands of students who scored just like me who will react just like me, thus raising the bar. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 3:21 PM Author: Irradiated cuckold I think you're probably overestimating the returns to further study. I don't think many people need more than 30 hours of smart study to reach their peak. More importantly, the role of chance and nerves should diminish significantly. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993926) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 3:57 PM Author: Contagious filthy indirect expression In the long term yes, but right now there's going to be a general rush, and I think especially so in the demographic I just mentioned. They have the most to gain, and now have absolutely nothing to lose. Unless I broke 171, I might be tempted to retake. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5994219) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 3:19 PM Author: Irradiated cuckold I actually talked to someone at the desk of Michigan's admissions office today. He said that he'd recently received an email from Sarah Z. regarding ABA changes (though he apparently hadn't yet read through it carefully). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993900) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2006 2:54 AM Author: bright national sex offender Hey! Thanks for adding nothing.
131. HTH. |
|
Date: June 17th, 2006 5:25 PM Author: Irradiated cuckold It was further non-conclusory evidence at a time when some were skeptical. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#6008578) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 3:30 PM Author: Shaky Antidepressant Drug Jewess One question:
Has this news gotten out to the general public yet? How closely are LS applicants following this recent development? When will test takers start to explode with registrations for the September administration? |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 3:38 PM Author: Buck-toothed Principal's Office in a few years, it will seem ridiculous that i got into hls with my lsat score (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5994051) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 3:41 PM Author: Irradiated cuckold Not really. They don't have much room to move their LSAT scores upwards, and probably also don't have much inclination. But they might not have to accept as many 3.6/175 splitters in the future. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5994068) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 3:42 PM Author: Ocher Crackhouse I woulda retaken my 171 to get into Yale. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5994077) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 4:12 PM Author: turquoise glittery immigrant I would have retaken too. I scored about 5 points lower on my real LSAT than I was doing consistenly in practice. But I didn't want to do it again for fear I'd go even lower. This removes that fear. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5994371) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 4:24 PM Author: Ocher Crackhouse Am I right to assume this helps schools 2-6 the most? They'll create more separation between them and the rest of the "T14" by virtue of having to accept less people from their 25% range and move their median towards the 75% range that they are at now. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5994497) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 6:44 PM Author: Tan godawful gas station no. there will be no effect, positive or negative, on any particular school once the transition is complete. students will each have a single reportable number, and those numbers will be normally distributed across students. the only thing that is changing is how that reportable number is computed per student. since there is ample room in the score range for the scores to rise, i.e. no school has a median score that is kissing the 180 end of the range, the absolute LSAT medians may increase but no school will gain a relative advantage. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5995830) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 4:29 PM Author: Self-absorbed Very Tactful Hissy Fit Address (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5994552) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 4:39 PM Author: lascivious narrow-minded church building gay wizard This is awesome news. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5994643) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 5:15 PM Author: talking plaza karate Just when I thought I was destined for a life at one of WUSTL/Minnesota/UIUC/ND/W&L, something comes along to give me a bit of hope. Practice range: 165-176 (mean of 171) Feb 06: 167 Goal for Sept: 172 |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 5:17 PM Author: maize trailer park Congrats and good luck! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5995036) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 5:21 PM Author: lascivious narrow-minded church building gay wizard How are you preparing for September? I have to do the same freaking thing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5995072) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 7:17 PM Author: talking plaza karate The first time around I didn't do any of the preptests past 39 and got destroyed on RC. It was my best section in the old preptests, but because it was so different on the new tests I ran out of time and had to flat guess the last 5 questions. I think I probably made 6-8 errors on that one section. To improve, I'm going to do tests 40+ to get a better feel for the slight changes in LR and really focus on improving my speed in RC. I think I might play around with a few different strategies and see if one of them makes me faster. For the older RC sections all I did was read the passage thoroughly, without marking/underlining, then answer the questions while refering back to the passage when needed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5996048) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 6:49 PM Author: crystalline razzmatazz menage Yay. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5995865) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 7:08 PM Author: Tan godawful gas station pros:
-the test will no longer be such a psychotic pressure cooker. i really can't express how horrifying i found the situation not just as an applicant but also in hindsight. the amount of pressure on students during those three hours was fucking perverse. -luck will play a diminished role for an individual student, since increasing the number of trials tightens the variance. this would happen more if they required three tests and still reported the average, but that would be a bad idea for a number of reasons and this accomplishes much of the same without many of the disadvantages. -the increased cost (in convenience and in dollars) will mean that fewer people apply to law school on a whim, and the seats in law school will be more efficiently allocated to those who are at least determined enough to go through a costlier application process. those that opt out of this increased cost by taking the test only once will face a competitive disadvantage.
cons: -taking the test three times will be a huge hassle, particularly if they don't offer them more frequently. a student who wants to have all three trials finished by the time applications start going out during his senior year in college will have to begin taking the test in june before his junior year, a full year earlier than before. this means that he will have to begin studying toward the end of his sophomore year. -relatedly, taking the LSAT will now take a full year plus studying time and will cost triple what it used to, at least for students who don't get fee waivers from LSAC.
things that will not change: -no school worth talking about will be advantaged or disadvantaged relative to its peers, since while the absolute scores reported may increase, they will still be normally distributed across students and the schools' competition for the students at the upper end of the curve will be unaffected
overall i think this is a good change. on an individual level, any serious law school applicant should be willing to pay $300 and three days' time to purchase a decreased variance in score, which is what this essentially is. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 7:18 PM Author: Ocher Crackhouse this is a nice analysis (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5996059) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 7:21 PM Author: Tan godawful gas station why thank you (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5996087) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 7:23 PM Author: flesh church "at least for students who don't get fee waivers from LSAC."
I wonder what LSAC's policy is regarding fee waivers for repeaters. My guess is they only let you waive once.
"any serious law school applicant should be willing to pay $300 and three days' time to purchase a decreased variance in score, which is what this essentially is."
unless they hit it out of the park the first time. . .
I wonder if we'll start to see people seriously bragging that a 178-179-177 makes them more desirable than a one-time 179er. |
|
Date: June 16th, 2006 8:29 AM Author: Violet Mood I'm not sure that reducing the pressure of the exam is a pro. My impression was that the lsat was designed in part to measure how well you perform under pressure. The kids who can handle the pressure are the ones who deserve to be in top schools, as they will have the most important positions in the future, no? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5999745) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2006 8:32 AM Author: Aqua halford stage I don't know if that is how it was designed, but I wouldnt doubt it. I know there is one study that says the LSAT's predictive quality is almost solely determined by the ability to perform well under time pressure. Not sure if the change would alter this, as it's still an exam with lots of time pressure. The overall stressor would be reduced, but that could even lower scores if people don't prep at all. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5999753) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2006 10:58 AM Author: Tan godawful gas station under time pressure, yes.
under holy-shit-if-i-screw-up-once-my-entire-life-is-ruined pressure, i hope not.
the latter is even more twisted when you consider that it gives a huge advantage to people who don't really want to go to law school and are taking the test on a whim, since they don't feel the awful weight of their future resting on the tip of their pencil. |
|
Date: June 16th, 2006 11:07 AM Author: Greedy Infuriating Stead This is so credited. I was extremely chill when I took the test because I thought I probably wouldn't go to law school. I guarantee it helped by performance. People around me were having heart attacks, and I just had a mild adrenaline rush. Now, I'm not the type to get phsyically ill at exams, but I was calmer than I should have been. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#6000395) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2006 11:05 AM Author: Greedy Infuriating Stead interesting breakdown, but you do assume that everyone will take it three times. A lot of similar cost benefit analysis is going to go into a decision to retake that happens now, just shifted down. I mean, if someone scores a 165, and they think that 3 months more of studying constantly and the extra money for the test (and possibly a class or tutoring or whatever) will net them a 166, it's probably still not worth it. Before it wasn't worth it unless you thought you could pull near 170, but it was the same evaluation.
You may know you've hit close to your peak, even if you'd prefer it be higher. Or you may know you got incredibly lucky and scored above your range, and you're not going to pull that off again. Or you may have gotten a 180, so there's no point. (Okay, so that's a small group, but still).
I don't think the cost is going to go up for everyone, just for people who 1) are deluded they can improve a ton by next time 2) realize they didn't study enough and actually CAN improve by next time and 3) people who freak out and fuck up the test, scoring below their range. |
|
Date: June 18th, 2006 11:32 PM Author: Tan godawful gas station no way dude. the test has a margin of error. even if you do no additional studying at all, there is a chance that just taking it again will net you a higher score because you'll pick a luckier letter of the day. is it worth it to pay an extra $100 and sit for an extra saturday morning to go up one point? fuck yeah. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#6016222) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 7:30 PM Author: Dead Sable Property Milk This would be BS. Perhaps the best thing about the LSAT is that it determines who has nerves of steel, and who doesn't.
Ultimately, however, I don't think schools will simply take the highest score. The average is a better indicator of your true ability, which is what they're primarily looking for. Keep in mind that top schools focused on high LSAT's even before USNews began ranking schools. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 7:34 PM Author: flesh church i agree, except that i think the point made several times above--that this change frees them up to focus more on soft factors--is accurate.
they won't disregard the lower score, but they will be more likely to take interesting candidates who's average would be lower than they'd otherwise like. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 7:40 PM Author: Dead Sable Property Milk They might to some extent. I just don't think it would be the sea change some people expect. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5996284) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 7:49 PM Author: Fragrant pearl locus ratface VERY BAD NEWS for a lot of testers.
On any given sitting, only the top 2% get a 170+.
Let say, for example, that in past years, 12 out of 100 testers at each LSAT were realistic "contenders" for hitting 170+ (the top 2 spots).
This new system would undoubtedly give contenders an incentive to take as many tests as possible. So it may result in a situation where instead of you being one out of 12 contenders vying for 2 spots, you're now fighting against 24 other contenders for those same 2 spots.
Sure, you'd have more chances to get a higher score, but the CURVE would undoubtedly change to reflect the higher number of contenders/LSAT Gurus sitting in on every test.
Perhaps under the new system, 10 mistakes would only get you a 163, whereas in the past, you'd expect something closer to a 170. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 8:38 PM Author: hot titillating area on the other hand you will have many more lower score candidates as well. additionally fewer will cancel their score. also there may very well be more test takers going in w/out any prep at all, saying to themselves, Might as well give it a shot, nothing to lose...
it may all add up to very little subsantive scale change.
or it may fuck us all over. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 8:43 PM Author: Insane insanely creepy lodge bbw "12 out of 100 testers at each LSAT were realistic "contenders" for hitting 170+ (the top 2 spots)." Link? |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 8:49 PM Author: flesh church There are so many things wrong with this. . . (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5996787) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2006 1:47 AM Author: Tan godawful gas station yeah...
at the end of the day, there is still a normal distribution among students. if you can be in the top x% under the pre-change distribution, there is no reason you can't do it under the post-change distribution. just have to sit for two more tests. |
|
Date: June 16th, 2006 8:00 AM Author: Aqua halford stage "just have to sit for two more tests."
That's the key. Who wants to do this? |
|
Date: June 16th, 2006 11:04 AM Author: Tan godawful gas station um, i would have. you seriously wouldn't have paid an extra two days and $200 to reduce the statistical variance of the test by a couple of points? LSAC themselves report an error range of plus or minus three points, which is huge on an individual level. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#6000388) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 8:19 PM Author: anal laser beams Good news for many applicants, and very bad news for splitters. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5996597) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2006 12:28 AM Author: Shaky Antidepressant Drug Jewess i feel like i'll be a borderline splitter with a somewhat mediocre gpa...if this is gonna hurt me, i'm gonna cry! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5998426) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2006 5:54 PM Author: anal laser beams I'm sure that you'll get something out of the cycle, especially since the change hasn't taken effect for a long time yet. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#6105408) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2006 11:09 AM Author: Greedy Infuriating Stead wait, why is this bad for splitters? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#6000400) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2006 5:53 PM Author: anal laser beams Splitters displace qualified applicants whose LSATs are below the median. If you can take the LSAT over and over again, the value of the LSAT score will be diluted and splitters will lose out to retakers with high GPAs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#6105395) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 8:44 PM Author: crusty splenetic ladyboy abode i already stated that this may happen nearly a month ago...
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=419835&mc=57&forum_id=2#5821832
hth |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:17 PM Author: Outnumbered Site Knife damn, all i can say is "holla back for deferring one year!" I'm going to take in sept, try to bump score a notch or two, and then aim for HYS (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5996958) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2006 1:08 AM Author: Citrine soul-stirring kitty office all I can say is I'm glad I applied this cycle. I bet law school is going to be significantly harder to get into, numerically, than it is now. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5998690) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2006 5:44 PM Author: thriller location shitlib This means $$$ for LSAC. Nice job, ABA. Yet another idiotic decision. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#6105266) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2006 5:54 PM Author: Sickened cuckoldry Dude LSAC is in there with the Scientologists, what did you expect? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#6105404) |