Major LSAT change
| flickering alcoholic point | 06/15/06 | | Appetizing Trailer Park Candlestick Maker | 06/15/06 | | Boyish jew gaping | 06/15/06 | | sooty orchestra pit voyeur | 06/15/06 | | Supple henna area pozpig | 06/15/06 | | Passionate Harsh Regret | 06/15/06 | | Crystalline Diverse Station | 06/15/06 | | Crystalline Diverse Station | 06/15/06 | | talented gunner cruise ship | 06/15/06 | | razzmatazz sex offender office | 06/15/06 | | talented gunner cruise ship | 06/15/06 | | razzmatazz sex offender office | 06/15/06 | | talented gunner cruise ship | 06/15/06 | | razzmatazz sex offender office | 06/15/06 | | excitant sepia philosopher-king base | 06/15/06 | | irradiated house-broken clown | 06/15/06 | | Dark hilarious hell mental disorder | 06/15/06 | | razzmatazz sex offender office | 06/15/06 | | aromatic shimmering sneaky criminal windowlicker | 06/15/06 | | aromatic shimmering sneaky criminal windowlicker | 06/15/06 | | laughsome fiercely-loyal striped hyena friendly grandma | 06/15/06 | | aromatic shimmering sneaky criminal windowlicker | 06/15/06 | | excitant sepia philosopher-king base | 06/15/06 | | anal stag film | 06/15/06 | | Wild Hominid | 06/15/06 | | anal stag film | 06/15/06 | | Wild Hominid | 06/15/06 | | anal stag film | 06/15/06 | | Wild Hominid | 06/15/06 | | anal stag film | 06/15/06 | | razzmatazz sex offender office | 06/15/06 | | Wild Hominid | 06/15/06 | | razzmatazz sex offender office | 06/15/06 | | stimulating crimson indian lodge wrinkle | 06/15/06 | | Wild Hominid | 06/15/06 | | clear pocket flask | 06/15/06 | | Wild Hominid | 06/15/06 | | Exhilarant learning disabled background story ratface | 06/15/06 | | laughsome fiercely-loyal striped hyena friendly grandma | 06/15/06 | | aromatic shimmering sneaky criminal windowlicker | 06/15/06 | | Curious dopamine | 06/15/06 | | cruel-hearted stirring hall | 06/15/06 | | Domesticated library | 06/15/06 | | indigo organic girlfriend | 06/15/06 | | Wild Hominid | 06/15/06 | | Dashing church digit ratio | 06/15/06 | | Wild Hominid | 06/15/06 | | aromatic shimmering sneaky criminal windowlicker | 06/15/06 | | at-the-ready box office stock car | 06/15/06 | | Wild Hominid | 06/15/06 | | stimulating crimson indian lodge wrinkle | 06/15/06 | | anal stag film | 06/15/06 | | stimulating crimson indian lodge wrinkle | 06/15/06 | | anal stag film | 06/15/06 | | stimulating crimson indian lodge wrinkle | 06/15/06 | | anal stag film | 06/15/06 | | Ocher prole idea he suggested | 06/15/06 | | stimulating crimson indian lodge wrinkle | 06/15/06 | | Supple henna area pozpig | 06/15/06 | | Ocher prole idea he suggested | 06/15/06 | | stimulating crimson indian lodge wrinkle | 06/15/06 | | Vigorous grizzly tanning salon | 06/15/06 | | multi-colored ebony hospital cumskin | 06/15/06 | | Supple henna area pozpig | 06/15/06 | | Ocher prole idea he suggested | 06/15/06 | | Exhilarant learning disabled background story ratface | 06/15/06 | | Opaque Dilemma Circlehead | 06/15/06 | | swashbuckling theatre tank | 06/15/06 | | excitant sepia philosopher-king base | 06/15/06 | | Ocher prole idea he suggested | 06/15/06 | | impertinent beady-eyed crackhouse | 06/15/06 | | excitant sepia philosopher-king base | 06/15/06 | | impertinent beady-eyed crackhouse | 06/15/06 | | at-the-ready box office stock car | 06/15/06 | | excitant sepia philosopher-king base | 06/15/06 | | stimulating crimson indian lodge wrinkle | 06/15/06 | | at-the-ready box office stock car | 06/15/06 | | stimulating crimson indian lodge wrinkle | 06/15/06 | | Vigorous grizzly tanning salon | 06/15/06 | | stimulating crimson indian lodge wrinkle | 06/15/06 | | Vigorous grizzly tanning salon | 06/15/06 | | sinister aphrodisiac personal credit line | 06/15/06 | | haunting temple laser beams | 06/15/06 | | sinister aphrodisiac personal credit line | 06/15/06 | | Drab flirting boistinker | 06/16/06 | | Soul-stirring Silver Legend Knife | 06/15/06 | | at-the-ready box office stock car | 06/15/06 | | Exhilarant learning disabled background story ratface | 06/15/06 | | at-the-ready box office stock car | 06/15/06 | | stimulating crimson indian lodge wrinkle | 06/15/06 | | Soul-stirring Silver Legend Knife | 06/15/06 | | Vigorous grizzly tanning salon | 06/15/06 | | Soul-stirring Silver Legend Knife | 06/15/06 | | Titillating Yellow Stead Therapy | 06/15/06 | | sinister aphrodisiac personal credit line | 06/15/06 | | Titillating Yellow Stead Therapy | 06/15/06 | | sinister aphrodisiac personal credit line | 06/15/06 | | soggy location | 06/15/06 | | Curious dopamine | 06/15/06 | | wonderful snowy private investor | 06/15/06 | | Contagious legal warrant macaca | 06/15/06 | | Domesticated library | 06/15/06 | | Contagious legal warrant macaca | 06/15/06 | | Soul-stirring Silver Legend Knife | 06/15/06 | | Jet histrionic home | 06/15/06 | | stimulating crimson indian lodge wrinkle | 06/15/06 | | Jet histrionic home | 06/15/06 | | stimulating crimson indian lodge wrinkle | 06/15/06 | | Jet histrionic home | 06/15/06 | | stimulating crimson indian lodge wrinkle | 06/15/06 | | Soul-stirring Silver Legend Knife | 06/15/06 | | Soul-stirring Silver Legend Knife | 06/15/06 | | Exhilarant learning disabled background story ratface | 06/15/06 | | Passionate Harsh Regret | 06/15/06 | | Twinkling godawful pisswyrm stain | 06/15/06 | | sinister aphrodisiac personal credit line | 06/15/06 | | Soul-stirring Silver Legend Knife | 06/15/06 | | Contagious legal warrant macaca | 06/15/06 | | Soul-stirring Silver Legend Knife | 06/15/06 | | soggy location | 06/15/06 | | Contagious legal warrant macaca | 06/15/06 | | Soul-stirring Silver Legend Knife | 06/15/06 | | soggy location | 06/15/06 | | stimulating crimson indian lodge wrinkle | 06/15/06 | | Contagious legal warrant macaca | 06/15/06 | | soggy location | 06/15/06 | | Contagious legal warrant macaca | 06/15/06 | | Soul-stirring Silver Legend Knife | 06/15/06 | | Soul-stirring Silver Legend Knife | 06/15/06 | | motley parlor toaster | 06/15/06 | | at-the-ready box office stock car | 06/15/06 | | rose theater cuckold | 06/15/06 | | Contagious legal warrant macaca | 06/15/06 | | rose theater cuckold | 06/15/06 | | cruel-hearted stirring hall | 06/15/06 | | clear pocket flask | 06/16/06 | | Dead transparent sweet tailpipe principal's office | 06/15/06 | | arousing reading party lodge | 06/15/06 | | Soul-stirring Silver Legend Knife | 06/15/06 | | arousing reading party lodge | 06/15/06 | | at-the-ready box office stock car | 06/15/06 | | Wild Hominid | 06/15/06 | | magenta parlour round eye | 06/28/06 | | Titillating Yellow Stead Therapy | 06/15/06 | | soggy location | 06/15/06 | | rose theater cuckold | 06/15/06 | | at-the-ready box office stock car | 06/15/06 | | Titillating Yellow Stead Therapy | 06/15/06 | | at-the-ready box office stock car | 06/15/06 | | rose theater cuckold | 06/15/06 | | at-the-ready box office stock car | 06/15/06 | | smoky queen of the night | 06/16/06 | | at-the-ready box office stock car | 06/17/06 | | 180 Mad-dog Skullcap Whorehouse | 06/15/06 | | multi-colored ebony hospital cumskin | 06/15/06 | | at-the-ready box office stock car | 06/15/06 | | high-end bearded theater stage volcanic crater | 06/15/06 | | Mustard slap-happy mood | 06/15/06 | | high-end bearded theater stage volcanic crater | 06/15/06 | | Charismatic black patrolman senate | 06/15/06 | | angry juggernaut | 06/15/06 | | thriller sienna double fault | 06/15/06 | | bateful chapel persian | 06/15/06 | | stimulating crimson indian lodge wrinkle | 06/15/06 | | thriller sienna double fault | 06/15/06 | | bateful chapel persian | 06/15/06 | | fragrant red meetinghouse jewess | 06/15/06 | | Charismatic black patrolman senate | 06/15/06 | | high-end bearded theater stage volcanic crater | 06/15/06 | | Charismatic black patrolman senate | 06/15/06 | | Exhilarant learning disabled background story ratface | 06/15/06 | | cordovan national | 06/16/06 | | Domesticated library | 06/16/06 | | Charismatic black patrolman senate | 06/16/06 | | clear pocket flask | 06/16/06 | | clear pocket flask | 06/16/06 | | Charismatic black patrolman senate | 06/18/06 | | cruel-hearted stirring hall | 06/15/06 | | Exhilarant learning disabled background story ratface | 06/15/06 | | cruel-hearted stirring hall | 06/15/06 | | razzle-dazzle talking den | 06/15/06 | | Contagious legal warrant macaca | 06/15/06 | | cerebral piazza | 06/15/06 | | Exhilarant learning disabled background story ratface | 06/15/06 | | Charismatic black patrolman senate | 06/16/06 | | Domesticated library | 06/16/06 | | Charismatic black patrolman senate | 06/16/06 | | Exciting trump supporter field | 06/15/06 | | 180 Mad-dog Skullcap Whorehouse | 06/16/06 | | Exciting trump supporter field | 06/29/06 | | clear pocket flask | 06/16/06 | | Exciting trump supporter field | 06/29/06 | | walnut vivacious gay wizard | 06/15/06 | | Buff Balding Ticket Booth | 06/15/06 | | Heady keepsake machete heaven | 06/16/06 | | puce adventurous casino | 06/29/06 | | Marvelous Mischievous Internal Respiration | 06/29/06 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 15th, 2006 7:58 AM Author: flickering alcoholic point
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991381) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 8:01 AM Author: talented gunner cruise ship
this is good news for blue smoke
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991397) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 8:24 AM Author: talented gunner cruise ship
no, but if she fucks up, she still has the higher score.
so she can't lose.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991444) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:11 AM Author: irradiated house-broken clown
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991494) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:34 AM Author: laughsome fiercely-loyal striped hyena friendly grandma
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: anal stag film
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 9:40 AM Author: anal stag film
I'm going to take it again probably this September, for a second score, especially if this change takes effect for this coming cycle.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991565)
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:38 AM Author: Wild Hominid
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 9:39 AM Author: aromatic shimmering sneaky criminal windowlicker
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: Curious dopamine
and people of other races wouldn't?
give me a friggin' break
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992732) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 7:25 PM Author: cruel-hearted stirring hall
I didn't know you were asian.
Hispanics and blacks, for the most part, probably won't bother. Whites might take it twice.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5996108) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:41 AM Author: Domesticated library
Wow
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991575) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:43 AM Author: indigo organic girlfriend
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: Wild Hominid
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991589) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:44 AM Author: Dashing church digit ratio
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 10:45 AM Author: at-the-ready box office stock car
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991923) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 9:49 AM Author: Wild Hominid
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: stimulating crimson indian lodge wrinkle
Holy shit. Looks like I'll be re-taking on 9/30
EDIT: probably in December, too.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991618) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:04 AM Author: Opaque Dilemma Circlehead
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: swashbuckling theatre tank
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991697) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:20 AM Author: Ocher prole idea he suggested
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: impertinent beady-eyed crackhouse
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 10:53 AM Author: at-the-ready box office stock car
"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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991981) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:50 AM Author: at-the-ready box office stock car
"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).
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5991958) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 10:56 AM Author: stimulating crimson indian lodge wrinkle
*** 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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992018) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 11:07 AM Author: haunting temple laser beams
*high five*
This is sweet fucking news, esp. considering how badly I fucked up Oct 2005.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992120) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 11:05 AM Author: stimulating crimson indian lodge wrinkle
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 11:12 AM Author: Vigorous grizzly tanning salon
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992149) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 12:26 PM Author: Titillating Yellow Stead Therapy
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992526) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 12:52 PM Author: Titillating Yellow Stead Therapy
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992711) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 12:51 PM Author: soggy location
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: Curious dopamine
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992769) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:10 PM Author: Contagious legal warrant macaca
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?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992819) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:13 PM Author: Jet histrionic home
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 1:20 PM Author: Jet histrionic home
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?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992885) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:18 PM Author: Passionate Harsh Regret
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: Twinkling godawful pisswyrm stain
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5992929)
|
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 2:37 PM Author: Soul-stirring Silver Legend Knife
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993580) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:37 PM Author: soggy location
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: Contagious legal warrant macaca
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993031) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:43 PM Author: soggy location
Exactly.
The curve will soften 3-4 points.
Guaranteed.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993066) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 2:01 PM Author: Contagious legal warrant macaca
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993253) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 2:34 PM Author: Soul-stirring Silver Legend Knife
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993547) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 1:55 PM Author: motley parlor toaster
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 2:08 PM Author: rose theater cuckold
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993317) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 2:19 PM Author: Dead transparent sweet tailpipe principal's office
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: arousing reading party lodge
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 2:50 PM Author: arousing reading party lodge
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).
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993692) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 6:31 PM Author: Wild Hominid
this exchange would make a great "Weaken" LR question.
please shoot me.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5995745) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 2:57 PM Author: Titillating Yellow Stead Therapy
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993751) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 3:03 PM Author: soggy location
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!
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993788) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 3:10 PM Author: rose theater 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. 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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993828) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 3:13 PM Author: at-the-ready box office stock car
"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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993857) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 3:19 PM Author: Titillating Yellow Stead Therapy
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993895) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 3:19 PM Author: at-the-ready box office stock car
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: smoky queen of the night
Hey! Thanks for adding nothing.
131. HTH.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5999255) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 3:30 PM Author: 180 Mad-dog Skullcap Whorehouse
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?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5993987) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 3:38 PM Author: multi-colored ebony hospital cumskin
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 3:42 PM Author: high-end bearded theater stage volcanic crater
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 4:24 PM Author: high-end bearded theater stage volcanic crater
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 4:29 PM Author: angry juggernaut
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5994552) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 4:39 PM Author: thriller sienna double fault
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: bateful chapel persian
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5995013) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 6:49 PM Author: fragrant red meetinghouse jewess
Yay.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5995865) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 7:08 PM Author: Charismatic black patrolman senate
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5995987) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 7:23 PM Author: Exhilarant learning disabled background story ratface
"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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5996092) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2006 10:58 AM Author: Charismatic black patrolman senate
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#6000375) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2006 11:05 AM Author: clear pocket flask
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#6000392) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 7:30 PM Author: cruel-hearted stirring hall
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5996162) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 7:34 PM Author: Exhilarant learning disabled background story ratface
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5996220) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 7:49 PM Author: razzle-dazzle talking den
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5996382) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 8:38 PM Author: Contagious legal warrant macaca
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5996718) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2006 8:43 PM Author: cerebral piazza
"12 out of 100 testers at each LSAT were realistic "contenders" for hitting 170+ (the top 2 spots)."
Link?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5996755) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2006 1:47 AM Author: Charismatic black patrolman senate
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5998954) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2006 8:00 AM Author: Domesticated library
"just have to sit for two more tests."
That's the key. Who wants to do this?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#5999689) |
Date: June 15th, 2006 8:19 PM Author: Exciting trump supporter field
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 15th, 2006 9:17 PM Author: Buff Balding Ticket Booth
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 29th, 2006 5:44 PM Author: puce adventurous casino
This means $$$ for LSAC. Nice job, ABA. Yet another idiotic decision.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=435120&forum_id=2#6105266) |
|
|