What do you guys think of this?
[Admin Edit] LSAC's tweet and LSAC's announcement:
https://twitter.com/Official_LSAT/status/864501182202556416
http://www.lsac.org/jd/announcements-and-news
"Starting with the September 2017 LSAT, there will no longer be any limitations on the number of times a test taker can take the LSAT in a two-year period. LSAC has revised this policy as part of its planning for additional administrations of the LSAT. We will provide more information about the LSAT schedule in the coming weeks."
8
83 comments
Has anyone noticed they announced this on the exact last day to postpone the June LSAT without withdrawing? Lol maybe I'm reading too much into it
I still think 4 takes wouldn't look very good regardless...
From what I have heard from my circle of friends who are lawyers.. your ability to score high on the LSAT on the first time and your ability to pass the Bar are not comparable. I have friends who did excellent on the LSAT and did not pass the bar on the first time and vice versa. The tests are totally different and testing on completely different "subjects" (considering the LSAT does not really stick to one subject). I mean there's a possibility that the admissions may look at your multiple scores and question your success on the bar but like someone said earlier you can take the LSAT multiple times in a span of a couple years anyways.
Spivey just posted on Twitter that starting in 2018-2019 the LSAT will be offered 6 times a year
If you take the LSAT many times, Adcoms may (rightly or wrongly) wonder about your ability to pass the bar on your first attempt (which they also report on later down the line). This worry would probably only be applicable if you came up with many "low" scores in a row, though.
One interesting point here: Spivey Consulting has news FASTER than LSAC:)
@ngir1293288 said:
Mmmm it doesn't really affect me. I'd still wait to take it when I'm ready.
+1. The real news will come in when they announce which scores you'd like to submit to schools. To me this just means more opportunity for LSAC to take your money haha.
Well that's interesting. Would have come in handy for me, lol.
I think this is an interesting development. Personally, I think it is a way of increasing the number of test takers. It also allows LSAC to increase the amount of money they receive from said test takers. That said, I still think it is better to have fewer LSAT scores on your record with the top score being taken by schools.
I went to an event last night that was hosted by TestMasters, it was a flawed reasoning seminar and the instructor talked about how the top schools are desperate to increase enrollment because applicants are really down.
@petkova22 said:
It's possible LSAC may also make the LSAT more challenging to have people take the test multiple times. Really unsure how to feel about this change.
Now that's a scary thought! You never know, especially if they'd have financial incentive to do so.
I know there are people who called LSAC so I'm sure it's official, but LSAC should get its Twitter account verified if they are making such an important announcement on Twitter!
@slcaldwell82590749 said:
I would say it lowers the requirement for LSAT takers.Yet, multiple taking is not encouraged. For top law schools, they will know if they know you take many times. Generally, I will say it's a good news.
Why would it lower requirements? If anything it will raise them. I think that you will see more people achieve the 155-165 range (or some arbitrary number in this range), making the T40 schools (excluding T13) more selective and have a higher expectation of LSAT score for admittance.
@jkatz1488955 said:
@71888 really? Has the policy changed recently? Even like 5 years back that seemed to be the dominant practice
Yep, law schools don't adhere to this anymore. They may look at previous scores, but only Yale is known to average scores out. I think a large reason has to do with the number of applicants decreasing. That's why nowadays you'll see schools take applications way after their deadline.
Mmmm it doesn't really affect me. I'd still wait to take it when I'm ready.
I wonder if this is another move to encourage more people to go to law school on a broad scale (just the like the recent Harvard-accepting-the-GRE-in-lieu-of-LSAT) development?
Is this true? Couldn't find any other info about this on the web (yet).
Although I think it is positive development for test takers overall, I feel like the 3-times-in-2-years rule also serves to motivate many people. Additionally, I still think it won't be viewed favorably by most schools to retake more than a reasonable number of times.
However, for some people I'm sure this is a game-changer.
@gregoryalexanderdevine723 said:
:cry: (/3(/p)
You and SweetTort were my first LSAT-buddies... I'm getting emotional now.
He will always be Frank Underwood to me!
Haha FACTS! Someone not too long ago had his old Frank avatar and I got excited thinking it was him lol.
I wonder how he is doing..
@zachweisenbarger992 said:
@gregoryalexanderdevine723 said:
@zachweisenbarger992 said:
Yeah, if they start averaging, I'm more than fucked.
I would think if they do eventually start averaging again, it would be a way off into the future. I also think schools will fight that as much as they can so they can keep their rankings. I would't worry too much about this. It would suck though, haha. I'm so paranoid I'm refusing to take this test until I'm hitting 180s like SweetTort ;)
Yeah, hopefully they don't average or else I'll most likely not be going to a top school.
Live, Love, SweetTort (3(/p)
:disappointed: SweetTort: the rubber band ball that stole our hearts. We hardly knew ye.
@gregoryalexanderdevine723 said:
@zachweisenbarger992 said:
Yeah, if they start averaging, I'm more than fucked.
I would think if they do eventually start averaging again, it would be a way off into the future. I also think schools will fight that as much as they can so they can keep their rankings. I would't worry too much about this. It would suck though, haha. I'm so paranoid I'm refusing to take this test until I'm hitting 180s like SweetTort ;)
Yeah, hopefully they don't average or else I'll most likely not be going to a top school.
Live, Love, SweetTort (3(/p)
@jhaldy10325
I'd be really concerned with the potential to switch from high score to average.
what do you mean by this?
I totally agree with the benefits from it! @gregoryalexanderdevine723
@zachweisenbarger992 It sure would sway me to study for the LSAT.
I wonder how it will affect this cycle. Maybe more people that are less ready (aka- lower scorers) will try and take it. Nevertheless, it's very interesting!
@slcaldwell82590749 said:
Coming from someone who was close to the threshold this is great news. My first two takes I received the same score (154) and never really pushed myself to study hard. My next take was going to be my final opportunity (I still hope it is!), but this allows room for error should something happen on the 3rd attempt.
Yeah (3. I really love unlimited takes for this reason as well. It now just becomes about scoring your potential and that opportunity is not limited by number of takes.(/p)
@zachweisenbarger992 Long time no see. Great to know top law schools are DESPERATE(hopefully it includes T14-T30 as well) Anyway,it's a buyer market now.
@slcaldwell82590749 said:
@petkova22 Not sure about the difficulty since the motivation seems to increase the LSAT takers.
+1. I suspect there might be short-term gains in terms of profits, but making it more difficult could have negative effects in the long-run in terms of test taker turn out. If increasing the number of LSAT test takers is a legitimate objective, can't really see why they'd make it harder than it already is. Then again, can never really say.
@petkova22 Not sure about the difficulty since the motivation seems to increase the LSAT takers.
@gregoryalexanderdevine723 Agree your point that admission officers prefer one or twice LSATs takings with high score.