Is it possible to retake just the writing without the whole LSAT? I'm happy with my score but don't love my writing sample.
Sorry -- I'm sure this answer is already out there somewhere but I'm having a weirdly hard time finding it.
Thank you!
Hi,
I just took my LSAT writing and kinda bombed. I was feeling awful going into it but decided to do it anyway. I've always been an okay writer and I wasn't too stressed about it. However, I noticed after submitting it that I had failed to delete my brief description of the decision to be made and the criteria -- they were just sitting above the rest of the essay with a line in between -- and I made a couple of noticeable typos.
Is there anyway to redo it without redoing the entire test? Or to cancel only the writing section?
If it's at all relevant, I started a new medication today (my first dose was about 4 hours before the test) and I think it's definitely possible that it's what was making me feel wonky. I feel a little pathetic using that as an excuse but I honestly believe that it may be relevant, I don't know.
Hi, is there any consensus or received wisdom as to how valuable each point on the LSAT is above the median for a given school? I'm referring specifically to top, top schools.
I ask because, with the SAT/ACT, I seem to recall that there was pretty general agreement that top schools didn't really care how close you were to a perfect score so long as you were at or above their median/average. For instance, getting a 1590 on the SAT wasn't much more helpful than getting a 1530 for getting into Harvard (according to the opinions that I'd been exposed to). Is the LSAT similar -- or is there any discussion on the matter?
In other words, if I'm PT'ing at 177 or 178 and my score is 174 or 175, is it worth the agony of retaking it if I want a solid shot at, say, Yale?
Hey Jared, I had the exact same question -- I was surprised the explanation didn't address it since I thought it was what actually made the question hard.
This is my reasoning:
Even if you negate D -- i.e. if there are other reasons for the shrinking applicant pool -- it COULD still be true that they NEED to raise tuition and fees in order to increase applicants. Why? Because maybe these other reasons aren't actually fixable. Maybe they're broad economic reasons that the university can't do anything to directly address, for example, and the only thing that the university can actually address is the tuition and fees. So negating D doesn't necessarily wreck the argument, whereas negating A does.
Yeah lol it's brutal