University professor w/Ph.D in a hard science. 43 yo. Took LSAT three times. Starting part-time in Fall 2018 and get to keep the very flexible full-time job and benefits so no financial stresses while in school. Many offers with $$ this cycle. Bailed last year due to the debt burden with no scholarships. PT programs eliminate the COL issue and scholarships plus my own $ mean virtually no debt at graduation which turned out to be a major influencing factor for me. The extra 6 months to year to graduation in a PT program well worth the financial savings for me. Preparing for patent bar exam right now to get that out of the way.

Thought I'd update this to let people know how it turned out. I sent in a polite letter asking how the College handled these kind of situations. A couple of days later I got a reply which said they don't negotiate scholarships like some schools do, but that the adcom had voted on an increase to the award.

So, turned out well!

I went from no award at admission to 50% tuition after two polite inquiries supplemented with a higher LSAT score and a competitive scholarship from elsewhere. With my income going partly toward the part-time tuition bill, I can now be debt free at graduation.

Second what dytmom_3x said. Some schools will automatically hold the app if there is a pending score and will refuse to evaluate it until the pending score is released. Some schools’ apps will have a checkbox for “hold my application until a pending score is released” checkbox; others will write you and ask if you want it held or processed as is. You can also just email them when you’ve paid LSAC and the file has been requested giving them a heads up.

I had this situation and actually had some schools process with an older score after they confirmed that if they admitted without scholarships that they would reconsider scholarships with a new, better score. I also had them confirm that they would reconsider the app with a new higher score if admission was refused without a second application fee (they all said they would). I got into my first choice school the day before the Dec test with an old score so it was a good strategy for me.

I sent in a couple of apps with an old score as soon as they opened. I got into my first choice the day before last week's test...

Some schools will process with an old score if you ask them to, others won't. I just made sure they would reconsider a higher score if they denied admission with the old score. Last year I sent in apps as early as I could before I had a score and they took about 1-2 months to process when the score posted. This was January.

I ended up getting into some schools way below the median LSAT (6-7 points in some cases).

I guess I don’t see how the newsletter saying “there is evidence that it CAN equally benefit your own well being” leads to the conclusion that the newsletter is making a cause-effect relationship between volunteering and well-being. Why isn’t it equally reasonable to infer that CAN means a correlation?

I find that picking E requires I assume that the stem is doing something I don’t see it doing such that E becomes correct.

Here's what I learned from this question:

I think I made the erroneous assumption that Sasha's counter needed to strengthen her original claim of a ban and that is how she would weaken Greg's position. Rather, the correct answer just needs to be a response that could undermine Greg's argument independently of her original claim. You know, exactly like the damn stem says! Simply myopic on my part, but a very useful lesson I hadn't learned from easier questions of this type.

I looked at D and couldn't reconcile how it helped out Sasha's original argument to ban. Her counter refuted the point of having a board, for sure: if handwriting analysts called as witnesses are habitually exaggerating the reliability of their analyses, then effectively, according to Sasha, all handwriting analysts are irresponsible, and subsequent to regulation, there would be no handwriting analysts to provide character assessment testimony. A great rebuttal to Greg for denying an assumption his argument required, but I couldn't fit it in with my own assumption that her counter should support her original claim of a need for a ban. After all, you could regulate per Greg and if all handwriting analysts weren't accredited, then you have no handwriting analysts called as witnesses, and assuming efficiencies are good, there would be no need for a mechanism to ban their testimony.

Going around like that for a bit in my mind wasted my time, and eventually I said "bollocks" and guessed at something else. Touche, LSAC.

The issue I have with this question, despite getting it correct, is that the author says that they are testing gamma interferon in the penultimate sentence. Then the author goes on to say they are testing patients in the final sentence. These aren't the same things so the phrasing of "testing" in the final sentence cannot be referencing the "testing" in the previous sentence. I think the author means "testing gamma interferon (as a treatment for MS)" and then in the last sentence means "TREATING" (not testing) patients WITH gamma interferon. You don't "test" patients in this sense; if you were, maybe you'd be measuring levels of something (disease, level of substance in body, response to drug, LSAT performance etc)...they're not testing them for gamma interferon, however; they're treating them with it. This left me in a semantic tizzy for a minute before I even looked at the answers.

@todduncan2928 Will do. I'm older so this is cycle is my first and last bite at the cherry as it were. If and when offers arrive, I'll try and get a feel for how adcoms interpreted the information they have re: UK grades and degrees and post an update. I have an addendum about grade equivalencies that I use when I can on apps if possible. Having been a University professor for 10+ years in the US I have some insights into the differences between educational systems, but trod very lightly regarding that in the addendum; I just noted there are structural differences that can impact how grades are assigned in the two systems. I was very careful to not make judgements or evaluations of the merits of one system over the other. I gave some information about the differences, and will let adcoms interpret that information as they best see fit. Perhaps an addendum is worth considering.

Thanks for the speedy reply. I'll just skip over previous questions (or redo them to make myself feel good!)

Hi nyc2...

I'm in the same boat but with a Ph.D (and an undergraduate degree) from the UK. I've spoken to several admissions counselors about how such a degree is incorporated into the evaluation of a candidate by an admissions committee. The responses I've heard range from "we don't really care about an advanced degree, what is your LSAT score?" to "we look on it very favorably as you've demonstrated success in a previous graduate program". If you've taken courses for the Masters (e.g. it wasn't by research), and some kind of grade is on the final transcript, then WES, the group that do the equivalency evaluation for LSAC (or who did several years ago), will report some kind of equivalency but it is only a recommendation to the school. There is no "grade" for a Ph.D - just pass/fail, however, so it's just "reported" as montaha.rizeq notes.

For example, for my undergraduate degree from the UK, WES converted the degree class to a 3.4 UGPA (even though there weren't specific class grades on the transcript). It was a science degree so hopefully adcoms realize that in the UK there are no core classes/electives etc and you basically get 3-4 years of only science classes. I guess we'll see in a month or so.