Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 13 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 31 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Feedback from admissions rep about LSAT scores
cqas190517
Alum Member 🍌
Hi all, I just wanted to let you know what happened when I toured UCI yesterday.
The topic of the LSAT came up. Two things stuck out:
The admissions rep made a point to reinforce the “holistic” approach the school has for applications, so if someone falls below the medians she said that person should still apply with a strong application.
During the tour the rep also mentioned that taking the LSAT twice wasn’t a good look. Nothing about withdrawals (though they do like to see improvement in scores so think about that before you cancel), and for those who have done 2+ tests, you may want to write an addendum as to why you did so many retakes.
Hope this helps!
Comments
Thanks for the comment. Thankful we have the 7Sage community.
@cqas190517 Thank you for the insight from the tour. I wanted to ask, the idea of more than 1 LSAT take not being a "good look" strikes me as odd, aren't schools only required to report the highest score? I wonder how this works out, would the not good look override a rise from like a 164 to as 169 between one's first and second take?
Yeah I think there is a difference between what a law school says to prospective students versus what they do in practice. If a school chooses to average while all of its competitor schools take the highest, then that school would have significantly lower medians and fall behind in the rankings.
An admissions advisor gave you a tour? It wasn’t a student? They said the exact words “it’s not a good look”? Kind of hard for me to believe that an admissions advisor would say that in those words. Usually admissions advisors are kind of dodgy directly answering a question like that, as in they won’t tell you specifically if your odds are any better or worse off from whichever specific thing on your application.
I agree with @eRetaker. The data shows it’s always better to retake if you fall below the LSAT median.
Last month, 7Sage Admissions did a webinar with UCI Admissions Dean Jay Austin: https://7sage.com/admissions/webinar/a-conversation-with-uci-admissions-dean-jay-austin/
In the webinar, he says that if applicants increased their performance on the LSAT, they absolutely should let schools know.
I have never heard of an admissions rep stating that 2 takes was bad. I am surprised that they would say that. It might just be a deterrent for students that think "so what if I score bad, I can just retake". Otherwise, admissions officers usually don't care about 2-3 takes. Once you go above 3 takes, it starts to reflect poorly but only marginally so. The higher LSAT score is far more important of a consideration.
I don't think that 2 or 3 (maybe even 4) retakes could even be a major problem considering the LSAC has implemented unlimited retakes.
Maybe UCI is trying to signal to prospective students that they care about the number of takes an applicant has in order to suppress any prospective students that are interested in attending UCI from taking the LSAT again and trying to improve their candidacy. They need to fill their seats and encourage students to reach for UCI even if they are below the medians in order to maximize their high yield applicants who will not be in the running for scholarship $$$.
It is kind of a messed up sales strategy because if they were truly advising students how their admissions process operates they would tell you that Student A (1 take, just below median LSAT) is not as strong of a candidate as Student B (2 takes, 1 below and 1 above the median) all other app components held equal. It makes zero sense for a school to actually do this in practice for qualified applicants.
I don't think UCI Law has that kind of strategy. If this were the case, I think UCI Law would write that they consider all the LSAT scores like Michigan Law does ("We do, however, consider the average score as well").
But UCI Law specifically writes that it only considers the highest score:
On their FAQ page, they also say that they do not average:
I think the person who guided the tour might have conveyed a wrong impression or have been misunderstood. Of course, it’s the best to take the test only once and score above their median. But if the score is below their median, there is no reason not to retake.
I'm sure if I said to an admissions officer, "I really want to go to your school but my LSAT score is below your school's median," then that person would advise me to retake the LSAT. For example, @LSATcantwin was advised to retake (and he did and got a 171!) by UVA admissions at LSAC Forum: https://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/13562/for-my-fellow-splitters-lsac-forum-is-worth-it
Hey!!
Thanks for the heads up @cqas190517. I also met with a UCI rep (who work closely with Admissions Dean Jay Austin) today at a law school fair.
When I approached her asking similar questions about the LSAT, she encouraged me to retake if I knew for sure I could score higher. And as much as applying early helps my chances, achieving a good LSAT score gives me a higher chance for acceptance AND scholarship money (given my low UGPA).
And when I asked her what kind of student they would like to see on campus, she said well-rounded students with various community involvements and work experience. BTW, 50% of student body identifies as students of color (talk about diversity)!
As well, the ad comm values reference letters very highly so it's important to get the strongest ones possible. So yeah I agree with the holistic approach you've mentioned but I can also confirm that the rep did not have a strong opinion against retakes.
Just wanted to share my two cents as well!
Thanks for this, @cqas190517! All the UCI Law admissions officers I have interacted with are really nice people and I thought it would a shame if they advised against retaking the test. I'm glad it isn't the case.
I'm not assuming UCI as a whole has a strategy of suppressing retakes, but during a visit a rep may have conveyed information that was misleading. Who knows if it was actually intentional or if it was a misunderstanding. My comments were purely speculative. It is wrong to assume that this exchange is evidence of a school-wide strategy, especially considering I wasn't personally there and am making assumptions based on someone else's experience.
To your point about school FAQ pages, the Michigan Law mention that they consider the average LSAT score along with your top score is extremely transparent, but also potentially misleading to some students. It seems unlikely any school is going to admit an applicant with a single score at their median instead of an applicant with a score above their median but an average score that is lower (all else held equal).
Averaging scores is a disservice to both the student who demonstrated great work ethic to improve, and to the school itself. Schools that do average all the scores are probably using that as an extra soft quantitative data point to decide on the strength of an applicant, but if the applicant is that close their PS/Resume/LoRs should be enough qualitative information to push the decision one way or the other.