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
- 28K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.1K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 25 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
- 37 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
- 285 Off-topic
Comments
Nope. Almost all schools take the highest score.
Yes, most schools take the highest score but you should not take the LSAT until you are ready. Shoot for a score, not a date.
First, yes, while it is true most schools "take" and by take, I mean report, and consider the highest score. This does not, however, mean the other tests are packed away in a box and forgotten about. There's a reason the LSAC reports all your scores and other major tests don't.....
Admissions officers will not see 3 takes in a year as virtuous or anything that is going to make them want to admit. 3 Times in a year almost says you just kept not giving yourself the time to improve.
It shows you have trouble with the test, took in unprepared, or both. Sometimes things come up, and that's understandable, and can be explained via an addendum. However, "I was imprudent and didn't prepare the first, second, third time-esque" addenda come across as more than useless and arguably hurtful.
In short, it appears they would likely see 3 takes (in a year) as someone who may not be as competitive as someone who has only taken it once or twice. Your reasons for the retake matter just as much. Keep in mind again the time frame. Someone who took it 3 times in 2 years and improved substantially is going to be a much stronger applicant than someone who took it in June, Sept, Dec. A plan to just keep taking until you hit a certain benchmark without being prepared isn't a good one at all.
Admissions want to admit students with less takes, generally speaking, because they straight up want the best chances that the students they admit are going to pass the bar the first time and find a job. This is super important to admissions people.
I know you've decided you don't want to wait anymore, and if that is leading you to just throw everything at 2018, and let the chips fall where they may, I'd say I'd reconsider law school all together. (At least for now)
People will disagree with me, but if you can't have the patience to first do well on this test, I can assure you law school isn't a great choice for you. I would consider this more than the LSAT takes.
As I've said before law is one of the most competitive fields. Unemployment rates are 7x the national average of other professions. Not 7%, either. Seven TIMES. Most students are graduating with incredible amounts of debt from diploma mills with dreams of "mid law" or hopes based on anecdotes. As it were, the only intelligent ways to avoid this trap is to have a good LSAT score, get into a good law school, and go on a scholarship. The second option is to not pursue to law school.
If you're doing something and the justification to do said action is " I just don't want to wait anymore" it is almost always a mistake. Take it from someone who has made my fair share of just "not wanting to wait." It's not waiting if you're studying and prepping for the LSAT. A year could be the difference between graduating from a good school with zero debt or attending somewhere else with staggering debt. And even if you disagree with all I've said, if it isn't worth waiting for, you have to ask yourself why do it at all?
So what are you waiting for? Get back to prepping!
Thank you all! And @"Alex Divine" , thanks a lot for your detailed and helpful advice man. I really appreciate that you make the time and effort to help out so many people on here. Keep doing your thing, boss
I love your posts and all the advice you have to offer. But just to play devil's advocate, maybe those who are taking 1+ year to be ready to write the LSAT should also reconsider law school all together?
I know some people who have crammed the LSAT in 2-4 months and come out the other side with entrance into law school (reminder: I am also in Canada) and passed the bar first try. I'm wondering if taking 1+ years to study LSAT is indicative that one should reconsider law school? Especially since LSAC argues that 4 months is sufficient time to study for the test... Or is it true what many say... that ease with the LSAT is not a necessary condition for success in law school and on the bar exam?
Maybe I'm just having one of those days... didn't mean to bring negative vibes into here...
Appreciate the kind words
No negative vibes and I’m sorry if I ever come across that way as my intentions are always to be honest, helpful, and as kind as possible.
However, I’m not really seeing your argument here, at least in terms of playing the devil's advocate. In any case, I’ll still try to respond the best I can here.
My argument here isn't that one's LSAT's success is in any way more temporal than personal.
So whether you take 2 weeks or 2 years, this test is too important to take before you're ready, regardless of almost anything else. That is the first part of my argument summed up. If you can’t dedicate the time and willpower to get the score you need, yes, I think you should reconsider.
Globally speaking, I think every prospective student should objectively and closely examine the stats for the field of law right now with two concepts in mind, especially when making decisions re: law school.
The first is the idea of confirmation bias, which is the tendency for humans to see all evidence as supporting their side, even if it doesn't. A good example of this is the wholesale rejection of general trends/statistics in favor of anecdotes, e.g., I know X and Y who actually were exceptions to the rule, thus, this rule is any less important of a rule because I have found exception(s). We're all basically in a perpetual state of confirmation bias. No one is immune from this, and no one is smart enough to see past this. It's essentially part of the human condition. And that’s important to remember. This gets all of us, and it does so all the time.
The second thing to understand, is the idea of cognitive dissonance. This is the idea that if our mind is set toward a specific reality, goal, or outcome, (especially one involving ourselves or self-image) and then we find ourselves doing something or learning something that violates any of these core ideas, we just re-interpret what we learned and spontaneously create what is essentially an illusion. An imaginary world where we can reconcile and explain all the incompatible things away. I think a good example of this is the mindset of those pursuing big law. We create a reality in our minds of what we think big law will be like based on an aggregate of information ranging from salary, prestige, TV shows, and fantasy. Almost everyone you talk to who works at a big firm will tell you it’s hell. People might not come out and mention it over Thanksgiving dinner, but if you're close friends with anyone at a big firm, you know the true reality. The people working there are mostly miserable.
So when we hear this, cognitive dissonance occurs and we tell ourselves that either we’ll be different, X just isn’t smart enough to handle it, or one of infinite explanations as to why it will work out for you. You may likely create an imaginary world to reconcile the issues, too. An example of this is saying you’ll just work there for only 2 years, and then go somewhere else. Sure, it’s somewhat of a solution, but it doesn’t address the fact that after 2 years your skills are still at a generalist level and you will be an undesirable candidate at almost anywhere but another big law firm. You’ll make this idea work because somewhere, someone made it work. I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this…. Again, just an example.
Now with that out of the way, let me address the second part of your question.
“I'm wondering if taking 1+ years to study LSAT is indicative that one should reconsider law school? Especially since LSAC argues that 4 months is sufficient time to study for the test... Or is it true what many say... that ease with the LSAT is not a necessary condition for success in law school and on the bar exam?”
So you're sort of asking two question here, right? First, you're wondering because the LSAC posits 4 months is sufficient to study for the LSAT, that if someone takes longer, perhaps that person should reconsider law school? I’m just trying to make sure I present your argument in a fair way and to make sure I understand it to give it a thoughtful response.
You know, honestly, I haven’t really ever considered that. Nevertheless, the LSAC’s data of 4 months being sufficient to prep for the LSAT is probably based off of some worthless study. I mean, how would you even aggregate information like this accurately? Some people work while studying (me), others go to school, work, have kids, and study. Everyone has a slightly different situation. The sheer hours a day you may choose to put in on your own volition may be a big factor. What Im saying is, I’m highly doubtful the LSAC did a valid scientific study with a control group, used a valid amount of participants and corrected for variables such as those mentioned above. If I’m wrong, and the did do the study, then maybe there is something to the 4 months being sufficient….
Even granting that, the bar exam and law school aren’t like the LSAT in any important way insofar as how one approaches each of them will all be very different. For instance, you can cram for exams in law school. People do it all the time. You can’t cram for the LSAT. If you do well without studying much, you’re just a gifted test taker or extremely smart, or both. You also likely won’t be balancing an entire full time career while in law school... During the bar exam it will likely be your main focus.
So there are obviously some pretty profound differences between how you’ll approach the LSAT, law school, and the bar exam. So, no, I don’t think you should necessarily reconsider law school if it takes you longer than 4 months or a year to prep for the LSAT. I’m sure there probably is some arbitrary and unknowable line in the sand one could draw that after X amount of time prepping, one should reconsider law school. So, if you’re studying for 10 years and the test still isn’t clicking, even a little, you might want to consider a different career. Then again, if you are working 80 hours a week and have a family and it takes you 10 years of studying 15 minutes a day to master the test, then maybe you’re cut out for law after all. Again, it’s just too recondite to draw any useful conclusion from.
The answer to the second part of your question re: ease of LSAT being a necessary condition for success in law school and on the bar exam is that you are correct. Doing well on the LSAT is not a necessary condition for doing well in law school or the bar exam. There’s stats that will show you that. However, there is some correlative data about success on the LSAT and law school/bar exam success. That’s one reason the test is such an important factor in admissions.
So I hope this clears up my OP and answered your questions. Apologies for any typos/grammatical errors. I actually typed this all on my iPhone in a long Lyft ride and the driver wouldn’t stop telling me about how he needs to call a plumber for a bursted pipe he has. Next time I’m getting an UberBLACK and making sure they install spinning rims before I even step foot inside.