LSAT as a poor predictor addenda

Comments

• 2 Likes

  [Deleted User] Free Trial

  December 2014 edited December 2014 310 karma

  don't do it
• daniellefreedman2 Free Trial Member

  December 2014 5 karma

  reason?
• mes08 Alum Member

  December 2014 578 karma

  I think ttunden might have said not to because writing an addenda for your LSAT score might sound like you're making an excuse, which wouldn't reflect well. I'm still on the fence about writing one myself, so I don't feel like I can give you definitive advice on what to do. If you write an addenda, you have to have a really solid reason to explain your score, but the "I work and go to school full time" probably wouldn't cut it, since there are countless of other people in the same situation. If you have a stronger, better reason though, it might be worth writing the addenda. Regardless of whether you write the addenda or not, your GPA, jobs, and other activities will be taken into consideration when they look at your score and your overall application.
• Alex Short Alum Member

  December 2014 112 karma

  I would not write an addendum to inform those reviewing applications of how you feel the LSAT failed to reflect you, when in fact they use the test to decide who to admit and who to reject. If you were not 100% when you took it, I would make a point to learn how high you can score on that test, because it seems like everything fits for you academically - but your LSAT will prevent you from being admitted to top schools, addendum or not
• Michaels Free Trial Member

  December 2014 14 karma

  Many law school admissions personnel actually view the LSAT as a better predictor of law school success more so than undergrad GPA. Unless you have documentation for an illness on test day or bad testing conditions, then do not write an addendum or it comes across as making excuses. I know people rejected just because they had various types of addendum in their applications either making excuses for poor GPA, poor Lsat score, less than full course-loads, etc. I'm not sure what schools you are aiming for but look at their median Lsat scores to get an idea of what they want.
• 2 Likes

  Allison M Alum Member Inactive Sage

  December 2014 810 karma

  From what I understand, addenda are meant to explain away poor performance; for instance, if you'd had poor grades during one semester due to an illness or death in the family, you might argue that the admissions committee should overlook these.
  
  It sounds like what you're saying is that although your LSAT score is fairly average, you have many other qualities that make you an attractive candidate. The thing is, though, this is true of many students. That's why adcomms evaluate several factors, including your grades, extra curriculars, personal statement, etc. If you want their evaluation to favour these factors over your LSAT score, you need to give them a reason to.
  
  Is there a reason that you can't just keep studying and retake the test? Unless you have a good argument for why the adcomms should overlook your score, this is your best option.
• bonjoursm Alum Member

  December 2014 181 karma

  Study and retake. Like mentioned above, I'm pretty sure that your lsat score carries the most weight. You can get into many law schools with your current gpa and lsat scores. However, if you're trying to get into a top 20 school, then you should retake.
  
  You can always take a year off if you have to.
• 3 Likes

  ddakjiking Inactive ⭐

  December 2014 2116 karma

  A 160 is roughly the 80th percentile. That's hardly a "low" enough LSAT to write an addendum when comparing against all LSAT takers. Like others have said, addendum are meant to excuse a bad testing day for the LSAT or a serious circumstance that affected one's GPA.
• 1 Like

  jdawg113 Alum Inactive ⭐

  December 2014 2654 karma

  SAT is irrelevant, LS admins will not care what you got on it and it will not influence anything. like it has been said, Addendum's are meant to explain something, telling a law school that the biggest factor for getting admitted into a school is irrelevant and not a promising indicator is probably not the best idea. The test is meant to test your skills that you will use in LS, the test is learnable. you seem very active and still got a decent GPA, take ur time and properly study, retake and get an LSAT score that will get you where you want. (assuming your score is not where you would like come release)
• 2 Likes

  danballinger5 Alum Member

  December 2014 198 karma

  As someone who has spent a year in law school, I can confidently say that the LSAT is an excellent predictor of success in law school. The skill set necessary for success on the LSAT is the same skill set used as a law student.
  
  Honestly, I am a bit baffled why a pre-law advisor would make such a comment. Law schools are the foremost experts on the predictive value of the LSAT. I feel they would be very unimpressed by someone telling them otherwise.
  
  Other than academic fraud or a profanity laced personal statement, I think sharing your SAT scores with potential schools is is about as damaging a move as you could make. Claiming that the SAT is your true measure of success, will only show law schools a lack of maturity.
  
  
  
• [Deleted User] Free Trial

  December 2014 310 karma

  @danballinger5 LOL well then in that case I can name 5+ people with excellent LSAT scores that didn't do well in law school. The LSAT is more correlated to passing the bar.
• ddakjiking Inactive ⭐

  December 2014 2116 karma

  @ttunden Isn't that just as important though? I would say a lot of people enter law school with the intent of being a practicing attorney which also means passing the bar. And from my personal connections, the BAR is one hell of an exam compared to any law school test.
• jdawg113 Alum Inactive ⭐

  December 2014 2654 karma

  @ttunden just because the LSAT can be a good indicator of your potential in LS doesn't mean a high score = acing LS
• [Deleted User] Free Trial

  December 2014 edited December 2014 310 karma

  looks like deanmeeker agrees OP
  
  and Jdawg, they didn't ace LS. They didn't place above median either....
• jdawg113 Alum Inactive ⭐

  December 2014 2654 karma

  yeah that is what I am saying... just because you did well on the LSAT that does not mean you WILL do well in LS
• 5 Likes

  Jonathan Wang Yearly Sage ⭐

  December 2014 edited December 2014 6869 karma

  Correlation is not causation. The LSAT is correlated very strongly with law school performance, much stronger than UGPA, but that doesn't mean every person who scores well on the LSAT is going to do well in law school. On a very large scale, the LSAT is an excellent predictor of law school performance, but of course it's not perfect. Anecdotal evidence about 1 person or 5 people doesn't counter that sort of generalized claim. This is curriculum-level LSAT stuff, guys.
  
  Not really sure where this LSAT-predicting-bar exam-performance thing comes from, as they're completely different tests. It's far more likely that high LSAT scores are correlated with the same things that bar pass rates are - people who get into good schools, have good work ethic, do the proper preparation, and so forth.
  
  To the original poster: A 159-161 is right around the 80th pecentile range on the LSAT, and you mention that 1820 is an 83rd percentile mark on the SAT. Presumably you're happy enough with an 83rd percentile mark on the SAT that you want law schools to look at that, so why are you upset at your 80th percentile LSAT mark again?
  
  Don't write the statement. You are not a unique flower; lots of people every year don't score as well as they'd like on the LSAT despite having stellar academic careers up to that point, and to that I say - so what? You might be a fantastic person and a hard worker, but that doesn't mean your reasoning capabilities are up to snuff. Not everyone who scores 2400 on the SAT and 4.0 in college is cut out for med school, for instance, so why would law school be any different? The LSAT tests a discrete set of logical reasoning skills that are critical for law school and beyond. Nobody cares about your SAT score, and your UGPA and work experience is already on your resume for them to see and consider. If you're unhappy with your score, don't spent your time trying to convince law schools that there's something wrong with the test because you didn't score well on it; that'll come off as whiny and incredibly arrogant. Just learn the material properly and score better next time.
• 5 Likes

  Jonathan Wang Yearly Sage ⭐

  December 2014 edited December 2014 6869 karma

  Addendum to the above, again to the original poster - it sounds to me like you've already bought into your own hype, so to speak. Your entire post operates under the assumption that you're better than your LSAT score, and so your low score is proof that the LSAT didn't 'work' for you, and thus you need to write to the law schools telling them all about how bad the test did at capturing how smart you *really* are.
  
  Has it ever occurred to you that the test did its job just fine, and that you're just not good enough at logical reasoning to score any higher? I don't mean to be overly harsh here, but it seems to me like your attitude toward this entire thing is exceedingly poor and focused exclusively on blaming external factors. Just something to consider.
  
  (For the record, these thoughts aren't representative of anyone but myself)
• [Deleted User] Free Trial

  December 2014 310 karma

  I agree with Jonathan, especially with his 2nd post.
  
• ENTJ Alum Inactive ⭐

  December 2014 3658 karma

  I concur as well--couldn't have said it better myself.
• danballinger5 Alum Member

  December 2014 198 karma

  I am glad Jonathan created the above posts. I have refrained from making several comments on this site as I didn't want to sound overly harsh. But I have been through the law school admissions process before. It is strict and unforgiving. Law school, even more so.
  
  To be a competent and successful lawyer, you need to be critical and objective - honest with your client and yourself. Too many posts on this site reflect an inability to accept the reality of the situation: your LSAT and GPA make up the vast majority of admission criteria. The personal statement, resume, diversity statements, addenda, etc., only serve to separate you from others with the same numbers.
  
  Everyone should work their ass off to get into the best school they can, or at least get the most scholarship money possible. But, a passion to get into a T14 school is not the same as a passion for legal practice itself. I don't score in the 170's - or even in the high 160's - and have set realistic goals for applying to schools. Hopefully I crushed the December LSAT and took the test of my life. Regardless of my score, I will move forward and make the best of it. I am the common denominator in all my failures and successes.
• 1 Like

  kellysmelly Alum Member

  December 2014 edited December 2014 84 karma

  Sounds like your advisor gave you some really bad advice. Keep it positive!
  I would write a strong essay about your current (college-level performance) and many positive personal attributes (juggling time constraints jobs and still succeeding to a very high level-- very impressive to me and others) that will contribute to your passion/success to becoming/being a lawyer. The best predictor of high performance is past high performance! I am always so surprised to meet students who have never held a job(s) and consequently are very poor with working with others (e.g. difficult clients, ect.) and handling stress presented at work in balancing difficult time challenges and priorities.
  
• 4 Likes

  justrandom Alum Member

  December 2014 343 karma

  @Jonathan Wang, you gave some great advice but I absolutely disagree with your second post. You were a tad harsh, especially with your statement about the original poster assuming that they are better than their LSAT score. It is clear that @daniellefreedman2 was asking this question because he/she was unsure whether or not they should follow the pre-law advisor's advice. They even stated that they are debating whether or not they should submit the addenda making it clear, that there is some hesitation there and hence why they were seeking advice. To say that because of the question that @daniellefreedman2 has, that he/she is projecting arrogance, a poor attitude and blaming external circumstances seems to me to be an extreme assumption on your part. Also, your statement about not being good enough (in reference to logical reasoning) was simply unnecessary. I don't see what that added to your other good points. The point of these forums are so we can have a space to ask these types of questions. Although I do not know@daniellefreedman2, I just felt I needed to comment because your comments went a bit beyond being useful to judgmental. Perhaps that was not your intention but it's better to give honest advice or commentary in a tactful way without character judgements. It makes it more conductive to learning new information Again, I know you come with a lot of knowledge being an instructor, and a lot of your feedback makes sense, but let's keep it positive please. Just my opinion.
• danballinger5 Alum Member

  December 2014 198 karma

  "You might be a fantastic person and a hard worker, but that doesn't mean your reasoning capabilities are up to snuff."
  
  This is exactly what I am talking about. Jonathan made an objective statement and someone injected subjectivity into it. The statement is not positive or negative unless you want it to be. Being a fantastic person doesn't necessarily mean that your logic skills are up to snuff. Fact, not judgement.
  
  I read the wrong case for my Constitutional law class one day and the professor just happened to call on me. He spent the next 5 minutes blowing me up in front of the class for 'not taking this seriously!' He wasn't nearly as nice as Jonathan.
  
  I do agree that J-Dub's second post was somewhat personal. But I think that is a good thing. @Daniellefreedman2 does not sound like she is getting solid advice. Her prelaw advisor is flat out harmful to her future. I hope Jonathan's comments shock her into seeking out honest, quality advice.
  
  I want every one who takes part in 7Sage to kick ass and take names on the LSAT and at law school. But, law school is professional school, not graduate school: it is for the big boys and girls. If you have a soft shell, you will get cracked. I apologize if my tone sounds cruel, it is not meant to be. I say these things for no other reason to help ya'all be more prepared.
  
  
• 4 Likes

  shane.mcglashen Alum Member

  December 2014 199 karma

  Haha this whole thing is crazy. The kid simply asked, as I'm sure many people are wondering, how to circumnavigate a poor LSAT score (relative, as a 160 is not necessarily bad)with a potential example via recommendation from his pre-law council. Suddenly hes being nailed to the cross for blasphemy against the LSAT lol. Honestly I did not get an arrogant vibe at all, but that's just me.
• justrandom Alum Member

  December 2014 343 karma

  I absolutely agree with you Shane.
• Jonathan Wang Yearly Sage ⭐

  December 2014 edited December 2014 6869 karma

  In hindsight, it looks like I attributed too much intent for this addendum to Danielle and not enough to her advisor. Her post is indeed just asking whether she should write the thing, not actively asking how you'd put one together or otherwise saying it's a good idea. Given that, the 'buying into her own hype' post may have been an inaccurate assessment. It was premised on my seeing a tone that, in retrospect, is not as clear as I thought it was. Certainly, I can see why people would have an issue with the tone.
  
  That said, I think it's important to be clear about what I did and didn't say. The only character judgment I made was with respect to her attitude toward her test results, and that came in my second, separate post. In my first post, I did not call her arrogant, I did not call her bad at logical reasoning, and I did not make any other character judgment toward her. If you think otherwise, then you need to re-read what I wrote.
  
  danballinger is correct that I was hoping to jar Danielle into doing some serious introspection. I've found that if you tiptoe around this stuff, it just gets lost in worthless rationalizations. Even if it doesn't apply to Danielle, if my 'overly harsh' post got even one person to think about what I said for just a moment, I don't regret a thing. That said, I do apologize to Danielle if she took offense to what I wrote, as it was indeed the result of a misunderstanding of the question on my part.