<p>Will the top law schools now change their attitude toward multiple takings of the LSAT?</p>
<p>
[quote]
ABA to Require Schools to Report Highest LSAT Scores from Multiple Tests, Rather Than Average Scores</p>
<p>At its June 8-11 meeting in Cleveland, the Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar voted to change its data collection procedures to require law schools in computing the 75th percentile, median, and 25th percentile LSAT scores of their entering classes to report the highest score of matriculants who took the test more than once. The ABA's prior rules had required schools to report the average LSAT score of students who took multiple tests. The rule change follows similar action taken by the Law School Admission Council. Although the change will encourage students to take the LSAT more than once, current LSAC rules limits applicants to three tests in any two-year period.
<p>Yeah, I read that too--the PrincetonReview precisely. I don't know the validity of this news, however if true, it sure will alleviate pressure from students whom are anxious about passing it well the first time.</p>
<p>If this is correct, shouldn't students who know they want to attend law school start taking the LSAT earlier in college, maybe even as sophomores and juniors? I'm not sure how the 2 year period is calculated but if you took the LSAT as a sophomore and again as a junior, it should still leave at least 1 or possibly 2 more times you could take it as a senior.</p>
<p>If a student has a 162, a 165, and a 170 with a 3.7</p>
<p>and another student, takes it once, and gets a 167 and has a 3.7</p>
<p>if they can count the highest score regardless of the # of times it took to get it, then the person with the 170 comes on top.</p>
<p>This was the case with the SATs. I know countless kids that took it twice and sometimes, 3 times, and finally getting the score they wanted. If colleges averaged the scores together, most ppl would take it once.</p>
<p>multiple LSAT scores?
The LSDAS report for an applicant who has sat for the LSAT more than once will show every score or cancellation, as well as the average score. The ABA requires law schools to report score information based on an admitted student's highest score, and therefore, that is the score to which we give the most weight. We do, however, give great weight to the average score as well, because data provided by the Law School Admissions Council suggests that it has the greatest predictive utility. If you have a significant disparity between scores (six or more points), it would be very helpful to address any explanation for the difference in an optional essay or addendum.</p>
<p>I think the reality is that the top schools will continue to look at all of your LSAT scores if you've taken the test more than once. The admissions officials are far from stupid, and the LSAC report will continue to report each and every score during the three year period before the report is sent to the law school. Your time in college is much better spent focusing on your classes and doing well in them than on studying for and taking the LSAT multiple times. </p>
<p>The reality is that law school is not a place where you get more than one chance to do your best. Generally, your entire grade for a class is based upon the final exam -- period. So why would a law school that bases so much of their own grading system on a one time chance to make an impression be impressed that you took the LSAT several times because you couldn't get it right the first time? My best advice is and will continue to be to prepare for the LSAT, take it once, and unless something goes terribly wrong (in which case you should probably just cancel your scores anyway), be done with it.</p>
<p>I agree that law school doesn't give second chances when it comes to grades and that it makes sense to take the LSAT once. Still, I don't think it matters whether you are a junior or a senior when you take the LSAT - one extra year of college doesn't add that much - and it might be prudent to take the LSAT early enough that you can take it again at a June sitting if something goes really wrong. </p>
<p>High-achieving people (like aspiring law students) often experience test anxiety at the LSAT, GRE, MCAT because these are important tests and so much is riding on the results. While it's important to learn to perform under pressure, if it were me, I'd want the possibility of a second chance.</p>
<p>The main advantage of taking the LSAT as a senior is that it give you additional time to apply before your scores are stale, should you decide to work before going to law school (as is increasingly common). </p>
<p>While I agree that many experience test anxiety when taking a test such as the LSAT, that high pressure situation is analagous to situations that the student will face repeatedly in law school and while practicing law. All I'm saying is that if the pressure of taking the LSAT is unbearable, it might be time to reconsider a student's chosen career path.</p>
<p>Actually, it's awkward to take the position I've argued since I agree in principle with Sallyawp and others that it's important to perform well under pressure to succeed in law school. In some ways, I think it's the most important part of being a lawyer.</p>
<p>Still, I'm letting my knowledge of my partners and other lawyers sway me on this issue. Some of the best lawyers I know are people who tell LSAT and law school anxiety stories. I wonder if the "performing well under pressure" theory applies to litigators but might not apply as much to other types of lawyers.</p>
<p>I think that the pressure attorneys face is fairly universal, though it comes from different places. Law is a client service industry. Often, a lawyer is working "under the gun" to meet often unreasonable client expectations and demands (every client likes to think that they are your only client). This pressure exists for most lawyers, and lawyers have little choice but to meet or exceed their clients' expectations if that lawyer wants to continue his or her career as a lawyer. Thus, there is immense time pressure. As a corporate lawyer (and I imagine in may other fields of law), you face immense "thinking on your feet" pressure in negotiations with parties on the other side of your deals, as well as immense pressure to combine your expertise with some measure of psychological understanding in counseling your clients both in person and with often unexpected calls all of the time. Thus, there is immense mental pressure. Even professors and others in the ivory tower face tremendous pressure to do research and to publish. I'm sure that other lawyers who visit this board from many other industries can provide further examples. </p>
<p>This pressure is very real. Lawyers need to be able to think on their feet, to deal effectively with adversary situations, to speak and write concisely and accurately on a moment's notice, to know and have the ability to apply a tremendous amount of information (laws, regulations, cases, facts), and to appear to handle everything with confidence and calm. Grace under pressure. Handle it on the LSAT and in law school, and you should find yourself with a decent basis for a career in law.</p>
<p>Well, yes, but thinking well under pressure isn't something only lawyers have to do. This reminds me of the debate in medical circles about internships that require working arduous shifts with little or no sleep. Just as that debate has merit on both sides, I find it hard to ignore that there are two sides to this debate. For instance, why is it that we assume quick-thinking people who do well on the LSAT are also capable of sustained detail work? </p>
<p>I did well on the LSAT but I know people who did not do as well - although they still did well enough to get into a top-20 law school. Virtually all of them have a tenacity and focus that has served them well in their careers, even though they may not have grasped issues as quickly early in their careers. Time and experience have given them the ability to grasp issues but I know several brilliant law students who as lawyers still don't have the determination to work through difficult projects. They tire easily when it comes to detail work.</p>
<p>In all candor, I like a numbers-based admissions system because applicants know what schools expect and where they stand. Still, I'm not convinced it produces the best lawyers for an office-based practice.</p>
<p>the question is, will US news take highest or average score when considering the medians they use for rankings? i think those are a lot more important for getting students to apply to a given place than reports to the aba are.</p>