<p>i've been calling several admissions office. they all claim that they are taking the "highest score" instead of average. </p>
<p>i guess i want some insight into the minds of admissions. regardless of what they say, inside, do they prefer a good average lsat compared to a highest lsat.</p>
<p>or do they mindlessly plug the numbers into a computer and really don't care about a good average. </p>
<p>Should anyone let this new policy change the way they prepare for the lsat</p>
<p>I think they would prefer to look at highest as it shows student potential, but rankings listings of average scores have been holding them back from orienting admissions decisions around the highest score, until perhaps now.</p>
<p>yeah, i've heard that before.</p>
<p>Lets say there's two applicants. one who only took the lsat once and scored a 160 and has a 3.4 gpa</p>
<p>lets there's another applicant who took the lsat 3 times, 154, 157, 160, and has a 3.6 gpa.</p>
<p>would they take the first or second applicant?</p>
<p>As has been discussed at length on this board in the last month or so, your LSAC report to the law schools to which you apply will include all of your scores. Whether or not a law school says they will take your highest score, don't think for a second that they won't notice that you took it four times to get there. If you really need to take the LSAT that many times, it doesn't bode well for your performance either in law school or in the practice of law because both give you only one shot at success in every aspect of your experience. In law school, you have only one exam at the end of the semester for each class -- no extra credit opportunities, no graded assignments, quizes or tests during the semester, and no do overs. The practice of law works exactly the same way. If you can't prepare for and put your absolute best foot forward one time on one day on the LSAT ("LSAT" could be replaced by "brief," "memoranda," "court appearance," "purchase agreement," "deposition," "negotiation," etc.), how do you expect to do well in law school or in the practice of law? Law schools certainly recognize this, and will frown upon multiple attempts at the LSAT as a result.</p>
<p>i just got off the phone with admissions from several schools who say they won't even look at the other lsat scores, except for the highest. </p>
<p>they simply index them, using the highest score. </p>
<p>I think you avoided the heart of the issue. should someone who received a solid score take the lsat again. right now, the evidence certainly seems to say yes.</p>
<p>yeah, it looks this discussion has already taken place. my fault. didn't use the search feature.</p>
<p>According to Kaplan, law schools usually recognize your highest LSAT score among multiple sittings only if the difference between the scores is 'significant' (think: 5-8 points or more). If the difference between the scores is not significant (say 1-4 points), law schools are more likely to recognize the average.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Reporting the highest scores will only affect people who have been admitted to law school. The ABA's policy change will not have a major affect law school admissions.</p>
<p>*According to several law schools, the short-term ramifications of this change will be minor, having little effect on the admissions policies currently in place. “Law schools will report only the highest LSAT scores for applicants to the ABA, but the majority will still consider the average of all scores when making admissions decisions. Some schools are making exceptions to this averaging policy, such as Berkeley and Stanford. They will focus solely on the highest score, but this change in score reporting does not universally represent a significant departure from current admissions practices,” says David Killoran, CEO and Director of Course Development at PowerScore. Students should not assume they can now take the test more times in an effort to obtain a single, outstanding score. Students should first contact each of the law schools to which they will potentially apply and inquire as to the effect that this new policy will have on evaluating applicants for admission.
*</p>
<p><a href="http://www.legalview.com/prweb/141937/%5B/url%5D">http://www.legalview.com/prweb/141937/</a></p>
<p>Reporting highest scores mean USNWR sees highest scores which means considering highest scores wouldn't break their rankings.</p>
<p>From Chicago's law school admissions:
We recognize that some students will take the LSAT more than once, perhaps because the first score was the product of unusual conditions or because it seemed low given earlier practice test scores. In keeping with recent changes in LSAC and ABA policies, we will focus on the higher of an applicant's two scores. LSAC data suggest that the first score is an excellent predictor of a second score; applicants are thus advised to re-take the test only if there is reason to expect significant improvement. We certainly do not wish to encourage expenditures on repeat test taking.</p>
<p>I doubt it will increase that much unless you were drastically unprepared for the first one, and if you were it would definitely be better to prepare well and only take the test once.</p>
<p>Since the ABA will now start reporting the highest LSAT, that's what US News will use to rank law schools. Hence, law schools will take your highest LSAT score and not care how many times you took it. In any case, you're limited to 3 sittings in 2 years.</p>
<p>"Hence, law schools will take your highest LSAT score and not care how many times you took it."</p>
<p>Actually, that's not the case at all. There are a lot of good reasons enumerated above why law schools won't take your highest LSAT score. Additionally, don't forget that a law school may report only your highest LSAT score for any purpose they want, even if they use an average, or favor a candidate who did well on their first and only attempt at the LSAT. You're jumping to unwarranted conclusions. I don't think that there is any question that taking the test more than twice (and then, only if there were extraordinary circumstances that prevented you from doing your best on your first attempt) may hurt, and will certainly not help, your application. Remember -- both law school and the practice of law give you only one shot to do your best.</p>
<p>Read again....</p>
<p>.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. </p>
<p>Not all applicants will be matriculants at a particular law school. If you are not haven't matriculated (been accepted and enrolled at the law school) it does not matter becasue the school won't be reporting your highest score. It does not mean take the test as many times as you want and it won't matter.</p>
<p>while I generally agree with sally (you should def. only plan on taking it once), there seems to be something wrong with sybs reasoning. </p>
<p>either her interpretation is valid, and law schools around the country are misinterpreting the new policy or syb is misquoting or something. </p>
<p>I have spoken to several admission counselors. they all acknowledge the changed aba policy and, in turn, they stated that their schools are changing their policy by taking one's highest score.</p>
<p>the problem is that you are assuming that admissions only cares about the LSAT so that it can report it to USNEWS, but in reality the LSAT is used to determine your aptitude for law school. The rule change will really benefit those people who made bad decisions (took the LSAT cold freshman year, went out drinking the night [or morning] before) and those who got unlucky the first time around (sick....whatever)</p>
<p>the rule change is to keep people from getting screwed over, not so that you can retest a 170, and then a 172, until you get a little higher. </p>
<p>adcoms also know that the difference in aptitude between a person who scores a 170 and a 172 is negligible, as it is only reflected in a number or pencilled in bubbles, and retaking a very good score to receive a similiar score will make you seem underconfident, or unstable, things that do not enhance an application.</p>
<p>Yet, at the end of the day, most top schools are going to index you. 2-4 points can indeed make a substantial difference, even if it does make you seem neurotic.</p>
<p>...won't it only make a difference on the edges? If you're a borderline admit, they might take you because it won't hurt their rankings; they might reject you for having taken it too many times. </p>
<p>I agree with Sally that law is a one-shot deal. You will not get a single grade from first semester (outside of a legal writing course) at most law schools until January or February. You'll have eight exams that will determine your 1L grades. The LSAT does do a decent job at predicting at who will perform well on 3-4 hour, winner take all exams.</p>
<p>There's obviously a difference between what ought to happen and what actually does. There's no statistical difference between a 168 and a 170, but the 170 applicant is significantly better off in admissions. Likewise, someone who scores a 170 LSAT certainly appears slightly better than the person who scored a 164 and then a 170, but if law schools are choosing between a 168 and a 164/170, you can bet that they will now take the latter every single time, all else being equal. At the same time, they would have looked more favorably on the 168 applicant last year. Did every law school suddenly decide independently that the highest LSAT score was more indicative of an applicant's aptitude for law school than the average of multiple scores? No, they just changed their rules because ABA changed the way they report their data to US News.</p>
<p>
[quote]
either her interpretation is valid, and law schools around the country are misinterpreting the new policy or syb is misquoting or something.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Keep in mind that most of the information given in the U.S. News is for matriculated students at the law school not the entire applicant pool .</p>
<p>U.S. News Methodology:</p>
<p>Selectivity (weighted by .25)
Median LSAT Scores (.125)
The median of the scores on the Law School Admissions Test of the 2005 entering class of the full-time J.D. program.</p>
<p>Median Undergrad GPA (.10)
The median of the undergraduate grade point average of the 2005 entering class of the full-time J.D. program.</p>
<p>Acceptance Rate (.025)
The proportion of applicants to the full-time program who were accepted for entry into the 2005 entering class.</p>
<p>When you read a school's profile the information presented is for students who are currently matriculated and attending. OFr undergrads, the information comes from the schools common data sets.</p>
<p>Actually, there's evidence that students who take the LSAT twice don't do as well, grade-wise, as those who take it once. The averaged score slightly overpredicts the student's performance.</p>