LSAC has eliminated the 3 max takes in 2 years rule Forum

[KMart]

Any one else think that this signals the beginning of much more impactful changes from LSAC, including maybe the possibility to select which scores to send to schools?

Not sure that's that impactful.

IdK being able to take 8 times in 2 years and only send them that final 174 seems like a big deal.

schools only really look at that 174 and, in all honesty, if you're taking it 8 times that shows some serious dedication

[Platopus]

Any one else think that this signals the beginning of much more impactful changes from LSAC, including maybe the possibility to select which scores to send to schools?

Not sure that's that impactful.

IdK being able to take 8 times in 2 years and only send them that final 174 seems like a big deal.

schools only really look at that 174 and, in all honesty, if you're taking it 8 times that shows some serious dedication

Yeah, I agree. I'm just worried that down the road LSAC is going to start allowing students to selective which scores they send to the school. So that a kid with 7 scores in the 166-169 band, who finally hits a 174 can pretend like those other 7 tests don't exist and the school only sees that 174.

[Npret]

Any one else think that this signals the beginning of much more impactful changes from LSAC, including maybe the possibility to select which scores to send to schools?

Not sure that's that impactful.

IdK being able to take 8 times in 2 years and only send them that final 174 seems like a big deal.

schools only really look at that 174 and, in all honesty, if you're taking it 8 times that shows some serious dedication

Yeah, I agree. I'm just worried that down the road LSAC is going to start allowing students to selective which scores they send to the school. So that a kid with 7 scores in the 166-169 band, who finally hits a 174 can pretend like those other 7 tests don't exist and the school only sees that 174.

What do you want them to do instead? Schools only report the highest score now?
Anyway, the GRE is going to take over in a couple of years.

[grades??]

Any one else think that this signals the beginning of much more impactful changes from LSAC, including maybe the possibility to select which scores to send to schools?

Not sure that's that impactful.

IdK being able to take 8 times in 2 years and only send them that final 174 seems like a big deal.

schools only really look at that 174 and, in all honesty, if you're taking it 8 times that shows some serious dedication

Yeah, I agree. I'm just worried that down the road LSAC is going to start allowing students to selective which scores they send to the school. So that a kid with 7 scores in the 166-169 band, who finally hits a 174 can pretend like those other 7 tests don't exist and the school only sees that 174.

I GUARANTEE you this is what will happen OR that people will be able to pick their best sections over different tests. Why do I say this? Because this is the norm in graduate school admissions with the GRE. And the LSAC IS PISSING THEMSELVES with the competition for the GRE now that Harvard and reportedly soon every other top school will take. If you had the option of taking the GRE and picking the best score to send and not send the others, the LSAT will HAVE to compete in kind. I guarantee it.

[Platopus]

Any one else think that this signals the beginning of much more impactful changes from LSAC, including maybe the possibility to select which scores to send to schools?

Not sure that's that impactful.

IdK being able to take 8 times in 2 years and only send them that final 174 seems like a big deal.

schools only really look at that 174 and, in all honesty, if you're taking it 8 times that shows some serious dedication

Yeah, I agree. I'm just worried that down the road LSAC is going to start allowing students to selective which scores they send to the school. So that a kid with 7 scores in the 166-169 band, who finally hits a 174 can pretend like those other 7 tests don't exist and the school only sees that 174.

I GUARANTEE you this is what will happen OR that people will be able to pick their best sections over different tests. Why do I say this? Because this is the norm in graduate school admissions with the GRE. And the LSAC IS PISSING THEMSELVES with the competition for the GRE now that Harvard and reportedly soon every other top school will take. If you had the option of taking the GRE and picking the best score to send and not send the others, the LSAT will HAVE to compete in kind. I guarantee it.

Yeah, this is my hunch too. I have a feeling this is also going to lead to schools placing a lot more weight on UG prestige and softs, just as is the case with most grad programs. Schools will realize that LSAT scores are cherry-picked and thus rely more heavily on UG prestige to determine if someone is actually intelligent/qualified/whatever.

[grades??]

Any one else think that this signals the beginning of much more impactful changes from LSAC, including maybe the possibility to select which scores to send to schools?

Not sure that's that impactful.

IdK being able to take 8 times in 2 years and only send them that final 174 seems like a big deal.

schools only really look at that 174 and, in all honesty, if you're taking it 8 times that shows some serious dedication

Yeah, I agree. I'm just worried that down the road LSAC is going to start allowing students to selective which scores they send to the school. So that a kid with 7 scores in the 166-169 band, who finally hits a 174 can pretend like those other 7 tests don't exist and the school only sees that 174.

I GUARANTEE you this is what will happen OR that people will be able to pick their best sections over different tests. Why do I say this? Because this is the norm in graduate school admissions with the GRE. And the LSAC IS PISSING THEMSELVES with the competition for the GRE now that Harvard and reportedly soon every other top school will take. If you had the option of taking the GRE and picking the best score to send and not send the others, the LSAT will HAVE to compete in kind. I guarantee it.

Yeah, this is my hunch too. I have a feeling this is also going to lead to schools placing a lot more weight on UG prestige and softs, just as is the case with most grad programs. Schools will realize that LSAT scores are cherry-picked and thus rely more heavily on UG prestige to determine if someone is actually intelligent/qualified/whatever.

Yes. And if I could advise anyone who is thinking about law school, I wouldn't even take the LSAT now. The GRE is substantially easier. SUBSTANTIALLY. I spent a year studying to get a 175+. I spent a half-assed week to study for the GRE. I got a 99 percentile in both. The LSAT will not just have to compete in kind, but out compete the GRE. I expect the LSAC to allow section picking in the next few years where you get to pick the best sections over multiple administrations.

[stego]

Letting people pick and choose sections from different LSAT administrations doesn't really make sense because of the way it's graded (raw score converted into normalized score based on all 4 sections). And doesn't the exact number of questions in a section vary slightly from test to test?

[grades??]

Letting people pick and choose sections from different LSAT administrations doesn't really make sense because of the way it's graded (raw score converted into normalized score based on all 4 sections). And doesn't the exact number of questions in a section vary slightly from test to test?

For now, I am just speculating. But its normal practice for a lot of graduate school applications with the GRE. The LSAC is going to have to out-compete the GRE considering that the GRE is more widely accepted (obviously for most/if not all grad schools and soon all law schools) and EASIER versus a test that is harder and only accepted for U.S. law schools (apologize if Canadian schools take as well, not sure). But either way, if you are a future applicant, there is no reason to take the LSAT once the GRE is more widely accepted (which it will). GRE gives more options, lots of administrations, and easier. It is why the LSAC is so scared of having to directly compete against it.

[HonestAdvice]

Is there a correlation between retake scores and bar passage?

Anyone who breaks a 170 will pass 95 percent plus of the time regardless of takes. The relevant statistic is whether someone who needs 5 cracks to break a 160 is substantially less likely to pass than someone who cracks it in 3 or less.

If the anwer is no, there's no meaningful reason to change it.

[Malarkey]

The GRE is the stupidest standardized test I've taken. The reading section is a grammar and vocabulary quiz and the math section is the SAT math section plus derivatives. I seriously hope it doesn't take over. At least the LSAT felt like it tested some semblance of intelligence.

[etramak]

Jesus Christ now I have to consider retaking again

[stego]

Letting people pick and choose sections from different LSAT administrations doesn't really make sense because of the way it's graded (raw score converted into normalized score based on all 4 sections). And doesn't the exact number of questions in a section vary slightly from test to test?

For now, I am just speculating. But its normal practice for a lot of graduate school applications with the GRE. The LSAC is going to have to out-compete the GRE considering that the GRE is more widely accepted (obviously for most/if not all grad schools and soon all law schools) and EASIER versus a test that is harder and only accepted for U.S. law schools (apologize if Canadian schools take as well, not sure). But either way, if you are a future applicant, there is no reason to take the LSAT once the GRE is more widely accepted (which it will). GRE gives more options, lots of administrations, and easier. It is why the LSAC is so scared of having to directly compete against it.

I'm not saying they couldn't make that change. But they'd have to change a bunch of things about how they administer the test or else scores would become even more meaningless than they already are.

[grades??]

Letting people pick and choose sections from different LSAT administrations doesn't really make sense because of the way it's graded (raw score converted into normalized score based on all 4 sections). And doesn't the exact number of questions in a section vary slightly from test to test?

For now, I am just speculating. But its normal practice for a lot of graduate school applications with the GRE. The LSAC is going to have to out-compete the GRE considering that the GRE is more widely accepted (obviously for most/if not all grad schools and soon all law schools) and EASIER versus a test that is harder and only accepted for U.S. law schools (apologize if Canadian schools take as well, not sure). But either way, if you are a future applicant, there is no reason to take the LSAT once the GRE is more widely accepted (which it will). GRE gives more options, lots of administrations, and easier. It is why the LSAC is so scared of having to directly compete against it.

I'm not saying they couldn't make that change. But they'd have to change a bunch of things about how they administer the test or else scores would become even more meaningless than they already are.

Agreed but they are already making changes- more administrations, taking it on a computer, and no maximum for retakes. That next step I identify isn't that far off.

[waldorf]

This seems bad to me. This favors people who can afford to retake forever, doesn't it?

I think the only groups it could be bad for are mid-low 160s scorers and splitters.

There will be almost no one that has to take this thing 4-5+ times and finally ends up with a 170 (there's a reason 170+ is such a difficult score to achieve, and I don't think it's that people don't get enough takes). If someone is going to score on the high side, the vast majority of the time it is because they prepped well and knew what they were doing - not because they just took a million takes and finally got 'lucky'.

If anything, I think it will make scholarships harder to get for splitters in the T40 range, and will inflate the number of 'competitive' applicants in that pool.

+1. I do think it could help people who could score in the 170s if they used one of their takes when they weren't ready. I've heard of a few people 'wasting' a take because they just wanted to treat it as a real test and then only had two left, maybe getting 167 and 169, and then didn't have another take for two more years. So I think it could help a small number of people (who really should have been thinking about that in the first place, but oh well).

[etramak]

Does anyone think taking advantage of this and retaking in September is excessive? My second take was a "waste" and I cancelled mid-exam. Right now my score is good but subpar for HYS (longshot off the waitlist at H). I'll probably buy the June 2017 preptest and, if my skills haven't gotten rusty and I score 173+, will seriously consider signing up for September. Would be my 4th take since June 2016 and I plan to apply in the Fall.

[Rigo]

Does anyone think taking advantage of this and retaking in September is excessive? My second take was a "waste" and I cancelled mid-exam. Right now my score is good but subpar for HYS (longshot off the waitlist at H). I'll probably buy the June 2017 preptest and, if my skills haven't gotten rusty and I score 173+, will seriously consider signing up for September. Would be my 4th take since June 2016 and I plan to apply in the Fall.

No reason not to take advantage of it. Give it a whirl.

[stego]

This seems bad to me. This favors people who can afford to retake forever, doesn't it?

I think the only groups it could be bad for are mid-low 160s scorers and splitters.

There will be almost no one that has to take this thing 4-5+ times and finally ends up with a 170 (there's a reason 170+ is such a difficult score to achieve, and I don't think it's that people don't get enough takes). If someone is going to score on the high side, the vast majority of the time it is because they prepped well and knew what they were doing - not because they just took a million takes and finally got 'lucky'.

If anything, I think it will make scholarships harder to get for splitters in the T40 range, and will inflate the number of 'competitive' applicants in that pool.

+1. I do think it could help people who could score in the 170s if they used one of their takes when they weren't ready. I've heard of a few people 'wasting' a take because they just wanted to treat it as a real test and then only had two left, maybe getting 167 and 169, and then didn't have another take for two more years. So I think it could help a small number of people (who really should have been thinking about that in the first place, but oh well).

Correct me if I'm wrong but the old rule was 3 takes in 2 years, so doesn't that mean that if someone took, say, 3 takes in a row, they'd have been eligible to take again in about a year and a half (i.e., after 2 calendar years had passed from the date of their first take)?

[GoG9]

is there any official statement about this from LSAC? Seems messed up to announce this and then give no info when it materially affects peoples' decisions.

[cavalier1138]

is there any official statement about this from LSAC? Seems messed up to announce this and then give no info when it materially affects peoples' decisions.

They've said that they're eliminating the time limit on retakes and that they plan on offering more test dates. Not sure what else they could give besides the actual test dates they're adding.

[goldenbear2020]

The "3 takes in 2 years" limitation has been removed from the LSAT FAQ about "Under what circumstances would I be ineligible to take the LSAT?".

[Veil of Ignorance]

Letting people pick and choose sections from different LSAT administrations doesn't really make sense because of the way it's graded (raw score converted into normalized score based on all 4 sections). And doesn't the exact number of questions in a section vary slightly from test to test?

For now, I am just speculating. But its normal practice for a lot of graduate school applications with the GRE. The LSAC is going to have to out-compete the GRE considering that the GRE is more widely accepted (obviously for most/if not all grad schools and soon all law schools) and EASIER versus a test that is harder and only accepted for U.S. law schools (apologize if Canadian schools take as well, not sure). But either way, if you are a future applicant, there is no reason to take the LSAT once the GRE is more widely accepted (which it will). GRE gives more options, lots of administrations, and easier. It is why the LSAC is so scared of having to directly compete against it.

I mean, someone applying in the next year or two should still take the LSAT

[nerd1]

Anything that makes it easier for people to get into law schools and become lawyers is bad. There are too many lawyers and it is already way too easy to become a lawyer .

[nerd1]

Any one else think that this signals the beginning of much more impactful changes from LSAC, including maybe the possibility to select which scores to send to schools?

Not sure that's that impactful.

IdK being able to take 8 times in 2 years and only send them that final 174 seems like a big deal.

schools only really look at that 174 and, in all honesty, if you're taking it 8 times that shows some serious dedication

Those people are not dedicated. They are just very very inefficient or dumb. It is problematic that people can take so many times and just present the highest score. Too low a bar for anyone wanting to become a lawyer. Too many law schools and lawyers. More and more intense competition among lawyers together with the decline in value of the average lawyer.

[Npret]

Any one else think that this signals the beginning of much more impactful changes from LSAC, including maybe the possibility to select which scores to send to schools?

Not sure that's that impactful.

IdK being able to take 8 times in 2 years and only send them that final 174 seems like a big deal.

schools only really look at that 174 and, in all honesty, if you're taking it 8 times that shows some serious dedication

Those people are not dedicated. They are just very very inefficient or dumb. It is problematic that people can take so many times and just present the highest score. Too low a bar for anyone wanting to become a lawyer. Too many law schools and lawyers. More and more intense competition among lawyers together with the decline in value of the average lawyer.

But the Harvard study showed the LSAT wasn't more predictive of law school success than the GRE.
The LSAT was an artificial and unnecessary gatekeeper that kept out people while allowing people who could study for it and learn it to overcome the problems with their GPA or softless lives.
I don't think using the LSAT to keep people out is the best way to limit law school admissions.
I am interested to see what happens in the next 5 years with the GRE.

[Rigo]

Law school admissions should be limited tbh. We don't need more people applying to law school on a whim.
e: scooped above. Don't want to dive down the GRE debate wormhole again though.