Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=277750
#bitterproteinshake wrote:via Spivey twitter
"Breaking! Starting in September LSAT, there will no longer be any limitations on the # of times you can take the LSAT in a two-year period."
Sure but if schools don't care about how many times you take it (with possible exception of Yale), then it doesn't matter and people will take it over and over. Especially with the rumor that there will be more LSAT administrations each year, bringing it more in line with the GRE (now the LSATs direct competitor).Mikey wrote:wonder why..
doesn't mean people shouldn't study for it though. everyone should still try to get the best score they can without taking it 20 times
Now that I didn't know about.. jeez, wth is lsac trying to do with all of this..grades?? wrote:Sure but if schools don't care about how many times you take it (with possible exception of Yale), then it doesn't matter and people will take it over and over. Especially with the rumor that there will be more LSAT administrations each year, bringing it more in line with the GRE (now the LSATs direct competitor).Mikey wrote:wonder why..
doesn't mean people shouldn't study for it though. everyone should still try to get the best score they can without taking it 20 times
And don't forget that they're trying to learn how to offer the LSAT digitally (as evidenced by the pilot digital test being administered this Saturday).Mikey wrote:Now that I didn't know about.. jeez, wth is lsac trying to do with all of this..grades?? wrote:Sure but if schools don't care about how many times you take it (with possible exception of Yale), then it doesn't matter and people will take it over and over. Especially with the rumor that there will be more LSAT administrations each year, bringing it more in line with the GRE (now the LSATs direct competitor).Mikey wrote:wonder why..
doesn't mean people shouldn't study for it though. everyone should still try to get the best score they can without taking it 20 times
maybe it is because of the GRE
curious to know if those taking the pilot digital test will get scrap paper for LG, do you know?Future Ex-Engineer wrote:
And don't forget that they're trying to learn how to offer the LSAT digitally (as evidenced by the pilot digital test being administered this Saturday).
Looks like the big players are pushing LSAC to move to the 21st century.
I believe the rules/guidelines stated we would get paper for LG, but don't totally remember. I'm taking the pilot administration, and I plan to do a full write up of the experience for a thread on here afterwards for us to all nitpick into oblivionMikey wrote:curious to know if those taking the pilot digital test will get scrap paper for LG, do you know?Future Ex-Engineer wrote:
And don't forget that they're trying to learn how to offer the LSAT digitally (as evidenced by the pilot digital test being administered this Saturday).
Looks like the big players are pushing LSAC to move to the 21st century.
I'd feel really uncomfortable doing RC digitally though, idk about that
cross post from September study groupsanzgo wrote:i'd expect this to make things ever so slightly more splitter-unfriendly.
i don't know what the hell lsac is thinking but i don't like the looks of this.
they (and schools like harvard) should be making it harder for people to go to LS, not easier. too bad all they care about $$$
Would agree. Tons of people freaking like OMG!@#(*&)@ THERES GONNA BE SOOOOOOOO MANY HIGH SCORES. Yeah, at the end of the day, the LSAT is still a very difficult test. I don't think just because they are allowing more takes in a 2 year span that a bunch of randos that haven't prepped properly are going to magically start cranking out 170s.dj9i27 wrote:cross post from September study groupsanzgo wrote:i'd expect this to make things ever so slightly more splitter-unfriendly.
i don't know what the hell lsac is thinking but i don't like the looks of this.
they (and schools like harvard) should be making it harder for people to go to LS, not easier. too bad all they care about $$$
Initial response to the abolishment of the 3x takes is that it is splitter death. I disagree. It isn't like June and September are going to have a massive influx of only 180ers hell not even 170ers, it'll probably remain the same because test takers are only marginally different year to year; and we are still at one of the lowest applicant number ever and Harvard's medians dropped as well as Stanford. Dropping medians are a thing and we all need to look at this as a good thing.
The SAT are taken unlimited times and top scores still remain about the same. I think a 174+ and especially a 177+ will hold their value
holy shit mensa accepts the lsat? (just checked and their threshold is 163 LMAO; that seems absurdly low)Future Ex-Engineer wrote:Would agree. Tons of people freaking like OMG!@#(*&)@ THERES GONNA BE SOOOOOOOO MANY HIGH SCORES. Yeah, at the end of the day, the LSAT is still a very difficult test. I don't think just because they are allowing more takes in a 2 year span that a bunch of randos that haven't prepped properly are going to magically start cranking out 170s.dj9i27 wrote:cross post from September study groupsanzgo wrote:i'd expect this to make things ever so slightly more splitter-unfriendly.
i don't know what the hell lsac is thinking but i don't like the looks of this.
they (and schools like harvard) should be making it harder for people to go to LS, not easier. too bad all they care about $$$
Initial response to the abolishment of the 3x takes is that it is splitter death. I disagree. It isn't like June and September are going to have a massive influx of only 180ers hell not even 170ers, it'll probably remain the same because test takers are only marginally different year to year; and we are still at one of the lowest applicant number ever and Harvard's medians dropped as well as Stanford. Dropping medians are a thing and we all need to look at this as a good thing.
The SAT are taken unlimited times and top scores still remain about the same. I think a 174+ and especially a 177+ will hold their value
Right now, I can only see it as a good thing for those of us that prep a ton, and have something go wrong on test day.
More interestingly, I wonder if it means MENSA will drop the LSAT from being on their list of acceptable tests for membership
id say you may see more freshman and sophomores taking this and maybe even dropping the overall lsat average to sub 150. Maybe in 2 years you'll see 100 or so more 170+ but I like how we all assume 100,000 people will come out of the woodwork now. Shit, most people don't even study for this more than a month.Most affects will happen in schools between 30-100, 160s might become more common after a year or two.Future Ex-Engineer wrote:Would agree. Tons of people freaking like OMG!@#(*&)@ THERES GONNA BE SOOOOOOOO MANY HIGH SCORES. Yeah, at the end of the day, the LSAT is still a very difficult test. I don't think just because they are allowing more takes in a 2 year span that a bunch of randos that haven't prepped properly are going to magically start cranking out 170s.dj9i27 wrote:cross post from September study groupsanzgo wrote:i'd expect this to make things ever so slightly more splitter-unfriendly.
i don't know what the hell lsac is thinking but i don't like the looks of this.
they (and schools like harvard) should be making it harder for people to go to LS, not easier. too bad all they care about $$$
Initial response to the abolishment of the 3x takes is that it is splitter death. I disagree. It isn't like June and September are going to have a massive influx of only 180ers hell not even 170ers, it'll probably remain the same because test takers are only marginally different year to year; and we are still at one of the lowest applicant number ever and Harvard's medians dropped as well as Stanford. Dropping medians are a thing and we all need to look at this as a good thing.
The SAT are taken unlimited times and top scores still remain about the same. I think a 174+ and especially a 177+ will hold their value
Right now, I can only see it as a good thing for those of us that prep a ton, and have something go wrong on test day.
More interestingly, I wonder if it means MENSA will drop the LSAT from being on their list of acceptable tests for membership
I feel like if more schools employed the GRE in place of the LSAT, they may only accept a small amount of GRE people (prob those with 3.9+) and accept the majority of applicants who have an LSAT score. The LSAT might still be weighed more over other tests, but I guess we have to see what happens.Npret wrote:Don't you guys think it's even more likely freshman and sophomores will take the GRE first and apply and then take the LSAT if they don't get what they want?
Why take the LSAT that is only good for law school as your first entrance exam when there is a more versatile exam that you can take in your own schedule and your local test center?
If I were in undergrad I would do that and possibly even delay a year or so until more schools take GRE.
Depends if all LS do in fact accept the GRE, I am hesitant to say that every single one will do so as quick as we think. Being said, the freshman who think their destined for law school will take this and probably get a 134 since they are 19 and want the test to be a trial run; I knew a lot who did that with the GRE sophomore year and totally bombed it.Npret wrote:Don't you guys think it's even more likely freshman and sophomores will take the GRE first and apply and then take the LSAT if they don't get what they want?
Why take the LSAT that is only good for law school as your first entrance exam when there is a more versatile exam that you can take in your own schedule and your local test center?
If I were in undergrad I would do that and possibly even delay a year or so until more schools take GRE. Work experience will only benefit you before you go to grad school or law school.
Maybe. I just think people will take the easier and less expensive route first. I think law schools will adapt to the GRE quickly. It's only in their advantage to do so. Increasing the applicant pool should only benefit law schools so I don't know why they would let the competition get ahead of them.dj9i27 wrote:Depends if all LS do in fact accept the GRE, I am hesitant to say that every single one will do so as quick as we think. Being said, the freshman who think their destined for law school will take this and probably get a 134 since they are 19 and want the test to be a trial run; I knew a lot who did that with the GRE sophomore year and totally bombed it.Npret wrote:Don't you guys think it's even more likely freshman and sophomores will take the GRE first and apply and then take the LSAT if they don't get what they want?
Why take the LSAT that is only good for law school as your first entrance exam when there is a more versatile exam that you can take in your own schedule and your local test center?
If I were in undergrad I would do that and possibly even delay a year or so until more schools take GRE. Work experience will only benefit you before you go to grad school or law school.
I agree with you about the WE thing, specially if it is relevant. Get an idea what you are getting into.
Oh of course, if the GRE appears to be the path of less resistance people will flock to it, but Mikey is right where I think as for now only 3.9/170GRE will be accepted so more should gravitate to the LSAT especially since H is the only one taking it right now.Npret wrote:Maybe. I just think people will take the easier and less expensive route first. I think law schools will adapt to the GRE quickly. It's only in their advantage to do so. Increasing the applicant pool should only benefit law schools so I don't know why they would let the competition get ahead of them.dj9i27 wrote:Depends if all LS do in fact accept the GRE, I am hesitant to say that every single one will do so as quick as we think. Being said, the freshman who think their destined for law school will take this and probably get a 134 since they are 19 and want the test to be a trial run; I knew a lot who did that with the GRE sophomore year and totally bombed it.Npret wrote:Don't you guys think it's even more likely freshman and sophomores will take the GRE first and apply and then take the LSAT if they don't get what they want?
Why take the LSAT that is only good for law school as your first entrance exam when there is a more versatile exam that you can take in your own schedule and your local test center?
If I were in undergrad I would do that and possibly even delay a year or so until more schools take GRE. Work experience will only benefit you before you go to grad school or law school.
I agree with you about the WE thing, specially if it is relevant. Get an idea what you are getting into.
Interesting. I thought there will be many more high GPA applicants who will crush the GRE (but who won't take theLSAT) but it's all speculation. I only mentioned it because the topic of what freshman and sophomores would do was mentioned.dj9i27 wrote:Oh of course, if the GRE appears to be the path of less resistance people will flock to it, but Mikey is right where I think as for now only 3.9/170GRE will be accepted so more should gravitate to the LSAT especially since H is the only one taking it right now.Npret wrote:Maybe. I just think people will take the easier and less expensive route first. I think law schools will adapt to the GRE quickly. It's only in their advantage to do so. Increasing the applicant pool should only benefit law schools so I don't know why they would let the competition get ahead of them.dj9i27 wrote:Depends if all LS do in fact accept the GRE, I am hesitant to say that every single one will do so as quick as we think. Being said, the freshman who think their destined for law school will take this and probably get a 134 since they are 19 and want the test to be a trial run; I knew a lot who did that with the GRE sophomore year and totally bombed it.Npret wrote:Don't you guys think it's even more likely freshman and sophomores will take the GRE first and apply and then take the LSAT if they don't get what they want?
Why take the LSAT that is only good for law school as your first entrance exam when there is a more versatile exam that you can take in your own schedule and your local test center?
If I were in undergrad I would do that and possibly even delay a year or so until more schools take GRE. Work experience will only benefit you before you go to grad school or law school.
I agree with you about the WE thing, specially if it is relevant. Get an idea what you are getting into.
As for this matter making admissions harder, I doubt it for the T13. There is about 100,000ish lsat takers a year and very few hit 170; this is going to make it a bitch to get into strong regional schools imo since I think the middle will inflate and both ends of the bell curve will remain relatively the same.
In the long run maybe but in the real world I think most still think the LSAT is the only key to LS, which is sorta true unless your dumping all eggs into H.Npret wrote: Interesting. I thought there will be many more high GPA applicants who will crush the GRE (but who won't take theLSAT) but it's all speculation. I only mentioned it because the topic of what freshman and sophomores would do was mentioned.
If the GRE becomes widely accepted as I am assuming, it makes no sense to take the LSAT first. But if schools still only have to report your highest LSAT then maybe law focused students will take the LSAT and not the GRE. If you're not sure what you want, the GRE is the way to go.
I do think this forum is not representative of the actual willingness of people to retake standardized tests. I don't see people taking the LSAT just for the experience and then plan to retake. (Or maybe it is representative given how resistant most people are to retaking even when they know it's in their best interest.)
My guess is that if anything high LSAT scores will become more rare as people shift to the GRE. I'm curious to see how that will benefit students for admissions. I think schools will still value a high LSAT score at least for a while.
Who benefits from this myth? I was a naive believer in it up until a couple of days ago!Mullens wrote:Great news for everyone except posters trying to lie/convince us they can't retake the LSAT.
Are all law schools going to accept the GRE in the near future? Or just Harvard? Ahh, what's going on?!Npret wrote:Interesting. I thought there will be many more high GPA applicants who will crush the GRE (but who won't take theLSAT) but it's all speculation. I only mentioned it because the topic of what freshman and sophomores would do was mentioned.dj9i27 wrote:Oh of course, if the GRE appears to be the path of less resistance people will flock to it, but Mikey is right where I think as for now only 3.9/170GRE will be accepted so more should gravitate to the LSAT especially since H is the only one taking it right now.Npret wrote:Maybe. I just think people will take the easier and less expensive route first. I think law schools will adapt to the GRE quickly. It's only in their advantage to do so. Increasing the applicant pool should only benefit law schools so I don't know why they would let the competition get ahead of them.dj9i27 wrote:Depends if all LS do in fact accept the GRE, I am hesitant to say that every single one will do so as quick as we think. Being said, the freshman who think their destined for law school will take this and probably get a 134 since they are 19 and want the test to be a trial run; I knew a lot who did that with the GRE sophomore year and totally bombed it.Npret wrote:Don't you guys think it's even more likely freshman and sophomores will take the GRE first and apply and then take the LSAT if they don't get what they want?
Why take the LSAT that is only good for law school as your first entrance exam when there is a more versatile exam that you can take in your own schedule and your local test center?
If I were in undergrad I would do that and possibly even delay a year or so until more schools take GRE. Work experience will only benefit you before you go to grad school or law school.
I agree with you about the WE thing, specially if it is relevant. Get an idea what you are getting into.
As for this matter making admissions harder, I doubt it for the T13. There is about 100,000ish lsat takers a year and very few hit 170; this is going to make it a bitch to get into strong regional schools imo since I think the middle will inflate and both ends of the bell curve will remain relatively the same.
If the GRE becomes widely accepted as I am assuming, it makes no sense to take the LSAT first. But if schools still only have to report your highest LSAT then maybe law focused students will take the LSAT and not the GRE. If you're not sure what you want, the GRE is the way to go.
I do think this forum is not representative of the actual willingness of people to retake standardized tests. I don't see people taking the LSAT just for the experience and then plan to retake. (Or maybe it is representative given how resistant most people are to retaking even when they know it's in their best interest.)
My guess is that if anything high LSAT scores will become more rare as people shift to the GRE. I'm curious to see how that will benefit students for admissions. I think schools will still value a high LSAT score at least for a while.