New ABA LSAT Reporting Requirements
Vault.com has an excellent article "The Change in LSAT Reporting Requirements and YOU?" In a nutshell, the ABA is asking schools to report the highest LSAT score of accepted students, not the average LSAT as in the past.
Vault believes, and I agree, that schools will begin reporting to US News the highest LSAT scores as a result of the ABA change. Check with the schools you are applying to about their policy towards multiple LSAT scores. I agree with Vault that the highest score will become more the norm as the score used in admissions decisions. And that's an important change.
I also agree with Daniel Solove of Concurring Opinions that this would be a "terrific policy change." It would allow your best test score to count, not some numerical and in some way arbitrary average. For better or worse, it will also probably result in more applicants taking the LSAT multiple times.
Linda Abraham
in Law School Admissions
|
4 Comments
|
2 References
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to FriendReferences (2)
-
-
Response: The New LSAT Score Reporting PolicyA while back, Professor Paul Caron of TaxProf Blog reported the new policy regarding law schools' reporting of LSAT scores to the ABA. Whereas the ABA previously required that law schools report the average LSAT score of an applicant, the ABA now allow...
Reader Comments (4)
I appreciate your response, you certainly have more knowledge about this stuff than I do!
Still, doesn't the lack of disincentives for retaking influence (score-wise) test-takers who have tested at what they believe is representative of their capabilities to go ahead and take another shot in hopes of the higher score that that may not be representative? Couldn't that lead to less representative scores and isn't that an advantage for those with more time and money?
Also, I certainly think the lower scores will influence admissions decisions. Call me cynical, but it's the fact that the low scores can be completely disregarded and disguised during the admissions process should the school choose that I dislike.
Wouldn't a policy of taking the most recent LSAT score work better to mitigate both bad day scores and the incentive to retake in hopes of the high score?
I could certainly be off base here...
Again, drawing on the b-school experience I believe your concern is either a straw man or applicable to such a tiny segment of the applicant pool that it is irrelevant. People don't like to take tests or prep for tests. Doing so is expensive, time-consuming, and stressful. No fun. These factors represent an inherent disincentive for extreme multiple test-taking. And as I pointed out in my comment, taking a test more than 3 times starts to put your judgement in question. These factors (stress, expense, and time plus the dim view taken of extreme multiple tests by adcoms) are significant disincentives. In the b-school world they prevent the kind of behavior that concerns you.
I think the law school world will respond similarly. But as I said in my comment to your post, on the positive side if schools start to count the highest score in admissions decisions, those people who had a bad day or simply made a mistake in not cancelling the test will have a second chance to show what they can do.
To me, the upside far exceeds the down.
I understand your point about disincentives, but I have to agree with Austin that this is a very bad decision. The ABA's view on the LSAT will result in more money for LSDAS, and it will bias the admissions process in favor of people who can take this test many times.
LSAT matters a lot more in the law school process than GMAT does in the b-school process. I think the incentives for the law school admissions types will not be the same as the GMAT is for business types.
Even if the admissions people frown on multiple test-taking, I'll bet the average upper-income person takes the test more than the average low-income person. Unlike before, now if I lose a few points on the retest, there's no harm. By taking away any downside from retesting (until it gets extreme, as you said), this just gets more out of whack. And that's going to work against people who are busy or don't have the money to spend taking the LSAT lots of times.
I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree.
I don't care if LSDAS benefits as longs as applicants benefit more, and I feel they will. Again, GMAC, the MBA equivalent of LSDAS, reports, "Approximately 21% percent of GMAT® tests are taken by people who have taken the test more than once within a year." (http://www.gmac.com/gmac/ResearchandTrends/GMATStatistics/CurrentGMATVolume.htm ) That figure does not support the kind of doomsday scenario and rampant test-taking you and Austin are predicting.
The GMAT is an expensive test (actually Stanford GSB just started accepting the GRE because it is less expensive.). And the GMAT is very important in MBA admissions. It can't get you in, but it can certainly keep you out. Don't underestimate its importance, especially if you want an MBA.
Regarding the income point you make, the reality is that now the low-income person doesn't even have the option of retaking without penalty. If schools switch to weighing the highest score, the low-income person will have that opportunity and choice. They will still struggle with more limited resources, but they will have the option to take the test without first paying for an expensive LSAT course, seeing how they do, and then deciding if they need to retake and pay for the course. And again, no admissions penalty for the first administration.
Obviously here we are discussing "what-ifs." I think we are going to have to wait and see what happens in the future.