« on: December 28, 2004, 02:36:28 PM »
Why are multiple LSAT policies so hard to come by? You would think admissions committees would have no problem stating frankly what their multiple LSAT policy is (they all must have one) nearly all seem to give a cryptic response where sometimes the higher score is considered and sometimes it isn't.
I feel aside from the schools that either strictly average or strictly take the higher score there is simply an incentive to lie. Unfortunately, Iím to ethical to exploit this (and its a shame Iím competing with others where this isn't the case) but seriously who couldn't make up a convincing story for the admissions committees that average scores (unless a convincing addendum is provided) to consider the higher score instead. My pet from childhood died and I was distraught, I had food poisoning during the exam, I misbubbled, I had the flu but stuck it out ... etc. etc. I've never once heard of an admissions committee asking for verifiable proof of any of the addendum claims. I think a request to attach a doctorís note etc. would be perfectly in line, and should be the only situation in which substantial weight is actually placed on a higher score for those Universities that invite excuses.
I truly feel, in the end if someone is capable of scoring a 170 even if they scored a 162 in the past then that person has what it takes to sit down and perform at the 170 level who cares what the reason was for the 162. Those who say it could have been a fluke I feel are misguided, how could a 170 ever be a fluke? Schools should say "if you take the LSAT twice we will take the higher score" this will discourage frivolously taking the LSAT a dozen times just to get a higher score but also accounts for normal variation, anxiety, assignment of experimental section, etc. which may affect everyone differently. What really gets me now, is the fact that someone willing to lie can substantially influence their admissions chances against someone who isn't, even with the same scores.