A theory on why highest LSAT should be taken

[Jgunnz]

CHEW ON THIS: Here is a hypothetical, you take the lsat and bomb it, say 150 in June 2004 then you take the exam again in say December 2004 and you get a 170. Since the lsat expires after 5 years you could theoretically wait until June 2009 when your first score expires and just apply to schools with the 170. Now because there exists a possible scenario in which you could have only your higher score counted, isn't that grounds to have everyones higher score counted if you take the exam in sequence and improve?

[youranidiot]

Dude, how many threads are you gonna start based on your crappy first LSAT score?

For the record, our society shifted from an aristocracy to a meritocracy sometime last century. just cause you got into Cornell for undergrad does not mean you will be able to walk into an ivy for law school. 

youranidiot.

[Jgunnz]

I don't think there is anything wrong with engaging in an intellectual discourse about how law schools treat our numbers.

[youranidiot]

So "Jgunzz" is your real name?  Out of curiosity, why do you put only your Dec. LSAT score under your picture?  That practice seems ridiculous to me.  You're not the only offender I've noticed around here.

[Runner-up]

Most people after they've gotten a dreadful LSAT score -like I did- move on and do what they can with what they have. They don't go sucking around and propose ways of getting around the test or try to downplay the importance of the score. They just accept it and try to make something out of it.

So, @#!* off.

[mattb23]

Most people after they've gotten a dreadful LSAT score -like I did- move on and do what they can with what they have. They don't go sucking around and propose ways of getting around the test or try to downplay the importance of the score. They just accept it and try to make something out of it.

So, #@!* off.

Don't know anything about the OP's prior test scores, and certainly think that the notion of a "poor" score is totally relative. But to strike down the practice of averaging LSAT scores (which I personally agree with, and that's why I cancelled my Oct. score)--based on the fairly ludicrous fear that there's this widespread group of folks who put their law careers aside for FIVE YEARS merely so they don't have to disclose a certain score-- doesn't seem like the most rational argument ever made.

[tealight]

In defense of Jgunnz, the practice of averaging LSATs is still a mystery to many of us.  Although there are people who test consistently, there are also others, such as Jgunnz, who manage increases greater than the margin of error. 

This is a guy who obviously studied, went to a respectable undergraduate institution, was active in ec's, etc. and is having difficulty getting into some of the law schools to which he applied because of one score on one day (from his LSN profile). 

[JDCPA]

What is the number one reason you hear from people why averaging is a bad thing? Because they scored poorly their first time. LSAC gives you one chance with your LSAT, just like they give you one chance with your GPA. Once you graduate with your first undergrad degree, that is it. Future grades, no matter how good, don't count. For you, I would take your averaged 160 and run. Don't whine over a 160.

[underwhelm]

LSAC gives you one chance with your LSAT, just like they give you one chance with your GPA.

Precisely.

[WoeIsMe]

not too hot on the original justificaitn for not averaging, however anyone who has studied detection/estimation and tracking theory understands elliptical error functions for estimations and how they relate to error bands associated with lsat scores.

basically if two scores are far enough apart such that the overlap in the error bands of the two scores minimal, they should not be averaged and considered two separate entities.