Retake - Slight Score Improvement

[ahoward24]

So, here's my scenario:

I took the LSAT last Sept. got an okay score, decided to take a year off (after gotten some acceptances, some waitlists, and some denials) and retake the LSAT this Sept. I only increased my score by one point. I know it's only one point, but does it count for anything? Does that look favorable to admissions committees at all? I already submitted my apps and attached an LSAT addendum stating the scores are not indicative of my academic capabilities. What's your opinion on the matter?

Thank you!

[Dave Killoran]

Hi A,

It's funny, but I often say that every single point counts. And it seems ridiculous that a single point could make a difference, but in a game dominated by numbers, it does in fact matter. The question is, how much?

My take on retakes and improvement has been the same for years: when the committee sees you retake, the message is that you didn't think your first score represents your ability, and you wanted to do it again to show them you had more in you. A point higher counts, but it doesn't count a whole lot (and that''s the problem—oftentimes the benefit is so small it doesn't move the needle enough to change admissions outcomes). The one problem with writing that the "this doesn't represent my ability" is that that the second score confirms the first score to a great extent. With score banding, those two score are seen as very similar (but again, the higher one is used and the point helps). So, I'd be very careful in how you word that. By the way, on its own, two LSAT scores require no explanation. They literally do not care when the see someone take the LSAT 2, 3, or even 4 times. After that, questions creep in, but a few takes is nothing to them.

I want to make sure I covered everything, so please let me know if that helps, or if you have other questions. Thanks!

[WeinsteinsPlantFeed]

I just got my December score back and I plan to retake. I think 1 point improvement could make a world of difference for me. I got a 169, which is at median or 75% of most schools I'm looking at. Problem is my undergrad grades are crap so I feel I need to be ABOVE that 75% level. In this case, that 1 pt would be the difference between being a super splitter with the ability to impact an important number, vs someone who is merely a gpa liability for admissions boards. It also could make a difference in $. Looking at the lawschoolnumbers website, it seems a 169 regardless of gpa is good for around $70K in scholarship money at Wash U, but a 170 would be good for $120K. Hopefully even a point or 2 would get me significantly more money at my safety and significantly increase my chances at T14.

[Dave Killoran]

I just got my December score back and I plan to retake. I think 1 point improvement could make a world of difference for me. I got a 169, which is at median or 75% of most schools I'm looking at. Problem is my undergrad grades are crap so I feel I need to be ABOVE that 75% level. In this case, that 1 pt would be the difference between being a super splitter with the ability to impact an important number, vs someone who is merely a gpa liability for admissions boards. It also could make a difference in $. Looking at the lawschoolnumbers website, it seems a 169 regardless of gpa is good for around $70K in scholarship money at Wash U, but a 170 would be good for $120K. Hopefully even a point or 2 would get me significantly more money at my safety and significantly increase my chances at T14.

I agree in general, and want to add one thought: 169 to 170 also crosses an important mental threshold for adcomms. That "1-7-0" is so big in their minds that the difference from 169 is greater than just a point or the related percentile increase. It's like hitting the double bonus round