Cancel LSAT If You Missed The Test Date Change Deadline?

UPDATE:

The below post is now outdated due to an LSAC policy change - please see New Option to Withdraw Your LSAT Registration From LSAC.

***

Law school admission consultant (and former UChicago Law admission dean) Anna Ivey recently contacted me regarding last year's cancel vs. absence post (written for those who miss that deadline).

What followed was a lengthy email discussion about the consequences of missing the deadline and how admissions officers will likely view the resulting cancellations and absences.

The following are some excerpts of that email exchange between myself and Anna Ivey, as well as a section from the University of Michigan Law's FAQ on the issue.

Some of you who don't postpone before the deadline will undoubtedly change your minds and wish you had. Or you might not read this post until then.

Either way, this post is for you.

***

Anna: LSAC changed the registration cancellation deadline in the run-up to the June 2009 without much notice or publicity, and that caught a lot of test takers off guard through no fault of their own. Fast-forward to 2011, though, and applicants have had plenty of time to see the current deadline for canceling or postponing registrations, and I would think that admissions officers are going to expect that they plan accordingly. I still don't think one absence is the end of the world, but it does signal that someone couldn't follow directions, and that's a pretty big deficit for someone who wants to be a lawyer. (Lawyers live and die by deadlines.) In contrast, with the June 2009 test, an absence didn't really signal anything about their ability to follow directions, because the directions got changed on them in the middle of the night. Does that distinction make sense?

Steve: My impression from students and blog readers is that, for the most part, test-takers are aware of the deadline, so it's not an issue of irresponsibility. I see it as simply being that 3 weeks beforehand is too early a deadline for them to know whether they'll be ready in time. It forces them to gamble and assume they'll be ready, or it forces them to postpone to a later date when they may not have needed to do so. They may have been ready by the date for which they'd initially registered. Many people just can't predict where their scores will be by Test Day.

Most serious preppers spend that final month taking full-length practice tests and refining techniques. By Test Day, some will experience score increases during the final 3 weeks that signal their readiness to take the exam for which they've registered, others won't. It's hard for test-takers to know which group they'll fall within.

And there are all the people who, in the final 3 weeks, get sick/injured, have life crises, or experience a sudden increase in busyness due to work/school/family issues. In short, something may come up before the exam that prevents test-takers from studying adequately during the final weeks. This often leads them to desire a postponement, but by then it's too late. I hope admissions officers won't punish them for what may be outside their control.


Anna: I guess I'm biased in the other direction, because I hear from a number of applicants who just didn't pay attention to the deadline, and that puts a bee in my bonnet. :) Also -- and I'm really curious what you think on this front -- I see a lot of applicants acting a bit delusional about how much they can improve in that 3-week window.

In any event, I agree with something that was said in the original post, which is that admissions officers now have no way of knowing who is "absent" because life got in the way on test day (woke up with the flu, etc.), and who is "absent" because they couldn't be bothered to follow directions. When LSAC conflates the two and uses the same label for both situations, they remove an important piece of information. If someone had until the test day (or even beyond, as used to be the case) to reschedule, but didn't, then failing to do so actually used to signal something.

Steve: Yes - too many people think miracles regularly happen in the final 3 weeks and on Test Day itself. The extent to which applicants see diminishing marginal returns depends upon the individual (as so much does when it comes to the LSAT) and how much studying they've done up to that point. Those who put in at least 3-4 months total generally see the majority of their increase prior to the 3-week deadline. However, those who put in a total of approx. 2 months have only done a little more than half of their total prep by that time. As such, a lot can happen as they finally bring it all together in the final 3 weeks.

Many do see big increases toward the end as things finally start to click. Others simply devote an increasing amount of time to studying as the impending test date finally kicks them into high gear.

Anna: That all makes sense. I guess the former admissions officer in me still thinks that if someone waited so long to prepare for the LSAT that the last three weeks represent some sizable chunk of their preparation, they really haven't gone about it with the seriousness it deserves. I'm inclined to think absences are OK for those day-of catastrophes (waking up with the flu), but as long as admissions officers don't have insight into why someone was absent, it's all a big question mark, and an absence can't really be held against the applicant.

Regarding cancellations: I do think admissions officers take those into consideration to a small degree when analyzing the subsequent score. No matter why someone cancels (dry run vs. screwed something up on the test in a big way), people who have taken the real thing before are going to have some advantage on the margin over someone who hasn't, and so people who have canceled will be assumed to have the benefit of that dry run (again, whether they did it for that reason or not).

***

University of Michigan Law's FAQ

It's been a while since I quoted Dean Sarah Zearfoss (of UMichigan Law) and Dean Ed Tom (of UC Berkeley at Boalt Hall Law) in my original post on this topic. I contacted them this week to ask whether their positions had changed since some time has passed, but stand by their original quotes.

However, Dean Zearfoss pointed me to the FAQ section of the UMichigan Law Admissions website, which now addresses the issue. I've reprinted this portion below, with her permission:

I registered for an LSAT sitting but then a conflict arose. I tried to change my test date, but missed the deadline for doing so. What should I do?

Beginning with the June 2009 exam, the LSAC instituted a policy requiring people to make test date changes at least three weeks in advance of the test. The reasons for this are sensible; in the past, their very flexible policy (allowing for changes even after the test had occurred!) meant a misallocation of resources–people would not show up for the exam and there would be wasted space at a test center, while meanwhile, other people would have to travel to a second-choice location, sometimes at considerable expense and inconvenience. The new policy allows LSAC to plan much more precisely.

But it also means that people who have very good reasons for postponing can’t do so if they don’t learn of the conflict in the necessary timeframe. What to do?

First, if the conflict is with the date itself–e.g., you’re scheduled for surgery–your only option is not to attend. There will be a notation on a subsequent score report showing that you were absent for the test. A single absence is simply not a big deal at all, and you shouldn’t worry about it. A pattern of absences may be a red flag, however, and so you would be wise to be careful to keep your calendar free for your next test registration date, or to be sure to postpone within the timeframe prescribed by LSAC. If you’re really worried about the notation of an absence, you’re more than welcome to submit a couple of lines in explanation along with your other application materials, but it truly is not necessary.

Second, if your conflict is not with the test date itself but with the necessary preparation (e.g., you’re a paralegal and were unexpectedly asked to participate in a trial for the two weeks prior to the test), you have two choices: (A) take the test and roll the dice with the score, or (B) take the test and cancel the score. (For information about canceled scores, see the prior FAQ.) Only you can know which option makes the most sense for your situation.

Also see why LSAC decided to make the test-date-change deadline earlier back in June 2009.)


Photo by jonathan_bliss