GEORGE WASHINGTON VS. UC HASTINGS

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
uclabrandon
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:50 am

Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON VS. UC HASTINGS

Postby uclabrandon » Thu Jul 07, 2011 2:12 pm

jenesaislaw wrote:
ndirish2010 wrote:
jenesaislaw wrote:This retake nonsense is out of control on this site. First, the average score on the last LSAT administration for a 157 retake was 159.3. Second, he isn't even confident he can do better. Third, the chances of improving enough to make enough of a difference to get into a significantly better school or get a better financial aid package are about as good as finishing near the top of the class. Unless he really didn't study right, had a bad day and was practicing much higher, or didn't study much at all, a retake does not seem to matter. There are definitely situations where 2 points would make a big difference in admission, but not with the schools he'd want to get into and not with starting at a 157.


With a 4.0 GPA, a 163 can get you into the T14 (ED UVA you would have a shot). How could you not retake.


That is a 6 point jump - no small, statistically insignificant leap. Based on the retake data, about 20% of people who retook with a 154 improved at least 6 points. Can't tell on its face about the improvement from 157 to 163, and I don't have the time to estimate (standard deviation is 4.3 for anybody who cares to figure it out), but it's intuitively unlikely to be better than the 154. Additionally, about a third of the 157 retakes either did the same or did worse. People criticized him for his thinking he's a special snowflake earlier on how well he'd do in law school. Why are people so quick to criticize that but not the snowflake syndrome evident in retaking the LSAT?

Additionally, a 4.0/163 can get you into the T14. Is he a URM? In-state (Michigan/Virginia)? Legacy? The evidence on LSN does not support him taking your "can" seriously.


My stats:
LSAT: 157
GPA (ucla): 4.03 (possibly a 4.04 or 4.05 after I submit my winter/spring grades)
NON-URM (White)
Work: Louis Vuitton and Nordstrom (30 hours/week+ during school, and I worked at Louis Vuitton and then went to Nordy's)
LGBT student
Male
California Resident

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18422
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON VS. UC HASTINGS

Postby bk1 » Thu Jul 07, 2011 2:14 pm

uclabrandon wrote:I studied for two consecutive Summers... and I was averaging at like 153... the 157 was a surprising leap. However, it wasn't until two weeks before I took the lsat that I started rising in practice tests (mostly in the argument section. I was always near perfect in games since the beginning of studying). So, a 157 would probably be my average aty the time of the test because I fixed my problems that were landing me the 153's through fixing up my argument section. Also, if I started studying again now, I'd have to pick up the slack for not opening an lsat practice book from an lsat prep course since october. I would also have just a few months to study because I would be taking the october lsat again. So it really wouldnt be a whole year of studying, just a few months. If I skipped the october (or is it september this time?) and december tests, I would have more than a year to study, but then that would be like taking two years off.


I think most people will agree that 3 months can definitely be a long enough time to study and that a year is generally overkill. I'm not very good at diagnosing whether studying was done well or not (unless there is some glaring deficiency) so I'm really not the guy for that. I mean it is definitely possible that you studied hard/well and ended up with only a 157. What did you get on your first diagnostic test? How many PT's did you take?

For your original question, the answer is clearly Hastings. Hastings will cost you around 140k (180k-39k) whereas GW will cost you 225k. Hastings is still too expensive at that price imo but there is no way that GW is justifiable for 85k more. I think you need to accept that you will probably be working in CA if you came from Hastings with a small shot at NYC if you were towards the top of the class.

uclabrandon
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:50 am

Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON VS. UC HASTINGS

Postby uclabrandon » Thu Jul 07, 2011 2:18 pm

bk1 wrote:
uclabrandon wrote:I studied for two consecutive Summers... and I was averaging at like 153... the 157 was a surprising leap. However, it wasn't until two weeks before I took the lsat that I started rising in practice tests (mostly in the argument section. I was always near perfect in games since the beginning of studying). So, a 157 would probably be my average aty the time of the test because I fixed my problems that were landing me the 153's through fixing up my argument section. Also, if I started studying again now, I'd have to pick up the slack for not opening an lsat practice book from an lsat prep course since october. I would also have just a few months to study because I would be taking the october lsat again. So it really wouldnt be a whole year of studying, just a few months. If I skipped the october (or is it september this time?) and december tests, I would have more than a year to study, but then that would be like taking two years off.


I think most people will agree that 3 months can definitely be a long enough time to study and that a year is generally overkill. I'm not very good at diagnosing whether studying was done well or not (unless there is some glaring deficiency) so I'm really not the guy for that. I mean it is definitely possible that you studied hard/well and ended up with only a 157. What did you get on your first diagnostic test? How many PT's did you take?

For your original question, the answer is clearly Hastings. Hastings will cost you around 140k (180k-39k) whereas GW will cost you 225k. Hastings is still too expensive at that price imo but there is no way that GW is justifiable for 85k more. I think you need to accept that you will probably be working in CA if you came from Hastings with a small shot at NYC if you were towards the top of the class.


I really do appreciate your help and time. My original PT was a 146 (the test was administered in my lsat course), and that was after I picked up a princeton review book from barnes and noble and learned a few techniques, especially in games. So, I can probably assume I was a 142-143 cold test-taker if I never used any study material before taking my first PT. I ended at 157, so I did improve.

User avatar
jenesaislaw
Posts: 996
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON VS. UC HASTINGS

Postby jenesaislaw » Thu Jul 07, 2011 2:20 pm

And do you think that of the people who thought they could do better (thus they retook), the vast majority didn't do enough the second time too?

http://www.lsac.org/LSACResources/Data/ ... erData.pdf

That's a pretty big sample.


Also, as OP just pointed out, he improved 11 points from taking it cold. That's a great improvement.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18422
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON VS. UC HASTINGS

Postby bk1 » Thu Jul 07, 2011 2:28 pm

jenesaislaw wrote:And do you think that of the people who thought they could do better (thus they retook), the vast majority didn't do enough the second time too?


That's a good point and hadn't thought of it that way. To be honest while I think most first time takers probably studied inadequately, I'm not sure what I think about retakers. Speculating (like I have been about this entire retake thing), I would imagine that a lot of them were unhappy with their score and then signed up with an LSAT class to help them with a retake. I'm not sure whether these kids would actually fully commit to the class (because they might be the kind to believe that just taking the class is a magic panacea) or how helpful the class would be (considering Kaplan is the largest and having worked for them a bit I find their methods to be mediocre).

ETA: To be honest we can't really know without knowing more info about the applicant and how they studied. I do think two things are important: (1) that early in the cycle or prior to the application the person has almost nothing to lose since they can get their score back prior to deciding whether to apply/reapply, and (2) a lot of people aren't even open to retaking at first and I do think that this should always at least be a consideration until it is truly ruled out.

scammedhard
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON VS. UC HASTINGS

Postby scammedhard » Thu Jul 07, 2011 2:33 pm

jenesaislaw wrote:And do you think that of the people who thought they could do better (thus they retook), the vast majority didn't do enough the second time too?

http://www.lsac.org/LSACResources/Data/ ... erData.pdf

That's a pretty big sample.


Also, as OP just pointed out, he improved 11 points from taking it cold. That's a great improvement.

I think RETAKE can have multiple meanings. One of them, the one I would advise the OP, is to not go to law school until s/he can get a better deal, and in order to do that A HIGHER LSAT SCORE IS NECESSARY, therefore RETAKE. Retake is a polite way of saying "don't do it."

jspri
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:38 pm

Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON VS. UC HASTINGS

Postby jspri » Thu Jul 07, 2011 4:43 pm

We are in the exact same situation (scores, school choices, and money). I was planning on going to Hastings (deposit and all) but just got off the waitlist for GW PT two days ago. It looks like i'll be spending the next few more years in DC, even if that means more debt. Good luck with your decision, for me its hard to turn down either.

User avatar
Borhas
Posts: 4856
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON VS. UC HASTINGS

Postby Borhas » Thu Jul 07, 2011 6:14 pm

jenesaislaw wrote:And do you think that of the people who thought they could do better (thus they retook), the vast majority didn't do enough the second time too?

http://www.lsac.org/LSACResources/Data/ ... erData.pdf

That's a pretty big sample.


Also, as OP just pointed out, he improved 11 points from taking it cold. That's a great improvement.


That and taking a year out of your life to work at a dead end job and practice the LSAT sucks balls

it would also have a real financial cost (opportunity lost from an additional year of experience you'd have as an attorney at the same age) unless of course you end up jobless at the bottom of the class...but that could happen w/ or w/o retake.

Retaking a 157 w/ a 4.07 would be a net positive only w/ a gain of about 6+ points, because he still has a long way to go to get above the median LSAT of the schools he would be aiming for (e.g. UCLA, Berk, GT)... a 162 4.07 and a 157 4.07 are actually not that different as far as effect on law school's median numbers.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lahtso Nuggin, xn3345 and 5 guests