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.
GPA (ucla): 4.03 (possibly a 4.04 or 4.05 after I submit my winter/spring grades)
Work: Louis Vuitton and Nordstrom (30 hours/week+ during school, and I worked at Louis Vuitton and then went to Nordy's)