Had a Full Ride at a T2

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby timbs4339 » Sun Jun 23, 2013 8:48 am

2.8 points can get you serious money at many schools. With everyone bitching about not wanting to work a crappy paid job for a year (OMG! a whole YEAR!), you have to add to that salary the expected $50K or more you can get on the retake.

User avatar
buddyt
Posts: 773
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 7:59 pm

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby buddyt » Sun Jun 23, 2013 2:46 pm

timbs4339 wrote:2.8 points can get you serious money at many schools. With everyone bitching about not wanting to work a crappy paid job for a year (OMG! a whole YEAR!), you have to add to that salary the expected $50K or more you can get on the retake.

This. I deferred a year, worked, studied, retook, and gained a measly 5 points (my PTs were showing a gain of more than 10, but such is life). Even with that modest increase in score, the increase in scholarships I got as a result of waiting and retaking effectively doubled my salary during my retake year. I think my retake study hours were valued at just under $300/hr. Before, I was going to my state flagship at nearly sticker. Now, I'm going to that same state flagship at nearly free.

Anyone who doesn't already have the option of HYS, T14 with some cash, or premier state school for free or nearly free, and has retakes available, is foolish not to do so.

User avatar
Monochromatic Oeuvre
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby Monochromatic Oeuvre » Sun Jun 23, 2013 4:11 pm

I'd be willing to go further. With the exception of those who a) Have been accepted to HYS or have a Hamilton/Ruby, or b) Have scored a 173 or higher, everyone should strongly consider a retake.

User avatar
rickgrimes69
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:56 am

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby rickgrimes69 » Sun Jun 23, 2013 5:29 pm

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:I'd be willing to go further. With the exception of those who a) Have been accepted to HYS or have a Hamilton/Ruby, or b) Have scored a 173 or higher, everyone should strongly consider a retake.


No offense, but this is ridiculous. Statements like this are why people think TLS is elitist. A full ride at MVPBDNCG isn't good enough for you?

User avatar
Monochromatic Oeuvre
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby Monochromatic Oeuvre » Sun Jun 23, 2013 5:42 pm

rickgrimes69 wrote:
Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:I'd be willing to go further. With the exception of those who a) Have been accepted to HYS or have a Hamilton/Ruby, or b) Have scored a 173 or higher, everyone should strongly consider a retake.


No offense, but this is ridiculous. Statements like this are why people think TLS is elitist. A full ride at MVPBDNCG isn't good enough for you?


If one of those schools is your first choice, then fine. But why not maximize your potential? A full ride at NU plus a couple points becomes a full ride at UChi.

It isn't about being "good enough", it's about being the best you can be and getting what you want.

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3402
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby ManoftheHour » Sun Jun 23, 2013 5:44 pm

sublime wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:
sublime wrote:
2.8 points is certainly a significant increase. And that is just an average.


How big of a difference is 3.60/165 from 3.60/162???



T1 -> T20? I would call that significant.


That's pretty good.

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby Br3v » Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:53 pm

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:I'd be willing to go further. With the exception of those who a) Have been accepted to HYS or have a Hamilton/Ruby, or b) Have scored a 173 or higher, everyone should strongly consider a retake.


No offense, but this is ridiculous. Statements like this are why people think TLS is elitist. A full ride at MVPBDNCG isn't good enough for you?


If one of those schools is your first choice, then fine. But why not maximize your potential? A full ride at NU plus a couple points becomes a full ride at UChi.

It isn't about being "good enough", it's about being the best you can be and getting what you want.


At the same time though, at least for me, studying for the LSAT affected my life in a non negligible way. It was studying every day for several hours. Parties/dinners/random events missed. If someone is near the top of their potential and don't want to go through the prep process again for a marginal benefit I can see where they are coming from.

User avatar
rickgrimes69
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:56 am

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby rickgrimes69 » Sun Jun 23, 2013 7:01 pm

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:I'd be willing to go further. With the exception of those who a) Have been accepted to HYS or have a Hamilton/Ruby, or b) Have scored a 173 or higher, everyone should strongly consider a retake.


No offense, but this is ridiculous. Statements like this are why people think TLS is elitist. A full ride at MVPBDNCG isn't good enough for you?


If one of those schools is your first choice, then fine. But why not maximize your potential? A full ride at NU plus a couple points becomes a full ride at UChi.

It isn't about being "good enough", it's about being the best you can be and getting what you want.


Ignoring for a moment your implication that everyone is capable of getting 173+ (didn't you say the LSAT is less learnable than the GMAT like two pages ago?), you're ignoring the differences in marginal return. Retaking a 165 to get into the T14, for example, is almost certainly worth the opportunity cost of a year because of the substantially better opportunities one receives, making the marginal return very high. Retaking a 170 with a full ride at NU on the table solely because you're hoping to get a Ruby isn't necessarily worth that same opportunity cost, since the return is more uncertain and more marginal (i.e., the difference in job opportunities between UChi and NU isn't nearly as pronounced as the difference between NU and, say, UIUC).

User avatar
Monochromatic Oeuvre
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby Monochromatic Oeuvre » Sun Jun 23, 2013 8:01 pm

rickgrimes69 wrote:
Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:I'd be willing to go further. With the exception of those who a) Have been accepted to HYS or have a Hamilton/Ruby, or b) Have scored a 173 or higher, everyone should strongly consider a retake.


No offense, but this is ridiculous. Statements like this are why people think TLS is elitist. A full ride at MVPBDNCG isn't good enough for you?


If one of those schools is your first choice, then fine. But why not maximize your potential? A full ride at NU plus a couple points becomes a full ride at UChi.

It isn't about being "good enough", it's about being the best you can be and getting what you want.


Ignoring for a moment your implication that everyone is capable of getting 173+ (didn't you say the LSAT is less learnable than the GMAT like two pages ago?), you're ignoring the differences in marginal return. Retaking a 165 to get into the T14, for example, is almost certainly worth the opportunity cost of a year because of the substantially better opportunities one receives, making the marginal return very high. Retaking a 170 with a full ride at NU on the table solely because you're hoping to get a Ruby isn't necessarily worth that same opportunity cost, since the return is more uncertain and more marginal (i.e., the difference in job opportunities between UChi and NU isn't nearly as pronounced as the difference between NU and, say, UIUC).


I didn't imply everyone is capable of getting 173. On the contrary, many people will not be able to crack 170. 173 is essentially my improvement cutoff because the marginal benefit for each point once you're above median at a school is significantly lower, and 173 is at or above median anywhere.

I don't necessarily like having these apples-to-orange comparisons between different schools, because reasonable people could disagree of whether an NU full ride is worth more than, say, $90k at UChi. But suppose hypothetically those are the choices of a 3.9/170 who would take UChi in that situation. If the applicant retakes for a 173 and gets a Ruby, then he/she has made $90,000 for ten hours a week of work for three months. Even at high-achieving levels, retaking can still provide an excellent rate of return.

As far as opportunity cost goes, what value are you placing on a year of your life? You still can work a full-time job while doing LSAT prep. Depending on how much you make, your retake year could easily earn you six figures. That's not to say everyone else MUST retake, or there is no other defensible option. Merely that the potential benefit exists for anyone whose outcome could possibly improve significantly.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby romothesavior » Sun Jun 23, 2013 8:59 pm

This thread has gone from bad to worse.

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby Br3v » Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:01 pm

romothesavior wrote:This thread has gone from bad to worse.


You have the technology

TA923
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 7:25 pm

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby TA923 » Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:08 pm

romothesavior wrote:This thread has gone from bad to worse.


The only thing worse than mono's posts is his name.

User avatar
CO2016YEAH
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:42 am

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby CO2016YEAH » Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:17 pm

romothesavior wrote:This thread has gone from bad to worse.


Funny, I thought the thread had taken a more positive and constructive character than most of this sort. Such discussions are often reduced to juvenile trolling absent of reason and rationality. The level of discussion ITT has taken on a level of diplomacy and civility that too often goes by the wayside, despite the dissenting opinions expressed. But I'm in an especially good mood today, so it could be just me. :)

User avatar
DaRascal
Posts: 1854
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:27 pm

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby DaRascal » Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:35 pm

.
Last edited by DaRascal on Mon May 05, 2014 2:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9645
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby jbagelboy » Sun Jun 23, 2013 10:17 pm

DaRascal wrote:
Br3v wrote:If someone is near the top of their potential and doesn't want to go through the prep process again for a marginal benefit I can see where they are coming from.


That's what I'm worried about. Didn't try for my retake but definitely was prepping hard last June.


No, thats not what Brev is getting at. Retaking and not trying is just stupid

User avatar
DaRascal
Posts: 1854
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:27 pm

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby DaRascal » Sun Jun 23, 2013 10:34 pm

.
Last edited by DaRascal on Mon May 05, 2014 2:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dolphine
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 12:38 am

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby Dolphine » Sun Jun 23, 2013 10:43 pm

If you didnt really prep for you retake you completely missed the point of "not caring how you did". Seriously I'm banging my head right now in how stupid that is.

The first time I was really nervous but the second time I "didn't really care" how I did despite a lengthy prep session. My reason was if I didn't do well I was just not gonna go to law school and pursue another career path. I did a lot better. That's "not caring how you did" not "oh im just gonna wing it whatever". You still need to prep. Just...I dunno what to say to that.

User avatar
DaRascal
Posts: 1854
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:27 pm

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby DaRascal » Sun Jun 23, 2013 10:50 pm

.
Last edited by DaRascal on Mon May 05, 2014 2:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DaRascal
Posts: 1854
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:27 pm

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby DaRascal » Sun Jun 23, 2013 10:52 pm

.
Last edited by DaRascal on Mon May 05, 2014 2:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby romothesavior » Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:33 am

CO2016YEAH wrote:I understand your funds have been reallocated. I'm sorry to hear that. As you know, the advice from all of the TLS geniuses tellin g you to avoid anything other than a t14 with money should be taken with large grains of salt.

Almost no one says that. Total straw man.

As you also likely have figured out, 45% employed in full time long term work at nine months does not equal 45% "becoming lawyers." The overwhelming majority of practicing attorneys did not go to t14 schools and the overwhelming majority of future lawyers will not be going to t14 schools. Yes, the stats tell a story, but the story is really only the first page of the book.

To be sure, I am a fellow 0L, like you, with aspirations to do well in law school and to become an attorney. However, I have spoken with numerous attorneys that graduated anywhere from 35 to a few years ago. The reality is most law grads struggle to fond work out of the gate and many take part time and temporary jobs to build a career. The economy is tough and we all want the best shot at getting a job. Yes, a solid shot at 160k out of the gate from HYS would be ideal; a very small percentage of lawyers have had this outcome, as I'm sure you are aware.

You do realize that the LST Employment score reflects how many people are employed in FT/LT JD-required jobs 9 months after graduation? It captures a huge chunk of the people you're talking about; the "struggling to find work out of the gate who find jobs after the bar and then go on to a successful career" type of person. Yes, I'm sure there are some people who are unemployed at the 9-month mark who still manage to find great jobs, but I think it's a reasonable assumption to conclude that most people's careers are DOA if they still don't have a lawyer job at 9 months. At some point you have to take a job to pay the bills.

The LST Employment score is, at least IMO, both over- and under-inclusive of "good outcomes." Sure, some people who aren't counted in that category 1) find work after that point and have good careers, or 2) decided to go a non-legal route and have a good job, but aren't counted in the LST score. At the same time, many people counted as "employed" by LST are in a pretty shit-tastic job (i.e., low-paying, little opportunity for advancement, very mundane work, poor exit opportunities, etc.)

It is easy to look at this with rose-colored glasses and put a positive spin on this data when you're a 0L. I did a lot of the same rationalizing when I was in your shoes. I don't mean to get all Boomery on you, but you'll see things very differently in a couple of years.

Do what you think is best for yourself, but realize the "retake or don't go" mantra is basically on loop on TLS, and the "common wisdom of TLS" is largely a group-think phenominon perpetuated by short term statistics and an incomplete story advanced in absence of the rest of the story.

And the anecdotal evidence that you rely on, which consists of a few attorneys who struggled out of the gate and went on to good careers is... somehow better?

Trust me, I've talked to many of the same types of people you have. A guy who went to work at one of the lawyer-mill insurance defense firms and went on to be a successful entrepreneur. A guy who started at one of the cheesy ambulance chaser PI-firms and now makes twice what any of his biglaw-bound buddies from law school make. An older guy who couldn't find a job and went solo out of the gate and has grown his practice into a very respectable firm. Recent grads who couldn't find work who stayed to get a free LLM and now have found solid work. Examples of these success stories abound.

But am I going to take on debt or waste three years of my life to go to a school that places 25-30% of their class at graduation and still has sub-50% placed in LT/FT JD-required jobs 9 months after graduation, all so I can roll the dice on the chance of turning out like one of those people? Nope. Especially given that retaking the LSAT for better job prospects is a heck of a lot easier than 1) getting top of the class grades and 2) struggling after graduation to make ends meet in the hopes of someday clawing your way up. There's a better alternative on the table.

Ultimately, despite tough stats and the saturated market in L.A. and Ca I see no reason to be ashamed of attending what is a long-standing institution with a reputation of producing noteworthy and successful talent.

This is meaningless drivel. You've been on TLS for too long to still be talking in law school brochure speak.

All the LSAT stuff, e.g. the average increase is very small.

You guys realize that many people (probably most, in my experience) slack on the LSAT and don't take it seriously? Many don't study at all (just take a few PTs and then go wing it), many others study with a half-assed prep schedule. Even many retakers fall into this trap. Stop focusing on the "average LSAT increase" of the general population and focus on yourself and your own ability to increase your score. I would be willing to bet that the average TLSer point increase on a retake is many times that of the average LSAT population. Why? Because people here actually study the right way, they take it damn seriously, and they go in with the right mental approach on test day.

Also, "only 2.8" points? Do you know how silly a statement like that is? Even assuming you just increased 3 points.. which again, I think with a proper study regimen and a proper approach, you can go way higher than that... but even with a 3 point increase, you could have a radically different cycle. I know someone who applied in my year who re-took and only got one more point, and they netted quite a bit more in scholarship money from the retake.

I've read and followed your story CO2016, and yours DaRascal. You guys could both benefit from a retake, and you both (especially DaRascal) sound like you could see a pretty meaningful score increase if you study right and study hard.

mono v. rickgrimes

Per usual, rickgrimes.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9645
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby jbagelboy » Mon Jun 24, 2013 12:25 pm

Damn. Back in the office on Monday and I've missed so many lawlz over the wkend on my fav law school forum

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:
mr.hands wrote:
Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote: On the MCAT, you can have relatively poor reasoning skills and still get a decent score by being the guy who burns the candle at both ends making sure he memorizes the structure and function of every possible thing. There is less of a "maximum" someone could potentially get on the MCAT because it's easier to learn more facts than gain the ability to reason more efficiently.


You've never taken an MCAT practice test have you? It's not just learning facts. Memorization isnt how you get a good score, that's a baseline that every test-taker has.

Also, dude, there's a reasoning section on the MCAT. These broad strokes that your drawing are silly. You have no clue what you're talking about

At least we all agree that the GMAT is a cake walk


I know there's reasoning on the MCAT. It is a combination of some of the logic-based skills covered by the LSAT and the requisite undergraduate hard science knowledge base. Arguing that the MCAT has more of one thing does not preclude the existence of the other.

I've taken an MCAT practice exam before. I have no training in biology, but the physics is relatively straightforward and probably par for the course of a 100-level UG physics exam.


Not to drag this part of the thread back up, but I will give one anecdote. This is to show that while measuring "difficulty" is very subjective, a 39 does not correlate to a 175 in terms of prep time and intellectual rigor for smart people.

My SO had a suitemate from freshmen year who took the LSAT same time I did as a senior. He took 1 PT offered by the school two weeks before the Oct exam and did ~10 logic games from a PR book I showed him one day in the library and scored a 178. Probably 4-5 hours of "prep" at most. He also dropped acid the week before the exam.

After taking an MCAT class, going through over 40 PTs and studying intensely for several months that spring, he took the MCAT and scored a 39. He's now at Hopkins med school.

A 39 is incomparably more difficult to obtain than a near perfect LSAT score.

User avatar
Samara
Posts: 3245
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby Samara » Mon Jun 24, 2013 12:35 pm

jbagelboy wrote:Damn. Back in the office on Monday and I've missed so many lawlz over the wkend on my fav law school forum

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:
mr.hands wrote:
Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote: On the MCAT, you can have relatively poor reasoning skills and still get a decent score by being the guy who burns the candle at both ends making sure he memorizes the structure and function of every possible thing. There is less of a "maximum" someone could potentially get on the MCAT because it's easier to learn more facts than gain the ability to reason more efficiently.


You've never taken an MCAT practice test have you? It's not just learning facts. Memorization isnt how you get a good score, that's a baseline that every test-taker has.

Also, dude, there's a reasoning section on the MCAT. These broad strokes that your drawing are silly. You have no clue what you're talking about

At least we all agree that the GMAT is a cake walk


I know there's reasoning on the MCAT. It is a combination of some of the logic-based skills covered by the LSAT and the requisite undergraduate hard science knowledge base. Arguing that the MCAT has more of one thing does not preclude the existence of the other.

I've taken an MCAT practice exam before. I have no training in biology, but the physics is relatively straightforward and probably par for the course of a 100-level UG physics exam.


Not to drag this part of the thread back up, but I will give one anecdote. This is to show that while measuring "difficulty" is very subjective, a 39 does not correlate to a 175 in terms of prep time and intellectual rigor for smart people.

My SO had a suitemate from freshmen year who took the LSAT same time I did as a senior. He took 1 PT offered by the school two weeks before the Oct exam and did ~10 logic games from a PR book I showed him one day in the library and scored a 178. Probably 4-5 hours of "prep" at most. He also dropped acid the week before the exam.

After taking an MCAT class, going through over 40 PTs and studying intensely for several months that spring, he took the MCAT and scored a 39. He's now at Hopkins med school.

A 39 is incomparably more difficult to obtain than a near perfect LSAT score.

That shows nothing. Maybe he could have scored a 39 without all that studying.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9645
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby jbagelboy » Mon Jun 24, 2013 12:44 pm

Samara wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:Damn. Back in the office on Monday and I've missed so many lawlz over the wkend on my fav law school forum

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:
mr.hands wrote:You've never taken an MCAT practice test have you? It's not just learning facts. Memorization isnt how you get a good score, that's a baseline that every test-taker has.

Also, dude, there's a reasoning section on the MCAT. These broad strokes that your drawing are silly. You have no clue what you're talking about

At least we all agree that the GMAT is a cake walk


I know there's reasoning on the MCAT. It is a combination of some of the logic-based skills covered by the LSAT and the requisite undergraduate hard science knowledge base. Arguing that the MCAT has more of one thing does not preclude the existence of the other.

I've taken an MCAT practice exam before. I have no training in biology, but the physics is relatively straightforward and probably par for the course of a 100-level UG physics exam.


Not to drag this part of the thread back up, but I will give one anecdote. This is to show that while measuring "difficulty" is very subjective, a 39 does not correlate to a 175 in terms of prep time and intellectual rigor for smart people.

My SO had a suitemate from freshmen year who took the LSAT same time I did as a senior. He took 1 PT offered by the school two weeks before the Oct exam and did ~10 logic games from a PR book I showed him one day in the library and scored a 178. Probably 4-5 hours of "prep" at most. He also dropped acid the week before the exam.

After taking an MCAT class, going through over 40 PTs and studying intensely for several months that spring, he took the MCAT and scored a 39. He's now at Hopkins med school.


That shows nothing. Maybe he could have scored a 39 without all that studying.


sure, of course. "Maybe". but as a reasonable dude, he probably PTd the MCAT and saw he would need the improvement. hence the studying.

Either way, as I already qualified, just an anecdote! does not serve as definitive proof

User avatar
Cobretti
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby Cobretti » Mon Jun 24, 2013 12:54 pm

I think we should be more focused on acid = lsat success. New conventional wisdom should be drop acid, retake, ED UVA

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9645
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Had a Full Ride at a T2

Postby jbagelboy » Mon Jun 24, 2013 1:05 pm

Cobretti wrote:I think we should be more focused on acid = lsat success. New conventional wisdom should be drop acid, retake, ED UVA


It was a long time ago so I don't remember which day that week, but def not the night before. I've never personally had an acid trip or done street E, only done MDMA. So I cannot attest to the street shit's impact several days down the road as far as test performance is concerned, but I know I don't have the raw intellectual firepower to do mollys and come down for a 4+ hr exam. Stimulants are a different ballgame tho, and lots of people snort vivance or addy's prior to the LSAT

The idea is that if you have a ridiculously high IQ and very strong reading/reasoning faculties, if you take a little time to understand how logic games work, you can score well on the LSAT. The same does not go for getting a 39 on the MCAT




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cooldog, ponderingmeerkat and 7 guests