AAJD2B wrote:Yup, Future. This is why so many AA URMs on this forum are pushing hard and are advised to not settle for sub-165 LSAT scores.
Honest question: why is the bar set at 165 specifically? The data above seem to indicate pretty strong chances for scores even below that (161-164, with the bulk of the 162+ camp having a good shot at YHS) and I'm sure someone could argue for setting the bar above that (ex: 167 or 170+), so why is 165 the bar to push for?
I'm genuinely curious. Why not 163, 164 or 166? Why specifically 165? Is there some data backing that standard up that I haven't seen? Or is it just kind of arbitrary?
There is just too much at stake-- free rides, major $$$$$ and acceptances at a T3 -- to settle for less, especially if you know you can/have been scoring higher on practice tests.
The message I was trying to get across in the last shouting contest I engaged in here was that if the bolded does not apply (as it did not in my case), one should not feel any qualms about having a 161-164 type of score, assuming they've done at least one re-take, have a good GPA and have peaked as far as their prep/practice tests go.
That's the reasonable conclusion in my mind. You can feel free to disagree (I suspect most here still do), but I'm done arguing about it.