AA Male: 3.75, 153 Forum

[hephaestus]

OP:"Hello everyone, what are my chances at these schools, please don't talk about retaking"

EVERYONE: "LOL, whut's reading comprehension? RETAKE"

The correct answer is that OP should retake, whether or not thats what he wanted to hear. The market isn't great right now, even for those at T14s, and everyone should do what they can to maximize their chance at success while minimizing their debts.

[MoMettaMonk]

OP:"Hello everyone, what are my chances at these schools, please don't talk about retaking"

EVERYONE: "LOL, whut's reading comprehension? RETAKE"

let me finish the rest of that exchange for you:

OP: "Oh shit,

You're completely right....back to the books I go.

"

[ScottRiqui]

OP:"Hello everyone, what are my chances at these schools, please don't talk about retaking"

EVERYONE: "LOL, whut's reading comprehension? RETAKE"

We don't have a lot of patience for "tell me which of these bad options that I've already decided on is the best one" threads. If someone has a 3.75 and an LSAT score that's barely above the median for all takers after only one take, then he's going to get the advice he needs - to retake the LSAT until he has a score commensurate with his uGPA.

[PDaddy]

I would retake...prepare really well for six months to a year...improve your reading speed and comprehension and drill harder. I seriously doubt that you have done everything you can do to improve. Anyone capable of a 153 is capable of a 158 or even 160. That 5-7 point increase would mean a world of difference in your prospects for admission and money.

But let's assume for argument's sake that you won't retake...why isn't Howard on the list?

Tuition is, what, $24,000? Howard is surprisingly generous with aid for splitters (at Howard you aren't even a true splitter), and you are right near their median LSAT. Your GPA and softs should get you at least $15,000 in scholly money (I have read where people with lower GPA's have gotten that much) or maybe even $20-25K (the more likely scenario).

$15,000 at Howard (where about 20% of students get biglaw), would be the equivalent to a 75% ride at lower T14 - top-25, and you could get much more money than that because of your GPA.

Think about it, your worst case scenario could be a $10,000 tuition shortfall at a school whose big law prospects rival and arguably even exceed those in the top-25.

If you are against retaking, applying to Howard could be the solution to maximizing your access to biglaw and minimizing debt. You might also consider looking at Duke, Northwestern, Virginia, Berkeley, Texas, Notre Dame, GW, and Emory. Berkeley and Northwestern can be very splitter-friendly for URM's.

Other than that, Cornell, GULC, UCLA, and USC are the only schools I would consider here. I know a 3.9/145 from Morehouse who received 75% at GULC; so it can happen. Your prospects from those other schools on your list (BC, Temple, etc.) are potentially shiTTT.

Scratch off UC-Davis and Hastings, as well as the University of Washington. Their graduates aren't getting jobs, and they are extremely regional. Most URM's regret going to the UW, which rarely - if ever - admits an AA male who didn't play on its football team. Look it up, and you will see that nearly every AA male admitted there in recent years played football.

Instead of Davis or Hastings, apply to Irvine. Class sizes are still comparably small, people are getting jobs, and they are taking a truly holistic approach towards admitting students. Your GPA is above median, and you are a true splitter there. I would take irvine over Davis or hasting every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

That doesn't bode well for AA's and other URM's. The culture may have evolved with the new dean, but the UW administration has a reputation for being "cold" towards American-born blacks and other true URM's. Can't speak for Asians, but they seem to like it.

The other schools suck these days as well. I would give Fordham a shot...depending on $$$.

Try this list:

Berkeley, Virginia, Duke, Northwestern, Cornell, GULC, Texas, Vandy, UCLA, USC, GW, Emory, Notre Dame, Fordham, Irvine, and Howard.

You have much better prospects of admission at your original list of schools, but the job prospects suck!

Either apply to the list I gave you (essentially #9-25 minus Minnesota and WUSTL), or retake. And if you retake and get a 158+, apply to all T-14 plus the others I have listed.

[Nova]

The thing about Howard is that their scholarship stipulation is top 15%. That's so tttt

[applelover]

OP:"Hello everyone, what are my chances at these schools, please don't talk about retaking"

EVERYONE: "LOL, whut's reading comprehension? RETAKE"

THISSSS! He asked what were his chances and instead of poster giving him his chances, they all replied with the same thing. This is a forum that pressures you to retake your LSAT whether you desire to or not, instead of actually telling you your chances. I bet if I would've posted my stats everyone would have told me to retake as well.

[PDaddy]

The thing about Howard is that their scholarship stipulation is top 15%. That's so tttt

Oh...wasn't aware. So Howard is still scamming. They don't get to do that just because they are an HBCU. If that's the requirement we need to boycott Howard!

[applelover]

TLS... Just retake

[PDaddy]

OP:"Hello everyone, what are my chances at these schools, please don't talk about retaking"

EVERYONE: "LOL, whut's reading comprehension? RETAKE"

THISSSS! He asked what were his chances and instead of poster giving him his chances, they all replied with the same thing. This is a forum that pressures you to retake your LSAT whether you desire to or not, instead of actually telling you your chances. I bet if I would've posted my stats everyone would have told me to retake as well.

Yes...if you have a 4.0/179 you need to retake. Don't take any chances, because HYS might each admit you and give you $2,500 more.

[MoMettaMonk]

The thing about Howard is that their scholarship stipulation is top 15%. That's so tttt

The other thing about Howard is that their bar passage rates are so bad that it puts them at risk of losing their accreditation.

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/08/whats-mo ... w-schools/

[PDaddy]

The thing about Howard is that their scholarship stipulation is top 15%. That's so tttt

The other thing about Howard is that their bar passage rates are so bad that it puts them at risk of losing their accreditation.

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/08/whats-mo ... w-schools/

Wouldn't affect OP or anyone else admitted before the probation or loss of accreditation, but point well-taken.

Aside from the poor/risky stips, Howard is still a better option for OP than 75% of the schools on OP's list, especially if he is so adamantly against retaking.

I wonder if that can be negotiated...some schools will do that. One of my schools lowered my stip after I deferred for a year. They just wanted to make sure I enrolled. As you can see, I didn't. Now I have to retake the LSAT again because I have no score...sucks!

[Nova]

I bet if I would've posted my stats everyone would have told me to retake as well.

Well then you probably should

[MoMettaMonk]

The thing about Howard is that their scholarship stipulation is top 15%. That's so tttt

The other thing about Howard is that their bar passage rates are so bad that it puts them at risk of losing their accreditation.

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/08/whats-mo ... w-schools/

, especially if he is so adamantly against retaking.

This reminds me, why is this thread still so active? OP is long gone and said they decided to retake about 6 posts in.

[applelover]

Check the quote

[Nova]

I bet if I would've posted my stats everyone would have told me to retake as well.

Well then you probably should

No because I'm perfectly content with the schools I have gotten into already. So even if some random people on the internet didn't think my score was good enough, the admissions committees did.

Yeah, I said the same thing

Hasn't worked out quite like I thought it would.

[applelover]

Deleted

[ScottRiqui]

I bet if I would've posted my stats everyone would have told me to retake as well.

Well then you probably should

No because I'm perfectly content with the schools I have gotten into already. So even if some random people on the internet didn't think my score was good enough, the admissions committees did.

But it's not really the admissions committees you want to impress, is it? At least not in the long run. Cooley would have accepted you as long as you had a pulse and your financial aid check cleared; that doesn't mean going there would have been a good thing.

[applelover]

Deleted.. You can read the quotes.

[Nova]

No because I'm perfectly content with the schools I have gotten into already. So even if some random people on the internet didn't think my score was good enough, the admissions committees did.

Yeah, I said the same thing

Hasn't worked out quite like I thought it would.

I'm sorry to hear that. But if a score is the best I know I can do given my studying circumstances, it's pointless for me to retake.

Just sayin the retake chorus is generally right to not chance bad stats. Almost everyone can put themselves in a better position by retaking.

This posters chances should not be entertained with a 153. Attending law school with a 153 is a really bad move in almost every conceivable circumstance. As a urm with a good GPA, op has even more to gain than a normal applicant by retaking

[ScottRiqui]

In the immediate future , yes, I do care about an admissions committee's impression of me as they decide whether I am admitted into X law school. I only applied to schools in the t-20 and have been accepted into three in the t-14. So while in the opinion of many TLSers, I should have retaken in December because of my score, I believed I was a strong applicant and applied anyway.

If your scores got you into the schools that you wanted to apply to from the beginning, and those schools make sense from an employment standpoint, then I can't fault you for not retaking.

[applelover]

Deleted

[ScottRiqui]

Yea, but I have seen TLSers tell people with 160s and 165+s to retake even when an op said he/she was not interested in a retake and only wanted to know his/her chances.

Granted, there's a point where "retake, retake, retake" starts to make less sense. But when you're talking about a score that barely beats out half of the LSAT takers - a pool that includes mouth breathers, people who skimmed one prep book and took one PT, and people who took the LSAT on a whim with no prep whatsoever, that's not the place to plant your flag and call it good, either.

[Chriz]

I almost went to law school 2 years ago with a 160. I was told to retake. I have a 168 now. Retaking works and I will see just how worth it it was very soon.

[toshiroh]

Retaking works if you desire to retake. People are so quick to say "Just sit out this cycle and apply next cycle." Some people don't have that option, and while some of you may be able to devote endless time to study for the test, others have full-time jobs, kids, no help from parents, and barely anytime to devote to retaking. So what would be the point...

So when someone asks their chances, why not legit tell them what their chances are while also saying maybe they should retake. Everyone won't be in a T-14... T-20... even T-50s, and TLS is a very small community compared to scope of people who actually apply for Law School.

[Kool-Aid]

Retaking works if you desire to retake. People are so quick to say "Just sit out this cycle and apply next cycle." Some people don't have that option, and while some of you may be able to devote endless time to study for the test, others have full-time jobs, kids, no help from parents, and barely anytime to devote to retaking. So what would be the point...

So when someone asks their chances, why not legit tell them what their chances are while also saying maybe they should retake. Everyone won't be in a T-14... T-20... even T-50s, and TLS is a very small community compared to scope of people who actually apply for Law School.

Can I ask how that person would then have the time to devote to law school?

I get where you're coming from, but 9/10 times this site is doing a good service by telling someone to "retake". In the OP situation, it is the best advice we can give. I went back to stocking groceries after college, because I decided it would be in my best interest to retake. I understand bills have to be paid, but the kid needs to "retake".