Splitters Hoping for T6/T14-Highest LSAT Score You'd Retake?

[ConsideringLawSchool]

I can't see retaking the test at anything over a 170 really. I mean maybe I severely misunderstand how LSAT scoring works, but isn't it possible to actually get more questions right and get a same or even lower scaled score depending on other test takers' results? For example, I got a 173 and while I have a tested 160+ IQ which would suggest that I can do better than a 173, I'd be way too scared that I would end up having a bad day and dropping a few points or something, especially since it wouldn't only be dependent on my own performance.

The only way in which it is entirely dependent on your own performance is if you get a perfect score. For me anyway, I already know that I have a good score in the bank, and I think it's highly unlikely I'd drop. Therefore, why not just have fun with it--especially since I'm not sure I ever want to go to law school, so I don't have much to lose.

Do it. Do it. Tell us how it goes.

Great job on already amazing score.

You're tempting me to take it... Most of my friends are trying to get me not to, but then one got 180, so now I'm back to thinking I might retake for no particularly good reason.

[pollaclc]

Well, my cutoff was over 177.

Well, then you were foolish.

I'm a perfectionist, sadly.

You're a dumbfuck is what you are.

TCR

[Bauer24]

Obviously, it depends on the GPA.

A 3.4/170 has a very good chance of getting into at least one T14 while a 3.0/170 would probably not get into any T14..
I don't think I'm going to retake a 177. If an LSAT really correleates that well with success in law school- I'd just transfer to a better law school later on.

[agentzer0]

for the T6 this obviously depends on your gpa. Looking at LSN for CCN (since HYS are pretty much out), I'd propose this formula:

3.5/172 seems to be the lowest data point that gives you a good shot at at least one of CCN (though definetely not a lock). For every .1 GPA point lower add one LSAT point to figure out requisite numbers (roughly). Should give you a target score to match your gpa.

3.4/173
3.3/174
3.2/175
3.1/176
3.0/177
Sub 3/178+

[thsmthcrmnl]

You're a dumbfuck is what you are.

I don't think ConsideringLawSchool is too crazy. Assuming your scores on all tests are governed by a normal distribution around your average with a standard deviation of 2.6, which is LSAC's calculated error, then a person with a PT average of 178 has a 58% chance of doing better than a 177, a person with a 179 average has a 72% chance of doing better, and a person with a 179.5 average has a 78% chance of doing better.

I don't think I'd do it, but it's not insane. I'm planning on retaking if I get <=176.


. . . of course the giant assumption is that PT average is equivalent to test day average.

[MagicallyDelicious]

You're a dumbfuck is what you are.

I don't think ConsideringLawSchool is too crazy. Assuming your scores on all tests are governed by a normal distribution around your average with a standard deviation of 2.6, which is LSAC's calculated error, then a person with a PT average of 178 has a 58% chance of doing better than a 177, a person with a 179 average has a 72% chance of doing better, and a person with a 179.5 average has a 78% chance of doing better.

I don't think I'd do it, but it's not insane. I'm planning on retaking if I get <=176.


. . . of course the giant assumption is that PT average is equivalent to test day average.

Not only is that not a good assumption, but why spend time and money doing something that WON'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE apart from increasing your 0L bragging rights?

[09042014]

for the T6 this obviously depends on your gpa. Looking at LSN for CCN (since HYS are pretty much out), I'd propose this formula:

3.5/172 seems to be the lowest data point that gives you a good shot at at least one of CCN (though definetely not a lock). For every .1 GPA point lower add one LSAT point to figure out requisite numbers (roughly). Should give you a target score to match your gpa.

3.4/173
3.3/174
3.2/175
3.1/176
3.0/177
Sub 3/178+

But that isn't how it works. Chicago and Columbia rarely take below a 3.4, and NYU rarely below a 3.3. A couple years ago NYU took a 3.2/180, but they went to a school know for grade deflation and rigor. But they also took a 3.23/174. They also that year rejected a 3.0/180 and a bunch of 3.2ish/177s.

This leads me to believe that after the 75% LSAT, soft's will matter, but a perfect score is also good for bragging rights and is a decent soft. Hitting a 180 is hard because the game day pressure will make it unpredictable.

There were people on the Sept 09 waiting thread, who practiced at near 180, and did worse than my 176. Even after a retake they couldn't hit it.

Wasting your time trying to get the 180 is a bad choice. Even if you get it, NYU will average your score. IF you don't get it, you loook like a weirdo. And "I'm a perfectionist" doesn't fly with a 3.2 if you are able to get a 177 on the LSAT. You too smart for the 3.2 to be the best you can do.

Work on your application, apply early with an epic PS, LOR and a great APP and you'll have your best shot at NYU.

[jakeoooh]

If I'm not happy with my results at the end of this cycle I'll probably re-take with a 175. My PT average was ~178, and if I re-take I imagine I'll get a whole new batch of fee-waivers which will would justify the time/money of taking it again.

[thsmthcrmnl]

Not only is that not a good assumption, but why spend time and money doing something that WON'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE apart from increasing your 0L bragging rights?

I'm not sure if it's a bad assumption either. Obviously it is over the whole population of test-takers, but we're talking about the tiny tail end here. It wouldn't surprise me if there are people who can do just as well on the real thing, especially once the pressure of the first time is gone. And while any position over the 75th percentile probably doesn't matter that much, what about moving up from ~175 to 178+ for Yale and Harvard? That is a real difference, particularly for splitters. It does take more money to do this, but I don't really think it would take that much more time. It could, of course, if you wanted to study all over again, but I think once you're doing that well it's like riding a bike.

There's a psychological component to this too. That's not a defense of whether it's crazy, just something to consider. You practice, you hit 180 frequently, maybe a couple times you don't get any questions wrong at all. And then you get 4, 5, 6 points below that? People are going to be motivated by that, even if they read those caps of yours. It's an internal kind of 0L bragging; it's knowing you accomplished what you were capable of.

[ConsideringLawSchool]

for the T6 this obviously depends on your gpa. Looking at LSN for CCN (since HYS are pretty much out), I'd propose this formula:

3.5/172 seems to be the lowest data point that gives you a good shot at at least one of CCN (though definetely not a lock). For every .1 GPA point lower add one LSAT point to figure out requisite numbers (roughly). Should give you a target score to match your gpa.

3.4/173
3.3/174
3.2/175
3.1/176
3.0/177
Sub 3/178+

But that isn't how it works. Chicago and Columbia rarely take below a 3.4, and NYU rarely below a 3.3. A couple years ago NYU took a 3.2/180, but they went to a school know for grade deflation and rigor. But they also took a 3.23/174. They also that year rejected a 3.0/180 and a bunch of 3.2ish/177s.

This leads me to believe that after the 75% LSAT, soft's will matter, but a perfect score is also good for bragging rights and is a decent soft. Hitting a 180 is hard because the game day pressure will make it unpredictable.

There were people on the Sept 09 waiting thread, who practiced at near 180, and did worse than my 176. Even after a retake they couldn't hit it.

Wasting your time trying to get the 180 is a bad choice. Even if you get it, NYU will average your score. IF you don't get it, you loook like a weirdo. And "I'm a perfectionist" doesn't fly with a 3.2 if you are able to get a 177 on the LSAT. You too smart for the 3.2 to be the best you can do.

Work on your application, apply early with an epic PS, LOR and a great APP and you'll have your best shot at NYU.

During undergrad, I didn't care in the slightest about GPA (though I did care about school), and I think I did everything that one could possibly do to get a bad GPA:

[*]Took many more classes than required, just because they seemed cool
[*]Skipped all the intro classes that seemed "boring"
[*]Worked 60+ hours per week in a job that required lots of travel and missed classes, quizzes, etc.
[*]Routinely handed in papers late because I did not have time to do them (I remember one semester when I had 160+ pages of written work due over the course of a week and, thanks to my wonderful planning, had not started anything until that week)
[*]Only studied between 1-2:00 AM and 8:00 AM...

At least, I learned a ton, built a great resume, and had a fabulous time.

[09042014]

for the T6 this obviously depends on your gpa. Looking at LSN for CCN (since HYS are pretty much out), I'd propose this formula:

3.5/172 seems to be the lowest data point that gives you a good shot at at least one of CCN (though definetely not a lock). For every .1 GPA point lower add one LSAT point to figure out requisite numbers (roughly). Should give you a target score to match your gpa.

3.4/173
3.3/174
3.2/175
3.1/176
3.0/177
Sub 3/178+

But that isn't how it works. Chicago and Columbia rarely take below a 3.4, and NYU rarely below a 3.3. A couple years ago NYU took a 3.2/180, but they went to a school know for grade deflation and rigor. But they also took a 3.23/174. They also that year rejected a 3.0/180 and a bunch of 3.2ish/177s.

This leads me to believe that after the 75% LSAT, soft's will matter, but a perfect score is also good for bragging rights and is a decent soft. Hitting a 180 is hard because the game day pressure will make it unpredictable.

There were people on the Sept 09 waiting thread, who practiced at near 180, and did worse than my 176. Even after a retake they couldn't hit it.

Wasting your time trying to get the 180 is a bad choice. Even if you get it, NYU will average your score. IF you don't get it, you loook like a weirdo. And "I'm a perfectionist" doesn't fly with a 3.2 if you are able to get a 177 on the LSAT. You too smart for the 3.2 to be the best you can do.

Work on your application, apply early with an epic PS, LOR and a great APP and you'll have your best shot at NYU.

During undergrad, I didn't care in the slightest about GPA (though I did care about school), and I think I did everything that one could possibly do to get a bad GPA:

[*]Took many more classes than required, just because they seemed cool
[*]Skipped all the intro classes that seemed "boring"
[*]Worked 60+ hours per week in a job that required lots of travel and missed classes, quizzes, etc.
[*]Routinely handed in papers late because I did not have time to do them (I remember one semester when I had 160+ pages of written work due over the course of a week and, thanks to my wonderful planning, had not started anything until that week)
[*]Only studied between 1-2:00 AM and 8:00 AM...

At least, I learned a ton, built a great resume, and had a fabulous time.

I'm not judging you, just saying that "perfectionism" can't be an excuse for wanting the LSAT. You clearly aren't a perfectionist. That's not an insult. Perfectionism is unproductive.

[rayiner]

You're a dumbfuck is what you are.

I don't think ConsideringLawSchool is too crazy. Assuming your scores on all tests are governed by a normal distribution around your average with a standard deviation of 2.6, which is LSAC's calculated error, then a person with a PT average of 178 has a 58% chance of doing better than a 177, a person with a 179 average has a 72% chance of doing better, and a person with a 179.5 average has a 78% chance of doing better.

I don't think I'd do it, but it's not insane. I'm planning on retaking if I get <=176.


. . . of course the giant assumption is that PT average is equivalent to test day average.

The point is that even if you win, you loose. Nobody cares about the difference between 177-180.

It's an internal kind of 0L bragging; it's knowing you accomplished what you were capable of.

When you go from 177 to 179, you haven't accomplished anything. At all. The LSAT is nothing more than a means to an end. If you spend time and money to do something that doesn't change the end at all, you have literally accomplished less than nothing.

Spend the $120 and take your gf out to dinner to celebrate your 177 you giant mentally disabled douche.

[rayiner]

This leads me to believe that after the 75% LSAT, soft's will matter, but a perfect score is also good for bragging rights and is a decent soft. Hitting a 180 is hard because the game day pressure will make it unpredictable.

A 180 is not good for bragging rights (only douchebags brag about their LSAT score), nor is it a good soft (a 180/3.3 won't get you anywhere a 178/3.3 wouldn't have).

[09042014]

This leads me to believe that after the 75% LSAT, soft's will matter, but a perfect score is also good for bragging rights and is a decent soft. Hitting a 180 is hard because the game day pressure will make it unpredictable.

A 180 is not good for bragging rights (only douchebags brag about their LSAT score), nor is it a good soft (a 180/3.3 won't get you anywhere a 178/3.3 wouldn't have).

Do schools brag about having X number of perfect scorers? I assumed they did, but I guess not.

[rayiner]

This leads me to believe that after the 75% LSAT, soft's will matter, but a perfect score is also good for bragging rights and is a decent soft. Hitting a 180 is hard because the game day pressure will make it unpredictable.

A 180 is not good for bragging rights (only douchebags brag about their LSAT score), nor is it a good soft (a 180/3.3 won't get you anywhere a 178/3.3 wouldn't have).

Do schools brag about having X number of perfect scorers? I assumed they did, but I guess not.

Aside from Yale's publishing low/high GPA/LSAT, I've never seen a school bragging about that on their website/literature/etc. They will, however, brag about 3 members of their class being professional unicyclists or whatever. That should tell you something.

[ConsideringLawSchool]

for the T6 this obviously depends on your gpa. Looking at LSN for CCN (since HYS are pretty much out), I'd propose this formula:

3.5/172 seems to be the lowest data point that gives you a good shot at at least one of CCN (though definetely not a lock). For every .1 GPA point lower add one LSAT point to figure out requisite numbers (roughly). Should give you a target score to match your gpa.

3.4/173
3.3/174
3.2/175
3.1/176
3.0/177
Sub 3/178+

But that isn't how it works. Chicago and Columbia rarely take below a 3.4, and NYU rarely below a 3.3. A couple years ago NYU took a 3.2/180, but they went to a school know for grade deflation and rigor. But they also took a 3.23/174. They also that year rejected a 3.0/180 and a bunch of 3.2ish/177s.

This leads me to believe that after the 75% LSAT, soft's will matter, but a perfect score is also good for bragging rights and is a decent soft. Hitting a 180 is hard because the game day pressure will make it unpredictable.

There were people on the Sept 09 waiting thread, who practiced at near 180, and did worse than my 176. Even after a retake they couldn't hit it.

Wasting your time trying to get the 180 is a bad choice. Even if you get it, NYU will average your score. IF you don't get it, you loook like a weirdo. And "I'm a perfectionist" doesn't fly with a 3.2 if you are able to get a 177 on the LSAT. You too smart for the 3.2 to be the best you can do.

Work on your application, apply early with an epic PS, LOR and a great APP and you'll have your best shot at NYU.

During undergrad, I didn't care in the slightest about GPA (though I did care about school), and I think I did everything that one could possibly do to get a bad GPA:

[*]Took many more classes than required, just because they seemed cool
[*]Skipped all the intro classes that seemed "boring"
[*]Worked 60+ hours per week in a job that required lots of travel and missed classes, quizzes, etc.
[*]Routinely handed in papers late because I did not have time to do them (I remember one semester when I had 160+ pages of written work due over the course of a week and, thanks to my wonderful planning, had not started anything until that week)
[*]Only studied between 1-2:00 AM and 8:00 AM...

At least, I learned a ton, built a great resume, and had a fabulous time.

I'm not judging you, just saying that "perfectionism" can't be an excuse for wanting the LSAT. You clearly aren't a perfectionist. That's not an insult. Perfectionism is unproductive.

I'm a perfectionist when I try on something.

[FuManChusco]

2.6x GPA. T14 chances look abysmal, but I'd retake anything below a 173 to give myself at least a chance at 7-14. I'm just hoping I can steal an acceptance from a T30. Might have to head out to the midwest, AKA, the land of the splitters.

[vanwinkle]

2.6x GPA. T14 chances look abysmal, but I'd retake anything below a 173 to give myself at least a chance at 7-14. I'm just hoping I can steal an acceptance from a T30. Might have to head out to the midwest, AKA, the land of the splitters.

173 = in at WUSTL and UIUC.

[flyingpanda]

I pretty much did as well as I could have in my cycle. The T6 don't seem to take anyone with terrible GPAs, so I doubt retaking the LSAT would have made a huge different in my case.

[09042014]

2.6x GPA. T14 chances look abysmal, but I'd retake anything below a 173 to give myself at least a chance at 7-14. I'm just hoping I can steal an acceptance from a T30. Might have to head out to the midwest, AKA, the land of the splitters.

If you get a 173 and you have some work experience I highly recommend EDing at Northwestern, if you would pay sticker.

EDIT should say 171.

[Modian]

Where is the option for 180? How do you think HYS would view retaking, and scoring another 180? That'd be an interesting LSAT addendum.

[NayBoer]

2.6x GPA. T14 chances look abysmal, but I'd retake anything below a 173 to give myself at least a chance at 7-14. I'm just hoping I can steal an acceptance from a T30. Might have to head out to the midwest, AKA, the land of the splitters.

After 171 it's quickly diminishing returns. 171 and ED was enough for ultra-low GPA people to get into NU this cycle. It's also enough to all but guarantee multiple T25 acceptances.

[flyingpanda]

Where is the option for 180? How do you think HYS would view retaking, and scoring another 180? That'd be an interesting LSAT addendum.

I looked on the stats, in one year 2 people retook 180s. One person ended up scoring lower lol. Honestly, for HYS, it probably doesn't matter. They're not going to take splitters anyway.