166....stuck in the middle? Forum

[candidate33]

After reading everything on this site related to the LSAT I now think I may have made a huge mistake by not retaking...I got a 166 on my first try, and was averaging only SLIGHTLY higher during practice, which made me think it wasn't work retaking. Now I'm realizing that even one point higher could have made a big difference. With a 166 I feel like I'm in an awkward position...I don't know whether to even bother applying to schools in the top 20. I guess my question is how much difference does one point make? If I'm not happy with my cycle I have no problem holding off a year and reapplying next cycle with (hopefully) more impressive numbers. I apologize if this is a repeat thread.

[top30man]

After reading everything on this site related to the LSAT I now think I may have made a huge mistake by not retaking...I got a 166 on my first try, and was averaging only SLIGHTLY higher during practice, which made me think it wasn't work retaking. Now I'm realizing that even one point higher could have made a big difference. With a 166 I feel like I'm in an awkward position...I don't know whether to even bother applying to schools in the top 20. I guess my question is how much difference does one point make? If I'm not happy with my cycle I have no problem holding off a year and reapplying next cycle with (hopefully) more impressive numbers. I apologize if this is a repeat thread.

I retook a 166. I didn't score my pt average but I upped myself to a 169. I think it's worth a retake. For me it's the difference between a top 30 and a t14. Even one point will help you significantly.

[candidate33]

I agree...I only wish I had stumbled across this site sooner. My undergrad didn't help me at all to prepare for law school applications. There were only TWO people who scored higher than me on the Oct. LSAT. My advisor actually looked shocked when I told her I was thinking of retaking it...I have a good GPA (3.72) and I'm only 22 so I don't really mind waiting a year. I'm starting to think I could be selling myself short by settling for a T-30 (basically all I applied to). If anyone else has some insight into this or insight into what to do with a year off/how to improve chances at T-14 I would love to hear.

[Shaggy]

Hey man I think that you should seriously consider retaking a 166 and going to a better ranked school. Your gpa is way too good to waste on a T-30 school when if you just increase to a 170, you will have a great shot at several schools in the T-14. I don't know what your studying schedule was like, but I hit a 179 after consistently taking practice tests after practice tests for my retake. Don't sell yourself short. And even if you don't increase, retaking will not hurt you too much.

If you haven't read this already, then here is the best advice you can find on retaking. Good luck.

[smokeylarue]

Retake bro. I went from 167 to 172.

[Justice Humper]

I do not think retaking is the best idea.

[soitgoes9]

Its a toss up was there more you could to get ready? But in general I am in favor of taking time off retake or not, you will gain perspective--or at least I did.

[omninode]

I do not think retaking is the best idea.

Agreed. If you cannot score significantly higher during practice, chances are you will not be able to do so on a retake. Save yourself the stress of another LSAT round and just work with the score you have.

[soitgoes9]

I do not think retaking is the best idea.

Agreed. If you cannot score significantly higher during practice, chances are you will not be able to do so on a retake. Save yourself the stress of another LSAT round and just work with the score you have.

True unless the OP could have studied more/better.

[candidate33]

Well I'm obviously still applying this cycle. All of my apps are submitted and I'm waiting to hear back. At this point, I just wondered if maybe I should retake in June just to see if I could do better. I didn't retake bc I was PT'ing around 167-169 and I got a 166. I also couldn't bring myself to do it all over again. However, I definitely could have studied harder...I took a Testmasters course (but missed a few classes and didn't do all the hw) and then took about 7 practice tests on my own, simulating real conditions and going over my answers carefully. I thought maybe if I took about 10 more practice tests leading up to the June LSAT I could improve my score by a couple points.

[candidate33]

Maybe I should add that my first diagnostic was a dreadful 153**edit

[BeerMaker]

After reading everything on this site related to the LSAT I now think I may have made a huge mistake by not retaking...I got a 166 on my first try, and was averaging only SLIGHTLY higher during practice, which made me think it wasn't work retaking. Now I'm realizing that even one point higher could have made a big difference. With a 166 I feel like I'm in an awkward position...I don't know whether to even bother applying to schools in the top 20. I guess my question is how much difference does one point make? If I'm not happy with my cycle I have no problem holding off a year and reapplying next cycle with (hopefully) more impressive numbers. I apologize if this is a repeat thread.

Don't sweat not retaking. Too many people rush to retake and try and prepare within a month or two. This is a bad idea for most people unless they have a real reason to believe they blew it on the test. I lot of people retake and then they're humbled by the poor score again. If you're simply at a 166, I would take a year off and study really hard for like 6 months. A 166 is a good score. You're obviously not retarded to get a score that good. This is truly a question only you can answer. If you're very motivated, you can improve to a 170. Most people are not that motivated and that's why they will tell you not to retake. You also hear Deans state that most applicants don't improve much from test to test. This is true. Most people don't study hard enough.

I would not hesitate to apply and play this cycle through. You might even have some fun throwing your apps at some reach schools and taking some risks (if you have the money).

[Gail]

After reading everything on this site related to the LSAT I now think I may have made a huge mistake by not retaking...I got a 166 on my first try, and was averaging only SLIGHTLY higher during practice, which made me think it wasn't work retaking. Now I'm realizing that even one point higher could have made a big difference. With a 166 I feel like I'm in an awkward position...I don't know whether to even bother applying to schools in the top 20. I guess my question is how much difference does one point make? If I'm not happy with my cycle I have no problem holding off a year and reapplying next cycle with (hopefully) more impressive numbers. I apologize if this is a repeat thread.

Don't sweat not retaking. Too many people rush to retake and try and prepare within a month or two. This is a bad idea for most people unless they have a real reason to believe they blew it on the test. I lot of people retake and then they're humbled by the poor score again. If you're simply at a 166, I would take a year off and study really hard for like 6 months. A 166 is a good score. You're obviously not retarded to get a score that good. This is truly a question only you can answer. If you're very motivated, you can improve to a 170. Most people are not that motivated and that's why they will tell you not to retake. You also hear Deans state that most applicants don't improve much from test to test. This is true. Most people don't study hard enough.

I would not hesitate to apply and play this cycle through. You might even have some fun throwing your apps at some reach schools and taking some risks (if you have the money).

Even if OP can only improve by 1 point, I suggest retaking it. 167 is such a huge jump from 166. Really. With a 166 you might as well just have a 164.

The average increase is like 2 points, right? 168 puts you in the top 20. 166 scratches the top 30.

[BeerMaker]

"With a 166 you might as well just have a 164."

Wrong. But I agree with everything else you said.

[burtonrideclub]

I made 166 twice then retook it and got a 171. I averaged around 170 during PT's FWIW. Worth a retake I think.

[candidate33]

I actually see your point about a 166 being closer to a 164 than to a 167. 166 puts me just below the median at some good schools that I would love to go to (GW, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt 2pts below, etc.) A 167/168 would give me a solid shot at these schools, and more...obviously its totally pointless to sit here and wish for a higher score haha but I think its interesting just how much of a jump there is between 165/166 and 167/168.

[candidate33]

Also thanks everyone for the advice..I'm glad I didnt rush to retake but it sounds like people do successfully achieve higher scores the second and even third time around..something to consider

[topper10s]

I'm not going to lie, I have a 166 and I'm very tempted to re-take. However, with my 166 and 3.7x (frustrating because that is basically median at all the schools I would actually consider attending), I have gotten in to USC, Loyola with a lot of money, Wisconsin, and William and Mary with a good amount of money. So to say a 166 barely scratches the top 30 is misleading, but damn I have really noticed that even a 167 would be way better for me.

[mrmojojak]

Fellow 166er checking in. I do feel like I'm stuck in limbo. I admit it's a little stressful not having a great shot at a lot of the top 20 schools but I don't think we're auto rejects either. But this score got me fee waivers to every school I wanted to apply to so I don't have much room to complain. I just tried to craft the best applications I could. I personally don't think I'll retake since RC is the section that always kills me. The sad thing is I read and write often, just slowly.

[ilovesf]

I had a 165, so slightly similar to you. When you are applying to the range of schools you're looking at, 2 or 3 points can make or break you and can dramatically change what kind of scholarship you might receive. It sounds like you didn't put tons of effort into studying, and you don't care if you wait another year to apply. If I were you, I'd retake and apply later. You can probably do better by taking more than 7 tests and really rigorously studying. It could really help out your cycle.

[candidate33]

I agree with everything said about retaking..I think if I were to retake I would have to be more motivated to study this time around. Easier said than done....Did any of you feel like you hit a plateau while studying? That was my problem, I enjoyed studying as long as my score kept improving..but at some point I just started getting the same score over and over. That may have had a teensy bit to do with why I only took 7 PTs after my course ended (bad excuse I know). Are all of you 166ers applying this cycle? Toppers that is good to hear esp about USC!

[ilovesf]

I agree with everything said about retaking..I think if I were to retake I would have to be more motivated to study this time around. Easier said than done....Did any of you feel like you hit a plateau while studying? That was my problem, I enjoyed studying as long as my score kept improving..but at some point I just started getting the same score over and over. That may have had a teensy bit to do with why I only took 7 PTs after my course ended (bad excuse I know). Are all of you 166ers applying this cycle? Toppers that is good to hear esp about USC!

I applied last cycle, I'm in school now. My GPA is way lower than yours, so I'm not in the same school range. I still wish I had retaken my 165. I was PTing in the 170's. My problem was 100% my nerves and anxiety, I totally freaked out on test day. On all of my PTs, I only got -1 on the LG, on test day I had -4 because I spazzed out and ran out of time.

[candidate33]

That's something I hear alot..people PTing in the low 170s and ending up in the mid 160s seems common. I never took a practice test where I hit 170. 169 was my highest. The more I hear about this the more committed I am to retaking June.

[Gail]

I actually see your point about a 166 being closer to a 164 than to a 167. 166 puts me just below the median at some good schools that I would love to go to (GW, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt 2pts below, etc.) A 167/168 would give me a solid shot at these schools, and more...obviously its totally pointless to sit here and wish for a higher score haha but I think its interesting just how much of a jump there is between 165/166 and 167/168.

I'm a fan of hyperbole. Obviously 166 isn't just as bad as a 164. I'm sure anyone that scored a 164 would give a finger and a toe to get a 166, but my point has validity.

It seems to go like this,

160.161...162....163.164..165.166.............................167...168..169.......170.171.....172....173.........


It wouldn't be so bad if not for the insane LSAT inflation in recent years. 166 won't even get me into Emory or Illinois now, I don't think. Really wish that there were at least some penalty for retaking, it would make things a lot fairer and probably a lot more indicative of actual ability to succeed in law school. If you score a 173 your first time, you're a 173. Score it your second time... You might be, but I have more doubts.

But hell... C'est la vie.

[Gail]

.