epgenius wrote: CookieDough wrote:
epgenius wrote:I'll stop you right there. I could not take the February LSAT last year. Believe it or not, some people can't afford to take a couple months off, multiple times a year, to study for the LSAT. I worked full time and faced losing my apartment/not being able to eat if I had taken the time necessary off to put all my effort towards studying like I did the first time around. If you're privileged enough to be able to go without a paycheck for long enough to ensure a better score, all power to you but it's not an option for everyone. And no, given I did well and am at a great school with a good scholarship, I don't regret forgoing being homeless to try for a higher score.
Having gone through the process at USC and UCLA, I know for a fact that OP would have gotten in last year, and I seriously doubt that it'll be much different this cycle. Last June, SC was giving 3.1-3.3/167s $120k as quickly as they could, and UCLA wasn't too far behind that. I know how difficult it can be to not be completely satisfied with your score but also to not have the ability to support yourself if you quit your job to study -- all for the non-guaranteeable chance of getting a higher score. People have unique situations and, given OP has explicitly expressed a desire not to retake, possibly for circumstances like mine last year, it is worth mentioning that he/she does have a good shot at coming out well at SC. I certainly hope OP does go to USC (with money)... it's a fantastic school, and I don't mind sharing outlines.
Ok a few things. One, you could have retaken had you sat out a cycle. You can always retake. You chose not to, and that's fine, but it was a possibility. Second, why does taking the LSAT mean not working and becoming homeless? There are plenty of people who work full time (and more) while studying, or work full time, raise kids and study. I agree that for some people the T-14 or bust mentality doesn't work, or can't work (if you cannot move due to family obligations for instance) but for every single person contemplating law school there needs to be an honest risk-reward analysis. T-14 simply gives you the best shot at a job, and retaking gives you a better chance at T-14.
ETA: scooped on homeless vs. LSAT
Don't presume what my life is like and I won't presume what yours is like. Suffice it to say I did consider it, but there were too many things working against me... time, money, likelihood of improvement, etc. I was proud of my score and don't think my getting a job is, or ever has been, solely contingent upon my going to a T14. There are a shitload of other factors that make me a far better candidate for many jobs than my numbers would lead one to believe, and I have been utilizing those factors. If the majority of TLS posters would quell their incessant broken recordness for just long enough to respond to what people are actually asking, all the while ceasing to presume what everyone's situation is, maybe applicants would get a broader spectrum of options and advice to take into consideration. Retaking is a damn good option if you want to/are in a position to improve your score, but it is by no means the only vehicle through which a good law school/job can be had.
Not disagreeing with you at all on the other factors, and I'm not sure how I'm presuming to know what your life is like. I simply pointed out that you made a choice to not retake, and it seems like that was the right choice for you. I was taking issue with your assertion that you absolutely could not retake, or that if you did you would end up homeless. And of course one can outperform their numbers. I only said it made it easier. FWIW I am from So Cal and applying to UCLA and USC, so I'm not T-14 or bust. BUT, if I had higher numbers, I would feel a lot better about my chances for my cycle.