Stop Telling People to Retake

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
UVA2B
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby UVA2B » Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:14 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:@ferrisjo - you overestimate a lot of people who ask for advice here, who don't actually know very much about the legal landscape and haven't actually lurked and gathered information before they post (that's fine, there's no quiz before you can post and I don't mean it as a criticism at all, but it colors how people here respond). Regardless, though, if someone doesn't demonstrate that they have actually thought carefully about the legal landscape there isn't actually any reason to assume they have. There's a reason why people want quite a lot of info before advising someone.

Re: Beatty - I took that to mean that the "average" LSAT taker is a statistical fiction, and that someone who finds TLS is already probably more informed/looking to be informed than the average. And also to ferrisjo, TLS isn't a random sample and so you can't say "TLS posters don't represent the average!"

(Also I don't understand why you're so optimistic about good outcomes from the schools you're considering yet so pessimistic about good outcomes from retaking the LSAT. Why do you think you'll beat the employment stats but not the LSAT stats?)


Exactly Nony. Those looking to help 0Ls are not generally prestige-stricken and incapable of seeing goals matching with costs. But most people looking to help want to see that some thought has gone into this decision. And that's important. Personally, I don't care if someone says "I can see myself litigating for corporate clients," or "I want to be a part of corporate deals," or "I want to prosecute/defend criminals." But even the vague idea of what they want is important.

Goals and cost will rule almost every one of these decisions. And that's the way it should be.

TL:DR; Nony is on point as always

User avatar
Ferrisjso
Comptroller General of Cloudcuckooland
Posts: 1701
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:40 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby Ferrisjso » Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:22 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:@ferrisjo - you overestimate a lot of people who ask for advice here, who don't actually know very much about the legal landscape and haven't actually lurked and gathered information before they post (that's fine, there's no quiz before you can post and I don't mean it as a criticism at all, but it colors how people here respond). Regardless, though, if someone doesn't demonstrate that they have actually thought carefully about the legal landscape there isn't actually any reason to assume they have. There's a reason why people want quite a lot of info before advising someone.

Re: Beatty - I took that to mean that the "average" LSAT taker is a statistical fiction, and that someone who finds TLS is already probably more informed/looking to be informed than the average. And also to ferrisjo, TLS isn't a random sample and so you can't say "TLS posters don't represent the average!"

(Also I don't understand why you're so optimistic about good outcomes from the schools you're considering yet so pessimistic about good outcomes from retaking the LSAT. Why do you think you'll beat the employment stats but not the LSAT stats?)


Aren't people innocent before proven guilty not the reverse? I'm not saying to assume they know all their stuff, we're OL's after all, I'm just saying not to assume they're idiots who need saving from themselves(and I get the impression this is how many posters are viewed, a few maybe accurately so).

What I meant by "TLS doesn't represent the average" is that there tends to be many many more high LSAT scores on here than in the general population. Only what, 3% of test takers, break 170, and what 8% or so break 165, yet I'd go as far as saying two thirds of regulars on this site are in that 8%(I have no numbers to back that up, but come on Moose you can't honestly believe it's that much lower). Same with score increases, there's going to be a ton more success stories on here than we typically see.

I've asked the reverse question many times "why are you so optimistic about the LSAT and so pessimistic about good outcomes from schools"?(the answer I've always gotten is that the LSAT's curve isn't forced). I'm equally optimistic about, different people have a better chance of LSAT success, different people have a better chance of doing well in the classroom. However I can see how it comes across as I'm more pessimistic about LSAT improvement because there's not a lot of people who dispute the odds of doing well enough in school to get certain outcomes. I don't think a retake is unhelpful(I took the LSAT thrice) I just think people on here give a false impression of how easy it is to have large improvements(all the wonderful success stories usually end up on here) and that it is typically not worth it to put off law school for a year or longer to keep rolling the dice(I know you disagree strongly on this, and we've had this conversation many times already).

User avatar
UVA2B
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby UVA2B » Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:40 am

Ferrisjso wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:@ferrisjo - you overestimate a lot of people who ask for advice here, who don't actually know very much about the legal landscape and haven't actually lurked and gathered information before they post (that's fine, there's no quiz before you can post and I don't mean it as a criticism at all, but it colors how people here respond). Regardless, though, if someone doesn't demonstrate that they have actually thought carefully about the legal landscape there isn't actually any reason to assume they have. There's a reason why people want quite a lot of info before advising someone.

Re: Beatty - I took that to mean that the "average" LSAT taker is a statistical fiction, and that someone who finds TLS is already probably more informed/looking to be informed than the average. And also to ferrisjo, TLS isn't a random sample and so you can't say "TLS posters don't represent the average!"

(Also I don't understand why you're so optimistic about good outcomes from the schools you're considering yet so pessimistic about good outcomes from retaking the LSAT. Why do you think you'll beat the employment stats but not the LSAT stats?)


Aren't people innocent before proven guilty not the reverse? I'm not saying to assume they know all their stuff, we're OL's after all, I'm just saying not to assume they're idiots who need saving from themselves(and I get the impression this is how many posters are viewed, a few maybe accurately so).

What I meant by "TLS doesn't represent the average" is that there tends to be many many more high LSAT scores on here than in the general population. Only what, 3% of test takers, break 170, and what 8% or so break 165, yet I'd go as far as saying two thirds of regulars on this site are in that 8%(I have no numbers to back that up, but come on Moose you can't honestly believe it's that much lower). Same with score increases, there's going to be a ton more success stories on here than we typically see.

I've asked the reverse question many times "why are you so optimistic about the LSAT and so pessimistic about good outcomes from schools"?(the answer I've always gotten is that the LSAT's curve isn't forced). I'm equally optimistic about, different people have a better chance of LSAT success, different people have a better chance of doing well in the classroom. However I can see how it comes across as I'm more pessimistic about LSAT improvement because there's not a lot of people who dispute the odds of doing well enough in school to get certain outcomes. I don't think a retake is unhelpful(I took the LSAT thrice) I just think people on here give a false impression of how easy it is to have large improvements(all the wonderful success stories usually end up on here) and that it is typically not worth it to put off law school for a year or longer to keep rolling the dice(I know you disagree strongly on this, and we've had this conversation many times already).



First point: you've done nothing to prove you actually know what you're talking about. As such, you likely need saving from yourself. But I digress. Besides that, convenient equivalence between criminal law standards and criminally uninformed.

Second: A disproportionate high LSAT range is here, but that's for a reason you've failed to capture: people realize better results are available if they study and retake the LSAT, and disproportionately it works out that way. You're assuming people come here with assumptions of improvement based on nothing, but reality is that people come here to advocate because a serious improvement is possible. With that improvement, improved results will happen. Some of the best LSAT study methods on the planet are here, and if diligently followed, serious improvements are possible.

Third: Stop trying to denounce the curve of the LSAT. It's a standardized test, and your arguments against it are entirely flimsy. The reason the curve differs from a forced curve of law school is that the same score on the LSAT will, historically speaking, be within 1-2 pts from test to test. That is not the case on a law school exam. You can get one or two more questions right on the LSAT and definitely improve your admissions and scholarship results. By contrast, you can write one or two more salient points on an exam in LS and get...the exact same score. It's just not the same, and your willful ignorance allows for it.

Fourth: You're actively destructive to people making sound financial decisions. You haven't been wrong in every thread on this forum, but it's pretty close. I actually believe you mean well, even if that intention is misguided. Give your two cents, but realize with deference that your two cents is largely bad advice for someone making a prudent financial decision for their future.

User avatar
mjb447
Posts: 1100
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:36 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby mjb447 » Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:45 am

People come here specifically to get law school admissions advice. By your tortured analogy, they're already "guilty" of being ignorant about whatever they're asking for advice on: we're generally just trying to give the most complete advice possible (which, for people who actually want to be practicing attorneys, means considering employment outcomes and debt above almost anything else - hence the TLS obsession with "prestige" that often correlates with better employment outcomes and retaking the LSAT to get there). Also, the primary risk of assuming that everyone needs to be told all their options is that someone hears the same advice a few times. The risk of assuming that everyone knows everything except the answer to specific question they ask is that they get incomplete and probably inaccurate advice.

And yes, different people have different chances of doing well in the classroom. Trouble is, only 10% of the people can be in the top 10% of the class, so the odds are generally against you being one of the ones who does well if top-of-the-class is your metric of success (and for employers, it is). Since that's not true of the LSAT, there's a reasonable basis to differentiate between the two in favor of the LSAT. (Also, once you're competing in the classroom, you're locked into a particular law school and have probably taken out at least one semester's worth of loans, which isn't nothing.)

User avatar
Johann
Posts: 17914
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 4:25 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby Johann » Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:49 am

Ferris maxed out his retakes so it sounds like y'all are In agreement. He retook. Now he's going to the best law school that maximizes his chances of achieving his goals.

User avatar
mjb447
Posts: 1100
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:36 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby mjb447 » Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:00 am

JohannDeMann wrote:Ferris maxed out his retakes so it sounds like y'all are In agreement. He retook. Now he's going to the best law school that maximizes his chances of achieving his goals.

Assuming, of course, that a law degree (any law degree) were relevant enough to his ultimately political ambitions to justify the cost and time spent...

User avatar
chargers21
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 10:54 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby chargers21 » Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 am

I'll add in my 2 cents. I scored in the 150's my first take by irresponsibly taking it when I shouldn't have. Then I retook under my own direction and scored 11 points higher and have since gotten into 4 t14s this cycle. Retaking was a great plan for me. I wish I would have found this site earlier because I wouldn't have wasted my first take. I came on here and got advice to retake in Feb for my 3rd take because I had nothing to lose since I was already in at schools I wanted to attend and it could help financials. Well, I bombed 1 section of the LSAT and my score did not improve. And it won't affect my current cycle. I actually wish I could take a 4th time without having to sit out 2 years. In my situation, retaking a 4th time probably does not make sense because I'd have to sit 2 years for a slight chance at improving and gaining maybe 50k max in sholarships to go to the same school I already plan on attending.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 27246
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:05 am

JohannDeMann wrote:Ferris maxed out his retakes so it sounds like y'all are In agreement. He retook. Now he's going to the best law school that maximizes his chances of achieving his goals.

That's fine and it's his choice. The school that maximizes his chances still may not give a good chance, but that's up to him. This isn't about his choice but the advice he often gives.

cavalier1138
Posts: 3758
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby cavalier1138 » Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:54 am

Ferrisjso wrote:Aren't people innocent before proven guilty not the reverse? I'm not saying to assume they know all their stuff, we're OL's after all, I'm just saying not to assume they're idiots who need saving from themselves(and I get the impression this is how many posters are viewed, a few maybe accurately so).

What I meant by "TLS doesn't represent the average" is that there tends to be many many more high LSAT scores on here than in the general population. Only what, 3% of test takers, break 170, and what 8% or so break 165, yet I'd go as far as saying two thirds of regulars on this site are in that 8%(I have no numbers to back that up, but come on Moose you can't honestly believe it's that much lower). Same with score increases, there's going to be a ton more success stories on here than we typically see.

I've asked the reverse question many times "why are you so optimistic about the LSAT and so pessimistic about good outcomes from schools"?(the answer I've always gotten is that the LSAT's curve isn't forced). I'm equally optimistic about, different people have a better chance of LSAT success, different people have a better chance of doing well in the classroom. However I can see how it comes across as I'm more pessimistic about LSAT improvement because there's not a lot of people who dispute the odds of doing well enough in school to get certain outcomes. I don't think a retake is unhelpful(I took the LSAT thrice) I just think people on here give a false impression of how easy it is to have large improvements(all the wonderful success stories usually end up on here) and that it is typically not worth it to put off law school for a year or longer to keep rolling the dice(I know you disagree strongly on this, and we've had this conversation many times already).


My favorite part of this is where you compare this board to a criminal proceeding. My second-favorite part is where you argue statistics without actually having any. And my third-favorite part is where you continue to do exceedingly complicated mental gymnastics to justify your poor choices.

User avatar
guynourmin
Posts: 3204
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:42 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby guynourmin » Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:20 am

cavalier1138 wrote:
Ferrisjso wrote:Aren't people innocent before proven guilty not the reverse? I'm not saying to assume they know all their stuff, we're OL's after all, I'm just saying not to assume they're idiots who need saving from themselves(and I get the impression this is how many posters are viewed, a few maybe accurately so).

What I meant by "TLS doesn't represent the average" is that there tends to be many many more high LSAT scores on here than in the general population. Only what, 3% of test takers, break 170, and what 8% or so break 165, yet I'd go as far as saying two thirds of regulars on this site are in that 8%(I have no numbers to back that up, but come on Moose you can't honestly believe it's that much lower). Same with score increases, there's going to be a ton more success stories on here than we typically see.

I've asked the reverse question many times "why are you so optimistic about the LSAT and so pessimistic about good outcomes from schools"?(the answer I've always gotten is that the LSAT's curve isn't forced). I'm equally optimistic about, different people have a better chance of LSAT success, different people have a better chance of doing well in the classroom. However I can see how it comes across as I'm more pessimistic about LSAT improvement because there's not a lot of people who dispute the odds of doing well enough in school to get certain outcomes. I don't think a retake is unhelpful(I took the LSAT thrice) I just think people on here give a false impression of how easy it is to have large improvements(all the wonderful success stories usually end up on here) and that it is typically not worth it to put off law school for a year or longer to keep rolling the dice(I know you disagree strongly on this, and we've had this conversation many times already).


My favorite part of this is where you compare this board to a criminal proceeding. My second-favorite part is where you argue statistics without actually having any. And my third-favorite part is where you continue to do exceedingly complicated mental gymnastics to justify your poor choices.


I like how he likens retaking the LSAT to random chance ("rolling the dice"). Like there aren't a ton of study guides, books, practice tests, forums, private tutors, etc to help you prepare. It's a learnable test not American Ninja warrior.

User avatar
Stylnator
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 4:26 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby Stylnator » Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:24 am

Ferrisjso wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:
I've asked the reverse question many times "why are you so optimistic about the LSAT and so pessimistic about good outcomes from schools"?(the answer I've always gotten is that the LSAT's curve isn't forced). I'm equally optimistic about, different people have a better chance of LSAT success, different people have a better chance of doing well in the classroom. However I can see how it comes across as I'm more pessimistic about LSAT improvement because there's not a lot of people who dispute the odds of doing well enough in school to get certain outcomes. I don't think a retake is unhelpful(I took the LSAT thrice) I just think people on here give a false impression of how easy it is to have large improvements(all the wonderful success stories usually end up on here) and that it is typically not worth it to put off law school for a year or longer to keep rolling the dice(I know you disagree strongly on this, and we've had this conversation many times already).



This times a million. Study 5 hours everyday and you'll get that 173+! Yeah you could live breathe and die by the LSAT and it still won't happen for some. I'm personally in the retake boat (I myself retook once) and I'm glad I did but I also think it isn't worth it to take time off doing something you absolutely hate if you know you can't get your score to the exceedingly high expectations of 173+. That's just my two cents in this conversation.

cavalier1138
Posts: 3758
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby cavalier1138 » Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:37 am

Stylnator wrote:
Ferrisjso wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:
I've asked the reverse question many times "why are you so optimistic about the LSAT and so pessimistic about good outcomes from schools"?(the answer I've always gotten is that the LSAT's curve isn't forced). I'm equally optimistic about, different people have a better chance of LSAT success, different people have a better chance of doing well in the classroom. However I can see how it comes across as I'm more pessimistic about LSAT improvement because there's not a lot of people who dispute the odds of doing well enough in school to get certain outcomes. I don't think a retake is unhelpful(I took the LSAT thrice) I just think people on here give a false impression of how easy it is to have large improvements(all the wonderful success stories usually end up on here) and that it is typically not worth it to put off law school for a year or longer to keep rolling the dice(I know you disagree strongly on this, and we've had this conversation many times already).



This times a million. Study 5 hours everyday and you'll get that 173+! Yeah you could live breathe and die by the LSAT and it still won't happen for some. I'm personally in the retake boat (I myself retook once) and I'm glad I did but I also think it isn't worth it to take time off doing something you absolutely hate if you know you can't get your score to the exceedingly high expectations of 173+. That's just my two cents in this conversation.


No one actually says that everyone is capable of scoring in the 170s. People who are told to retake for a 170+ are people who have already achieved high 160s scores and have goals that require a high-ranked school.

You can get a score up in the mid-to-high 160s and get a full ride to a T1 school, no problem. And yes, unless you have highly specific localized career goals or aren't taking on even an iota of debt for cost of living, you should not consider going to law school under other circumstances. I don't know why so many 0Ls haven't picked this up yet: there are too many law schools operating in the US. Going to a lower-ranked law school is like taking your life savings to Vegas. You may do great, but it's much more likely that you'll blow it and end up in a much worse position than if you'd never gone at all.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 27246
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:38 am

Stylnator wrote:
Ferrisjso wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:
I've asked the reverse question many times "why are you so optimistic about the LSAT and so pessimistic about good outcomes from schools"?(the answer I've always gotten is that the LSAT's curve isn't forced). I'm equally optimistic about, different people have a better chance of LSAT success, different people have a better chance of doing well in the classroom. However I can see how it comes across as I'm more pessimistic about LSAT improvement because there's not a lot of people who dispute the odds of doing well enough in school to get certain outcomes. I don't think a retake is unhelpful(I took the LSAT thrice) I just think people on here give a false impression of how easy it is to have large improvements(all the wonderful success stories usually end up on here) and that it is typically not worth it to put off law school for a year or longer to keep rolling the dice(I know you disagree strongly on this, and we've had this conversation many times already).



This times a million. Study 5 hours everyday and you'll get that 173+! Yeah you could live breathe and die by the LSAT and it still won't happen for some. I'm personally in the retake boat (I myself retook once) and I'm glad I did but I also think it isn't worth it to take time off doing something you absolutely hate if you know you can't get your score to the exceedingly high expectations of 173+. That's just my two cents in this conversation.

No one has set this as the standard though. (Scooped.)

User avatar
Stylnator
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 4:26 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby Stylnator » Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:47 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Stylnator wrote:
Ferrisjso wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:
I've asked the reverse question many times "why are you so optimistic about the LSAT and so pessimistic about good outcomes from schools"?(the answer I've always gotten is that the LSAT's curve isn't forced). I'm equally optimistic about, different people have a better chance of LSAT success, different people have a better chance of doing well in the classroom. However I can see how it comes across as I'm more pessimistic about LSAT improvement because there's not a lot of people who dispute the odds of doing well enough in school to get certain outcomes. I don't think a retake is unhelpful(I took the LSAT thrice) I just think people on here give a false impression of how easy it is to have large improvements(all the wonderful success stories usually end up on here) and that it is typically not worth it to put off law school for a year or longer to keep rolling the dice(I know you disagree strongly on this, and we've had this conversation many times already).



This times a million. Study 5 hours everyday and you'll get that 173+! Yeah you could live breathe and die by the LSAT and it still won't happen for some. I'm personally in the retake boat (I myself retook once) and I'm glad I did but I also think it isn't worth it to take time off doing something you absolutely hate if you know you can't get your score to the exceedingly high expectations of 173+. That's just my two cents in this conversation.

No one has set this as the standard though. (Scooped.)


You're correct that not one person has set this standard specifically. But I feel the overall tone of the community on this forum sets a standard much more in line with those unrealistic expectations and is probably, if I had to guess, why so many people IRL scoff at the users on TLS. I'm not saying that retaking is a bad idea at all. I'm just saying that Feris is not so crazy in the one part of his response that I quoted above.


cavalier1138 wrote:
Stylnator wrote:
Ferrisjso wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:
I've asked the reverse question many times "why are you so optimistic about the LSAT and so pessimistic about good outcomes from schools"?(the answer I've always gotten is that the LSAT's curve isn't forced). I'm equally optimistic about, different people have a better chance of LSAT success, different people have a better chance of doing well in the classroom. However I can see how it comes across as I'm more pessimistic about LSAT improvement because there's not a lot of people who dispute the odds of doing well enough in school to get certain outcomes. I don't think a retake is unhelpful(I took the LSAT thrice) I just think people on here give a false impression of how easy it is to have large improvements(all the wonderful success stories usually end up on here) and that it is typically not worth it to put off law school for a year or longer to keep rolling the dice(I know you disagree strongly on this, and we've had this conversation many times already).



This times a million. Study 5 hours everyday and you'll get that 173+! Yeah you could live breathe and die by the LSAT and it still won't happen for some. I'm personally in the retake boat (I myself retook once) and I'm glad I did but I also think it isn't worth it to take time off doing something you absolutely hate if you know you can't get your score to the exceedingly high expectations of 173+. That's just my two cents in this conversation.


No one actually says that everyone is capable of scoring in the 170s. People who are told to retake for a 170+ are people who have already achieved high 160s scores and have goals that require a high-ranked school.

You can get a score up in the mid-to-high 160s and get a full ride to a T1 school, no problem. And yes, unless you have highly specific localized career goals or aren't taking on even an iota of debt for cost of living, you should not consider going to law school under other circumstances. I don't know why so many 0Ls haven't picked this up yet: there are too many law schools operating in the US. Going to a lower-ranked law school is like taking your life savings to Vegas. You may do great, but it's much more likely that you'll blow it and end up in a much worse position than if you'd never gone at all.


I agree with this.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 27246
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:49 am

People should read the actual words, not the tone.

chicagoburger
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:34 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby chicagoburger » Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:39 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:People should read the actual words, not the tone.



And schools should read beyond numbers as they claim to.

After talking to people at the ASD/Tours and judging from my cycle, the following schools def went beyond numbers:

Iowa, OSU, Indiana, Washington & Lee

However, the following schools worship LSAT and care nothing else:
UIUC, WUSTL, Loyola Chicago, Hastings

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 27246
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:53 am

chicagoburger wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:People should read the actual words, not the tone.

And schools should read beyond numbers as they claim to.

After talking to people at the ASD/Tours and judging from my cycle, the following schools def went beyond numbers:

Iowa, OSU, Indiana, Washington & Lee

However, the following schools worship LSAT and care nothing else:
UIUC, WUSTL, Loyola Chicago, Hastings

Okay, first, totally non-responsive to my point and you need to stop shoehorning your obsession with how "unfair" law school admissions are into every conversation on this site and trying to make every unrelated discussion about that. Second, all law schools care about their USNWR ranking, the USNWR requires reporting LSAT scores, so all schools care about LSAT scores. You don't know who else applied to the schools in question, what their qualifications were, and what the total class was looking like when you applied, and admissions decisions are made in the context of an entire class, so you can't actually say from your own experience that certain schools do/don't look "beyond" the numbers.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 10162
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby jbagelboy » Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:10 am

Why did this go 17 pgs

Retake or don't go

User avatar
zot1
Posts: 4474
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:53 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby zot1 » Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:16 am

All this time and energy explaining why one shouldn't retake could have been better spent studying for a retake.

chicagoburger
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:34 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby chicagoburger » Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:35 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
chicagoburger wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:People should read the actual words, not the tone.

And schools should read beyond numbers as they claim to.

After talking to people at the ASD/Tours and judging from my cycle, the following schools def went beyond numbers:

Iowa, OSU, Indiana, Washington & Lee

However, the following schools worship LSAT and care nothing else:
UIUC, WUSTL, Loyola Chicago, Hastings

Okay, first, totally non-responsive to my point and you need to stop shoehorning your obsession with how "unfair" law school admissions are into every conversation on this site and trying to make every unrelated discussion about that. Second, all law schools care about their USNWR ranking, the USNWR requires reporting LSAT scores, so all schools care about LSAT scores. You don't know who else applied to the schools in question, what their qualifications were, and what the total class was looking like when you applied, and admissions decisions are made in the context of an entire class, so you can't actually say from your own experience that certain schools do/don't look "beyond" the numbers.


Of course I can speak from my own experience, which you don't have any idea of, other than the posts here. I also talked to people who attended ASD and they agreed that some of the schools being more holistic than others.
I've never said the admissions process is unfair at certain schools. It's plain stupid.

User avatar
zot1
Posts: 4474
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:53 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby zot1 » Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:40 am

Hmmm schools can definitely pick outstanding candidates who also have a great LSAT score. If you can pick an awesome person for your class but also one that would boost your ranking, why wouldn't you?

User avatar
zot1
Posts: 4474
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:53 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby zot1 » Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:43 am

By the way, if you're this bent out of shape because of schools only looking at your numbers (which I'm not saying that's all they do), you won't be too happy with legal employment where a lot of employers care mostly about your school, class ranking, and other prestige indicators.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 27246
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:45 am

chicagoburger wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:
chicagoburger wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:People should read the actual words, not the tone.

And schools should read beyond numbers as they claim to.

After talking to people at the ASD/Tours and judging from my cycle, the following schools def went beyond numbers:

Iowa, OSU, Indiana, Washington & Lee

However, the following schools worship LSAT and care nothing else:
UIUC, WUSTL, Loyola Chicago, Hastings

Okay, first, totally non-responsive to my point and you need to stop shoehorning your obsession with how "unfair" law school admissions are into every conversation on this site and trying to make every unrelated discussion about that. Second, all law schools care about their USNWR ranking, the USNWR requires reporting LSAT scores, so all schools care about LSAT scores. You don't know who else applied to the schools in question, what their qualifications were, and what the total class was looking like when you applied, and admissions decisions are made in the context of an entire class, so you can't actually say from your own experience that certain schools do/don't look "beyond" the numbers.


Of course I can speak from my own experience, which you don't have any idea of, other than the posts here. I also talked to people who attended ASD and they agreed that some of the schools being more holistic than others.
I've never said the admissions process is unfair at certain schools. It's plain stupid.

Sure, you can speak from your own experience, but it's limited information because none of you are inside the admissions office looking at the whole class, and you don't know why schools are actually choosing you, you're simply making guesses based on that limited information.

But really, why do you make every discussion on this site about why relying on the LSAT is stupid? That's not even what we were talking about, AT ALL.

User avatar
bwaldorf
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:28 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby bwaldorf » Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:47 am

chicagoburger wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:People should read the actual words, not the tone.



And schools should read beyond numbers as they claim to.

After talking to people at the ASD/Tours and judging from my cycle, the following schools def went beyond numbers:

Iowa, OSU, Indiana, Washington & Lee

However, the following schools worship LSAT and care nothing else:
UIUC, WUSTL, Loyola Chicago, Hastings


"Wash U sounds like a terrible option" - chicagoburger, who is strongly considering John Marshall.

User avatar
mjb447
Posts: 1100
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:36 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby mjb447 » Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:50 am

Not saying that standardized tests are supremely fair, especially to minority/underprivileged candidates, but there's a non-trivial argument that it's better for some less traditional candidates that a fairly learnable test on logic and reading comprehension is so transparently so important in the admissions process. Imagine if, when you were applying, everything was as immutable as your GPA is, or if schools were even more able to shop for people who 'looked the part.'




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ImGonnaTakeGRE and 3 guests