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.