UVA2B wrote:Ferrisjso wrote:UVA2B wrote:Ferrisjso wrote:UVA2B wrote:Ferrisjso wrote:pleasesendhelp wrote:TBH I think it's supportive of TLS to encourage a retake. Everyone here truly believes you can do better, and if you do worse, they're pretty damn nice about it. Plus, aside from the curt "retake lol", most are considerate and explain why. Not everyone may know that a lower score may hurt you, or just how much one point means. You're basically saying it's not worth anyone's time to try to be that outlier who improves, that effort is futile because they will never be the top 20%. What kind of nonsense is that? Sounds a helluva lot like elitism to tell a 150 that they'll never be a 160.
Then why doesn't this same logic apply to being in the top 15, 20% of one's class? There are cases where retake is both legitimate and/or the correct advice but there are countless threads with people in wonderful situations who are being told to take a year off to retake. Retaking should be advice one can give but it should not be the default. Also if one asks a specific question comparing schools they ought to answer that question.
The reason I've started using the term "T18" is because I've come to the impression the consensus on TLS is that only 18 schools are worth taking out debt for(and in many people think even less). You either get into a T14 with $ or go to UT,Vandy, UCLA or WUSTL for $$ or a regional(mostly in T1 for for free or close to it). There was a thread I was reading that basically was talking about USC as first among "trap schools". The result of this is that kids in perfectly fine situations are told to retake to shoot for these "acceptable" scenario's or the T14 with $. Retaking CAN be good advice and people in the 140's should retake, heck I'm fine with people telling me to retake(I have a 156 I've taken the test three times to max my potential and it just didn't work out and I'm not willing to wait a year or two for a fourth time) but when we're telling people in the 160's(and at least decent GPA's) to take a year off for the chance of something a little better then the great scenario they only have, I think that's a mistake and you've went a bridge to far. I'm telling people to wait a year and reapply/retake now though not because I think they need to get a better score but because it's to late in the admissions season to get serious money(there is some serious evidence of this in the acceptance threads I've been on) and if it isn't you would have done better next year with the same stats. That's worth taking a year off for(though I'm curious why these people took so long to apply) but the chance(not a high one) of a marginally better outcome? No I don't think that's worth it.
Now you're not understanding the intricacies of a forced curve vs. a predictive curve. The LSAT you take has no bearing on the scores of others. Your prep, your study, and your intelligence alone determine your score on the LSAT. Not everyone can get a 180, and some may not be capable of a 170, but as the person's LSAT score gets closer to those thresholds, the more likely it is they can improve on that, and by extension improve their outcome drastically.
Law school grading is entirely different. You could get a "100%" on the exam and get the same mediocre grade as everyone else if everyone else gets that "100%" because the test was just easier. Law school exams aren't graded that easily, and they aren't as objective as this example, but that's the very reason why no one can predict how well they'll do in their class. That's why the incredibly wise advice on TLS for law students is to expect median grades wherever you go, regardless of USNWR rank. That's probably not entirely the case, but it's a much safer assumption than, "I'm at this school's 75% LSAT and GPA, I'm destined for at least top 25%!" It just doesn't follow.
In theory what you're saying about the forced and uforced curve is true(everyone can get a 180 on the LSAT and not everyone can get an A in LS) however in practice there is very little difference because the 50th percentile will be 150-152 and so forth so it has very little practical difference, even though what you're saying is true of course. The curve isn't forced but it might as well be because the same percentage of people are going to score above a certain point, same as a forced curve. Doing well in LS will still be easier for some than cracking 160,170 on the LSAT, although that's a two way street of course. I'm sure we can find examples of poor LSAT's who did great in law school and people who did great on the LSAT and ended up in the back of their class. The forced curve versus unforced curve argument while true, is immaterial here.
So very wrong. It's not immaterial to say people continue to score poorly on the LSAT, causing the predictive curve based on the previous three administrations (I think this is the basis, but I'm spitballing a bit) to move very little. A predictive curve has zero predictive value of how you, as an individual test taker, can and will do on the test. With enough work, using the right materials, with at least a minimum threshold of ability to learn the test, can move you up way higher on the totem poll of the LSAT. Nothing about the forced curve of law school allows for the same sort of movement and upward mobility in the curve.
But sure, keep arguing that because there continue to be people scoring poorly is predictive of whether you can improve on the test.
I realize I'll never convince you otherwise, so that's where I'll leave it.
Someone posted stats earlier showing small improvement for second time takers and small decline for third time test takers(all of this being within 2-3 points). Again what you're saying is possible in theory but is simply not true in practice.
That data proves surprisingly little, because it does nothing to prove whether second time takers were any more well-prepared than the first time, so that std of dev. irregularity seems understandable. LSAC isn't collecting level of preparation.
Until you can show that there was more difference between first time and second time takers in how they prepared, all you've proven is people likely aren't adequately preparing for the test. Nothing revelatory to see there.
Oh no, more of the whole "if only they'd worked harder and had some personal responsibility" BS. So every single year the same or similar amounts of people study properly and the same or similar amounts of people don't adequately prepare? I guess if one year everyone prepared the way people on here though was fine LSAT medians would fly. How about just accepting the reality that the LSAC designs the test so that people(typically) don't improve very much and accepting the information and so a certain percentage get a certain score almost to a point?