Stop Telling People to Retake

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
Ferrisjso

Gold
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:40 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby Ferrisjso » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:30 pm

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?

User avatar
Ferrisjso

Gold
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:40 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby Ferrisjso » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:33 pm

JohannDeMann wrote:Yeah just because everyone can get a 180 and not everyone can get an A doesn't mean the curves are different. They play out practically the same every time: people in the top 5% get top 5%. 100 people sample size (lecture class size) is pretty legit and thousands of lsat takers is obviously bulletproof.


Exactly! Same way polling works once you get a certain amount of data it's almost certainly accurate within a few points.
Last edited by Ferrisjso on Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
lymenheimer

Gold
Posts: 3979
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:54 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby lymenheimer » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:33 pm

Can we get a sticky, so that we don't have to keep doing this year after year (~3 months after ~3 months)?

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29306
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:38 pm

You're arguing on faith, not evidence. Thousands of people take the LSAT every year. Many of those people don't understand how the test works or adequately prepare - like your friend with the 137. S/he'd have done much better if they'd studied and retaken, right?

User avatar
TFL77

New
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:42 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby TFL77 » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:40 pm

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.


LSAC does have statistics on self-reported data asking how people prepared for the test, and the source for the stats on minimal LSAT score improvement on a second take and mild drop on a third take are found here: http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/resea ... r/tr-14-01

I do agree that the data doesn't really allow big conclusions to be drawn because we don't know how the people prepared, but I'm just chiming in on you two's debate in passing. I haven't followed each side's main points.

User avatar
UVA2B

Gold
Posts: 3466
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby UVA2B » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:43 pm

I'm not saying in any way that a given person didn't study enough/is capable of scoring X/180 on the exam. This isn't some bootstraps bullshit. But there are a few truths about this exam that has been proven both in this forum and beyond it.

1. The test is learnable. For some, that means going from 149-161. For others, from 154-175. Others it's 157-163. But it is learnable, and the differences in the outcomes from this learning is worth measuredly more than hitting the trail with the original score.
2. There are typically ~100k administrations of the LSAT every year (again, spitballing because I don't want to look up the hard numbers). Do you really mean to suggest the average test taker in a given administration has seriously drilled the exam and prepped in a way to actually see a difference in their score? Guess we'll probably have to impassably disagree on that one, because of those I know from my UG who prepped for the exam, it was decidedly less than what would be necessary to see improvement, and these are also very smart people. It's anecdata, to be sure, but my point is if smart people who intend on going to law school aren't preparing for the exam, wouldn't that be indicative after awhile (to include your very intelligent friend who scored a 137) that people generally aren't doing enough to prepare for it? Or is everyone just as wise as you are that outcomes are significantly rosier than actual employment data and admissions data suggests?

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29306
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:44 pm

I don't understand how this data helps ferrisjo when it says

Test takers who repeated the LSAT gained an average of 2.8 points the second time they took the test and 2.2 points the third time they took the test (compared to the second time).


Those kinds of gains can make a big difference to an application, and an average includes people whose increases were greater.

User avatar
Ferrisjso

Gold
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:40 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby Ferrisjso » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:46 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I don't understand how this data helps ferrisjo when it says

Test takers who repeated the LSAT gained an average of 2.8 points the second time they took the test and 2.2 points the third time they took the test (compared to the second time).


Those kinds of gains can make a big difference to an application, and an average includes people whose increases were greater.


That's the average half will do better than that, half will do worse. Doesn't really change the unlikelihood of these drastic score jumps people advertise. That's also different data then the one I cited how do we know these are the right numbers and the others aren't(not that it really matters the difference isn't huge)? Also TFL said the LSAC data showed a decline for the third time?

User avatar
BlendedUnicorn

Platinum
Posts: 9319
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 2:40 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby BlendedUnicorn » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:49 pm

You almost understand what an average (mean) is.

User avatar
TFL77

New
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:42 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby TFL77 » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:51 pm

Ferrisjso wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:I don't understand how this data helps ferrisjo when it says

Test takers who repeated the LSAT gained an average of 2.8 points the second time they took the test and 2.2 points the third time they took the test (compared to the second time).


Those kinds of gains can make a big difference to an application, and an average includes people whose increases were greater.


That's the average half will do better than that, half will do worse. Doesn't really change the unlikelihood of these drastic score jumps people advertise. That's also different data then the one I cited how do we know these are the right numbers and the others aren't(not that it really matters the difference isn't huge)? Also TFL said the LSAC data showed a decline for the third time?


Isn't this the data you cited: "Across testing years, mean LSAT scores were highest for second-time test takers (151.7), followed closely by first-time (151.0) and third-time (149.4) test takers."? That is right from LSAC's executive summary on the link I pasted above.

User avatar
Ferrisjso

Gold
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:40 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby Ferrisjso » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:52 pm

UVA2B wrote:I'm not saying in any way that a given person didn't study enough/is capable of scoring X/180 on the exam. This isn't some bootstraps bullshit. But there are a few truths about this exam that has been proven both in this forum and beyond it.

1. The test is learnable. For some, that means going from 149-161. For others, from 154-175. Others it's 157-163. But it is learnable, and the differences in the outcomes from this learning is worth measuredly more than hitting the trail with the original score.
2. There are typically ~100k administrations of the LSAT every year (again, spitballing because I don't want to look up the hard numbers). Do you really mean to suggest the average test taker in a given administration has seriously drilled the exam and prepped in a way to actually see a difference in their score? Guess we'll probably have to impassably disagree on that one, because of those I know from my UG who prepped for the exam, it was decidedly less than what would be necessary to see improvement, and these are also very smart people. It's anecdata, to be sure, but my point is if smart people who intend on going to law school aren't preparing for the exam, wouldn't that be indicative after awhile (to include your very intelligent friend who scored a 137) that people generally aren't doing enough to prepare for it? Or is everyone just as wise as you are that outcomes are significantly rosier than actual employment data and admissions data suggests?


Again what you're saying is true in theory but isn't in practice. You'd think using this logic you'd get years where students prepare considerably better than others and the LSAT average would drastically increase? It doesn't though because LSAC has this down to a science. At the end of the day for every kid with a 137 who doesn't "study properly" who does, there is a kid with 162 who did study properly and "doesn't" so it cancels each other out and every year the average doesn't change at all. That's a two way street, basically the same percentage of people succeed with a small margin of error.

User avatar
Ferrisjso

Gold
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:40 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby Ferrisjso » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:54 pm

TFL77 wrote:
Ferrisjso wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:I don't understand how this data helps ferrisjo when it says

Test takers who repeated the LSAT gained an average of 2.8 points the second time they took the test and 2.2 points the third time they took the test (compared to the second time).


Those kinds of gains can make a big difference to an application, and an average includes people whose increases were greater.


That's the average half will do better than that, half will do worse. Doesn't really change the unlikelihood of these drastic score jumps people advertise. That's also different data then the one I cited how do we know these are the right numbers and the others aren't(not that it really matters the difference isn't huge)? Also TFL said the LSAC data showed a decline for the third time?


Isn't this the data you cited: "Across testing years, mean LSAT scores were highest for second-time test takers (151.7), followed closely by first-time (151.0) and third-time (149.4) test takers."? That is right from LSAC's executive summary on the link I pasted above.


Yeah Andy posted that the info said students retaking the second time increased 2.8 points while students retaking the third time increased 2.2 so I thought maybe there was a discrepancy. Yes that was the data I cited.

User avatar
TFL77

New
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:42 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby TFL77 » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:55 pm

Ferrisjso wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:I don't understand how this data helps ferrisjo when it says

Test takers who repeated the LSAT gained an average of 2.8 points the second time they took the test and 2.2 points the third time they took the test (compared to the second time).


Those kinds of gains can make a big difference to an application, and an average includes people whose increases were greater.


That's the average half will do better than that, half will do worse. Doesn't really change the unlikelihood of these drastic score jumps people advertise. That's also different data then the one I cited how do we know these are the right numbers and the others aren't(not that it really matters the difference isn't huge)? Also TFL said the LSAC data showed a decline for the third time?


I do believe that the test is learnable and that people should be getting higher scores after retaking. We could draw all kinds of conclusions from the data showing scores being lower on the third take. We might, for example, infer that because the third take is the last chance to score well that the test taker would feel more pressure to perform, ending up doing worse in the end. But we could draw a lot of other conclusions too.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29306
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:56 pm

Ferrisjso wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:I don't understand how this data helps ferrisjo when it says

Test takers who repeated the LSAT gained an average of 2.8 points the second time they took the test and 2.2 points the third time they took the test (compared to the second time).


Those kinds of gains can make a big difference to an application, and an average includes people whose increases were greater.


That's the average half will do better than that, half will do worse. Doesn't really change the unlikelihood of these drastic score jumps people advertise. That's also different data then the one I cited how do we know these are the right numbers and the others aren't(not that it really matters the difference isn't huge)? Also TFL said the LSAC data showed a decline for the third time?

Oh dear.
1) Dude, I'm terrible at math but I'm pretty sure you're thinking of the median, not the average. The average doesn't mean that half did better than that - you could have a large number of moderate-to-high increases and then a few really serious decreases dragging the average down.
2) Even if that *was* what average means, that's pretty decent odds of doing better.
3) No one here has said you have to go up 10 points to receive a benefit - people have consistently said that 1-2 pts could make a big difference.
4) What *is* the source for your numbers besides quoting people who post here whose numbers fit your narrative better? I'm quoting the same thing that was linked earlier, from LSAC itself. It says repeaters on average increased their scores.

User avatar
UVA2B

Gold
Posts: 3466
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby UVA2B » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:57 pm

Ferrisjso wrote:
UVA2B wrote:I'm not saying in any way that a given person didn't study enough/is capable of scoring X/180 on the exam. This isn't some bootstraps bullshit. But there are a few truths about this exam that has been proven both in this forum and beyond it.

1. The test is learnable. For some, that means going from 149-161. For others, from 154-175. Others it's 157-163. But it is learnable, and the differences in the outcomes from this learning is worth measuredly more than hitting the trail with the original score.
2. There are typically ~100k administrations of the LSAT every year (again, spitballing because I don't want to look up the hard numbers). Do you really mean to suggest the average test taker in a given administration has seriously drilled the exam and prepped in a way to actually see a difference in their score? Guess we'll probably have to impassably disagree on that one, because of those I know from my UG who prepped for the exam, it was decidedly less than what would be necessary to see improvement, and these are also very smart people. It's anecdata, to be sure, but my point is if smart people who intend on going to law school aren't preparing for the exam, wouldn't that be indicative after awhile (to include your very intelligent friend who scored a 137) that people generally aren't doing enough to prepare for it? Or is everyone just as wise as you are that outcomes are significantly rosier than actual employment data and admissions data suggests?


Again what you're saying is true in theory but isn't in practice. You'd think using this logic you'd get years where students prepare considerably better than others and the LSAT average would drastically increase? It doesn't though because LSAC has this down to a science. At the end of the day for every kid with a 137 who doesn't "study properly" who does, there is a kid with 162 who did study properly and "doesn't" so it cancels each other out and every year the average doesn't change at all. That's a two way street, basically the same percentage of people succeed with a small margin of error.


Your painful misunderstanding of the interplay between statistical analysis and reality is baffling. I'm done. Enjoy your terse and abjectly horrible understanding of how the LSAT, law school admissions, and legal careers work. I can't wait to avoid seeing how well you deal with debt and actual adult life decisions. You've successfully convinced me that you're incapable of being reasoned with.

User avatar
BlendedUnicorn

Platinum
Posts: 9319
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 2:40 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby BlendedUnicorn » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:57 pm

Think of it this way:

The LSAT is like running a mile
A law exam is like running the 100m in the (special) olympics

It's true that if you had good enough data you could find an average mile time for the general population and that time would probably suck and you could probably also show that most people run about the same time each time they run a mile. But it would be an absolute fallacy to conclude that therefore it wasn't worth the effort to train for the mile because you probably couldn't improve.

On the other hand, you only get one shot at a race and you don't really know how you'll do until it's over. Sure you can train hard for it, but everyone else in your heat also trained hard for it.

So what's the key to winning a medal? Sign up for a race where everyone wins. And that's what going to a top law school does for you.

User avatar
Johann

Diamond
Posts: 19704
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 4:25 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby Johann » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:00 am

Again no one is saying not to use your initial retakes if you have them. The guy here has used all 3 retakes and has a 156. Time to give some real advice now tls.

addie1412

Silver
Posts: 559
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:43 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby addie1412 » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:02 am

HuntedUnicorn wrote:Think of it this way:

The LSAT is like running a mile
A law exam is like running the 100m in the (special) olympics

It's true that if you had good enough data you could find an average mile time for the general population and that time would probably suck and you could probably also show that most people run about the same time each time they run a mile. But it would be an absolute fallacy to conclude that therefore it wasn't worth the effort to train for the mile because you probably couldn't improve.

On the other hand, you only get one shot at a race and you don't really know how you'll do until it's over. Sure you can train hard for it, but everyone else in your heat also trained hard for it.

So what's the key to winning a medal? Sign up for a race where everyone wins. And that's what going to a top law school does for you.


brilliant

User avatar
BlendedUnicorn

Platinum
Posts: 9319
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 2:40 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby BlendedUnicorn » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:03 am

JohannDeMann wrote:Again no one is saying not to use your initial retakes if you have them. The guy here has used all 3 retakes and has a 156. Time to give some real advice now tls.


Ok


User avatar
Ferrisjso

Gold
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:40 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby Ferrisjso » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:04 am

TFL77 wrote:
Ferrisjso wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:I don't understand how this data helps ferrisjo when it says

Test takers who repeated the LSAT gained an average of 2.8 points the second time they took the test and 2.2 points the third time they took the test (compared to the second time).


Those kinds of gains can make a big difference to an application, and an average includes people whose increases were greater.


That's the average half will do better than that, half will do worse. Doesn't really change the unlikelihood of these drastic score jumps people advertise. That's also different data then the one I cited how do we know these are the right numbers and the others aren't(not that it really matters the difference isn't huge)? Also TFL said the LSAC data showed a decline for the third time?


I do believe that the test is learnable and that people should be getting higher scores after retaking. We could draw all kinds of conclusions from the data showing scores being lower on the third take. We might, for example, infer that because the third take is the last chance to score well that the test taker would feel more pressure to perform, ending up doing worse in the end. But we could draw a lot of other conclusions too.


This is reasonable. There are alot of reasons for that data and we can't know for certain which one it is. The one's I've suggested are that second time takers will almost inherently improve because they know what the LSAT/proctoring is like and are somewhat more prepared. Your reason for the third time makes sense also, I also think it might be because alot of the high score band people don't retake a third time and dilutes the average. The test and it's content is learnable but I don't believe dealing with the strict timing of the test is. I believe with an hour per section 20%+ would score 165 or more(in contrast to like 8%). I have no proof of that, that's just what I think.

User avatar
Ferrisjso

Gold
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:40 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby Ferrisjso » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:09 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Ferrisjso wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:I don't understand how this data helps ferrisjo when it says

Test takers who repeated the LSAT gained an average of 2.8 points the second time they took the test and 2.2 points the third time they took the test (compared to the second time).


Those kinds of gains can make a big difference to an application, and an average includes people whose increases were greater.


That's the average half will do better than that, half will do worse. Doesn't really change the unlikelihood of these drastic score jumps people advertise. That's also different data then the one I cited how do we know these are the right numbers and the others aren't(not that it really matters the difference isn't huge)? Also TFL said the LSAC data showed a decline for the third time?

Oh dear.
1) Dude, I'm terrible at math but I'm pretty sure you're thinking of the median, not the average. The average doesn't mean that half did better than that - you could have a large number of moderate-to-high increases and then a few really serious decreases dragging the average down.
2) Even if that *was* what average means, that's pretty decent odds of doing better.
3) No one here has said you have to go up 10 points to receive a benefit - people have consistently said that 1-2 pts could make a big difference.
4) What *is* the source for your numbers besides quoting people who post here whose numbers fit your narrative better? I'm quoting the same thing that was linked earlier, from LSAC itself. It says repeaters on average increased their scores.


Correct, my mistake.

hermionegranger6

New
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:36 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby hermionegranger6 » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:11 am

Your LSAT score does not define you.

I took the LSAT twice. I got the same score twice. I'm at a T3 law school, top 11% of my class [read: not 1, not 2, not 5, ELEVEN percent], and am going to be working at a V40 firm in NYC. I did not have any connections prior to law school, I did not even know a lawyer before law school.

Stop telling people to retake, and start telling them to hustle. Your career is what you make it, not what the people on this website tell you it will be.

User avatar
Johann

Diamond
Posts: 19704
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 4:25 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby Johann » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:12 am

HuntedUnicorn wrote:
JohannDeMann wrote:Again no one is saying not to use your initial retakes if you have them. The guy here has used all 3 retakes and has a 156. Time to give some real advice now tls.


Ok


And not playing is the only sure way to never become a lawyer. So we've reached the point of philosophical difference now - belief in oneself and control of ones own destiny. You don't believe any risk is appropriate. I'm fine taking informed risks especially when I have considerably more control over that risk than other Risks/investments.

User avatar
Johann

Diamond
Posts: 19704
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 4:25 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby Johann » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:16 am

For anyone looking for actual constructive advice on non T1 schools feel free to pm me. To my knowledge, I'm the only tls poster who's lived it. It's a dark winding road but it's not hopeless.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29306
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:23 am

hermionegranger6 wrote:Stop telling people to retake, and start telling them to hustle. Your career is what you make it, not what the people on this website tell you it will be.

They can (and mostly should) do both.



Return to “Law School Admissions Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 17 guests