Ferrisjso wrote:smaug wrote:Ferrisjso wrote:smaug wrote:If it's just one cycle it's still almost always a no brainer.
Depends on the numbers and options(telling people in the 160's and decent GPA's to wait a year just seems nonsensical to me) but I think we can all agree for no cycles missed it's almost always a no brainer. I think the whole typical retake conversation should be more based on "do you believe you can improve" than "you've got to retake because if you do better you'll have better options".
If you have less than a 175 or so, you're making a suboptimal decision and can likely save more in debt by retaking than you will gain in starting your career as an attorney one year earlier.
The higher your LSAT score is the lower your chances of improvement are. I have no idea why anyone with a 170 would retake(assuming they're not one of those people with GPA's in the 2's) unless they had a really bad day and still scored that. Heck once someone hits the mid 160's(I remember before taking the LSAT for take one, 163 was the score that would have convinced me not to retake) this whole conversation just seems super fringe. These people beat around 9 out of 10 people taking the test they will have good, no great options with $ if they apply smartly. What you're basically saying is if you're not better than 98-99% of people taking the test you should give it another go. Someone with a 174 and a decent GPA can be admitted ANYWHERE IN THE US and receive money from virtually every law school in the US, but yeah they should retake.
Moving from a median LSAT percentile for an entering class to a 75th percentile is often a matter of a point or two. That could be the difference between paying sticker price and a full ride.