Stop Telling People to Retake

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
blueapple

Silver
Posts: 599
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:56 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby blueapple » Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:09 am

chicagoburger wrote:One study showed that when you are above 165, it's a coin flip of going up or down on retake.


That's because some people don't prepare (or prepare properly) for retakes, just as some people don't prepare the first time. I dropped 3 points on my retake because I was just like "I'm sure I remember everything from the last time I studied a year ago and I feel smarter now, too." A retake was a good idea for me! I just should have prepared better for it.

Your idea that everyone goes into a retake having prepared the best they can is a dumb idea and just not true. It's not a coin flip of going up or down -- it's that some people haven't prepared well for a learnable test so their scores don't improve. It's not chance. It's not luck.
Last edited by blueapple on Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

chicagoburger

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

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby chicagoburger » Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:48 pm

pancakes3 wrote:this thread should kill itself


I admit that I misread the study. Retake does improve on average 2-3 points. I thought it was comparing the same groups...

Dovaking

New
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:28 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby Dovaking » Fri Feb 03, 2017 4:28 pm

Personal anecdote and advice:

The TLS "retake" crowd pushed me to retake. While I was also forced to stay home due to a family issue, I did, went up six points, and am now having an unreal cycle. I am getting a ton of T14 offers from places I couldn't even pick up a WL from last year.

One of the schools I almost pulled the trigger on with a minimal scholarship has tripled their offer this year to nearly full tuition.

If you can work like a monster and are not maxed out on LSAT scores, I think you need to max out your score.

Be real with your own abilities, but the mantra shouldn't be K-JD at all costs. I picked up a job I LOVE in the meantime that is helping direct my future path.
Last edited by Dovaking on Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BlendedUnicorn

Platinum
Posts: 9320
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 2:40 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby BlendedUnicorn » Fri Feb 03, 2017 4:33 pm

Dovaking wrote:Personal anecdote and advice:

The TLS "retake" crowd pushed me to wait a year. I did, went up six points, and am now having an unreal cycle. I am getting a ton of T14 offers from places I couldn't even pick up a WL from last year.

One of the schools I almost pulled the trigger on with a minimal scholarship has tripled their offer this year to nearly full tuition.

If you can work like a monster and are not maxed out on LSAT scores, I think you need to max out your score.

Be real with your own abilities, but the mantra shouldn't be K-JD at all costs. I picked up a job I LOVE in the meantime that is helping direct my future path.


Congratulations!

User avatar
star fox

Diamond
Posts: 20786
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:13 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby star fox » Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:39 pm

The big question is how much attending law school increases your future earnings over, say, a 30 year period (with year 0 being the year before you enter law school). If it increases it enough to cover the principal used on tuition/fee expenses* + interest on student loans (tuition, expenses, and living) then it becomes a quality investment.

*not including principal used to pay for living expenses because those expenses are incurred regardless of going to law school or not

(Ignores effect of loan forgiveness programs which are quite generous)
(Assume totals on a NPV basis)

HonestAdvice

Bronze
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 12:33 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby HonestAdvice » Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:12 pm

Can you still bail early? A lot of people bail early, and don't cancel. If these people are included, the percentiles are skewed. 50th isn't really 50th if the bottom 5% is all self-selecting.

The bar exam isn't hard, but it's not easy. There's no exact science, but of the people i know who went to law school with a sub-150, not one wound up passing the bar. A few are practicing law under the table or doing something else. Even b/w a 150 and 160, the ultimate bar passage rate is very low.

The flaw with the LSAT is that on the difficult LR and RC's, you can't get partial credit for the second best answer where as in LS the person who goes back and forth between B and C with on point analysis will do well regardless of their answer. At its extremes, if the LSAT wasn't valuable then the ABA wouldn't be pulling accreditation from schools who admit tons of minorities with sub-150's scores, because everyone wants there to be more minority lawyers. They do it, because most of these people will never become lawyers. I'm referencing AA not to generate debate, but just to point out that one would expect it to be a mitigating factor that fourth tier schools would use as a defense to admitting low LSAT's.

If people can't break a 160, they probably shouldn't go. Beyond that, it's financial and it's normally financially prudent to maximize the score.

BigZuck

Diamond
Posts: 11731
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby BigZuck » Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:26 am

ARM taking this thread to the next level

This has easily got to be the worst thread in TLS (on topics) history, yes?

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29317
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:33 am

I don't know, there's stiff competition for that title.

BigZuck

Diamond
Posts: 11731
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby BigZuck » Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:37 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I don't know, there's stiff competition for that title.

I know not serious but I'd like to see the bottom 5-10 on this list

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29317
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:39 am

BigZuck wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:I don't know, there's stiff competition for that title.

I know not serious but I'd like to see the bottom 5-10 on this list

I probably argued seriously with trolls in all of them.

20170322

Gold
Posts: 3251
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:57 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby 20170322 » Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:39 am

Lol this thread is 13 pages.

somedeadman

Bronze
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby somedeadman » Sat Feb 04, 2017 7:05 am

katthegreat11 wrote:Something I've heard mentioned before is, say you take the LSAT cold and get a 150. You study for a reasonable amount of time (say 10-15 hours a week for 4-6 months) and get a 160. But you're not happy with that score, you want to retake, so you spend hours, weeks, months studying and studying your ass off. You study so so incredibly hard, devote your entire life to studying the LSAT, and finally, 6 months or a year later, you take it again and get a 170.

How the hell would you keep that kind of insane studying schedule up in law school? the LSAT is intended to be a proxy for success in law school, so if you have to use a study schedule that is impossible to stick to long-term (aka 3 years) to get there, what will you do when you get there?

I'm not saying I 100% agree with this, but I do think it's interesting.

.....lol

if one could go to law school for free based off of their score, wouldn't you say it was worth it to "devote their life to it"? People study "hard" for the LSAT based off the outcome; a 170 puts one in a whole new ball game than a 160. In addition, I'm interested to hear what you think an unsustainable studying schedule is lmao.

User avatar
Stylnator

Silver
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 4:26 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby Stylnator » Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:48 pm

star fox wrote:The big question is how much attending law school increases your future earnings over, say, a 30 year period (with year 0 being the year before you enter law school). If it increases it enough to cover the principal used on tuition/fee expenses* + interest on student loans (tuition, expenses, and living) then it becomes a quality investment.

*not including principal used to pay for living expenses because those expenses are incurred regardless of going to law school or not

(Ignores effect of loan forgiveness programs which are quite generous)
(Assume totals on a NPV basis)


I'm going to law school for PI and I make a killing working in IT right now. My comparative future earnings are going to drop significantly over the next 30 years no matter where I go b/c of my career choices. Looking from a purely financial standpoint, this is a terrible fucking investment for me.

However, sometimes an investment can be more than just about $$. Just wanted to throw this out there because not everyone is Biglaw or Bust.

User avatar
star fox

Diamond
Posts: 20786
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:13 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby star fox » Sat Feb 04, 2017 1:37 pm

Stylnator wrote:
star fox wrote:The big question is how much attending law school increases your future earnings over, say, a 30 year period (with year 0 being the year before you enter law school). If it increases it enough to cover the principal used on tuition/fee expenses* + interest on student loans (tuition, expenses, and living) then it becomes a quality investment.

*not including principal used to pay for living expenses because those expenses are incurred regardless of going to law school or not

(Ignores effect of loan forgiveness programs which are quite generous)
(Assume totals on a NPV basis)


I'm going to law school for PI and I make a killing working in IT right now. My comparative future earnings are going to drop significantly over the next 30 years no matter where I go b/c of my career choices. Looking from a purely financial standpoint, this is a terrible fucking investment for me.

However, sometimes an investment can be more than just about $$. Just wanted to throw this out there because not everyone is Biglaw or Bust.

True. And there are people who will vastly increase their earnings capability that will be miserable as lawyers such that maybe it was t worth it for them regardless of financial considerations.

User avatar
Johann

Diamond
Posts: 19697
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 4:25 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby Johann » Sat Feb 04, 2017 1:53 pm

star fox wrote:
Stylnator wrote:
star fox wrote:The big question is how much attending law school increases your future earnings over, say, a 30 year period (with year 0 being the year before you enter law school). If it increases it enough to cover the principal used on tuition/fee expenses* + interest on student loans (tuition, expenses, and living) then it becomes a quality investment.

*not including principal used to pay for living expenses because those expenses are incurred regardless of going to law school or not

(Ignores effect of loan forgiveness programs which are quite generous)
(Assume totals on a NPV basis)


I'm going to law school for PI and I make a killing working in IT right now. My comparative future earnings are going to drop significantly over the next 30 years no matter where I go b/c of my career choices. Looking from a purely financial standpoint, this is a terrible fucking investment for me.

However, sometimes an investment can be more than just about $$. Just wanted to throw this out there because not everyone is Biglaw or Bust.

True. And there are people who will vastly increase their earnings capability that will be miserable as lawyers such that maybe it was t worth it for them regardless of financial considerations.


Yep to both. And some big life decisions about marriage and kids and long distance also change the equation. All these issues usually disproportionately affect older people than k-jd though.

Npret

Silver
Posts: 1270
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby Npret » Sat Feb 04, 2017 3:05 pm

star fox wrote:The big question is how much attending law school increases your future earnings over, say, a 30 year period (with year 0 being the year before you enter law school). If it increases it enough to cover the principal used on tuition/fee expenses* + interest on student loans (tuition, expenses, and living) then it becomes a quality investment.

*not including principal used to pay for living expenses because those expenses are incurred regardless of going to law school or not

(Ignores effect of loan forgiveness programs which are quite generous)
(Assume totals on a NPV basis)

I don't think there is any good data on this. It seems a number of people leave law after the first ten years or so, but I don't know where I read that now. Maybe one of Paul Campos blog posts from the old days.

That also doesn't include other career options which is more than just 3 years of money. It includes building a career and a future in a field which is not just cash. There is also the time and effort that could be invested in other projects and just enjoying life.

People who are so seduced by biglaw salaries usually have little idea of the work or how unstable a career path it can be. Many 0Ls don't understand that most biglaw lawyers are making their highest salary at the beginning of their career. They don't know that law is up and out, few people are going to make partner and last at a firm.

People don't understand the bimodal salary curve or the mandatory grade curve. They still feel that law school is a path to an upper class life.

People should consider that the recession is over and there are many jobs and career paths available. Maybe if you live in the country in the middle of nowhere your only job is minimum wage, but hiring is up and there are careers other than law. It's easier to move somewhere and find work than to take 6 figures of debt.

People should consider that law is one of the most oversaturated fields in the country and shows no signs of changing. Every year more lawyers are pumped out and the ones from the previous year or two that don't have a start become less and less attractive.

People should look at the increased cost of law school relative to salary. I just saw on LST that fully loaned financed sticker at Georgetown is over $300,000. That's dramatically more than before the recession and much more than many of the posters here had to pay even 5 years ago. Loan payments on a standard 10 year plan are about $4,000. The recent biglaw raid to $180,000 came after years of stagnant salaries with skyrocketing costs.

People should understand that lots of people in law school are from wealthy backgrounds and are paying sticker but it comes from family wealth. This can skew the idea that sticker is fine because it seems so many people pay it.

Finally people need to understand that this debt is going to be repaid basically unless they become severely disabled. There is no escaping it for most of your adult life. The emotional and psychological strain of that debt can't be discounted. People shouldn't discount the impact it can have on marriage and relationships and family.

If everyone who went to law school paid a reasonable amount or was relatively certain of a career that would allow them to repay their debt and have a decent life, law would be more defensible.

* loan forgiveness programs might seem quite generous
-but note not one cent of law school debt has been forgiven yet. Note too that not everyone can get a loan forgiveness job or hold it for 10 years of consecutive monthly payments. Not everyone can live on the salary o a PSLF job.

Tl;dr : law is an oversaturated field with no way to be certain of a 30 career as an investment. There are no studies on the benefit of a law degree over 30 years. Just looking at income ignores many factors associated with owing massive debt including taking and staying with jobs you don't want, metal health and family pressures. Just looking at income also ignores the benefits of investing 3 years into another career and life.

User avatar
pancakes3

Platinum
Posts: 6623
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:49 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby pancakes3 » Sat Feb 04, 2017 3:12 pm

page 13 guys. i hope you're real proud of yourselves.

Npret

Silver
Posts: 1270
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby Npret » Sat Feb 04, 2017 3:21 pm

pancakes3 wrote:page 13 guys. i hope you're real proud of yourselves.

People arguing about the cost-benefit of law school and law as a career choice will never get old.

I didnt even notice the title of the thread. I just look at recent posts.

User avatar
northwood

Moderator
Posts: 5019
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby northwood » Sat Feb 04, 2017 3:24 pm

it should be reassess your goals, your scores and your options, then take the path that you believe will best allow you to obtain your goals.

User avatar
star fox

Diamond
Posts: 20786
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:13 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby star fox » Sat Feb 04, 2017 3:28 pm

How am I ignoring the benefits of 3 years of investing in another career? If year 1 of the thirty year cost-benefit analysis is year 1 of Law School, the alternative to that is year 1 of other career path minus law school. If that means continuing on an already existing career path then that's easier to factor in. If not, then it involves a rational outlook at an individual's circumstances to assess what their options may be. As an aside, I do think sometimes have too rosy of an outlook for a generic Liberal Arts major. You might start mid-40s, get some moderate raises then after 2-3 years switch to a job that pays mid-50s, get some moderate raises into the 60s and stall out around 70k or so. Which isn't to say that this is bad or anything, but your earnings potential has a strong likelihood of being limited. If you aren't factoring in debt, then I don't know what you're doing to be honest.

The psychological toll that takes is going to depend on the individual tbh and their tolerance for carrying debt. If you took out $300K (probably not the greatest idea tbh), then I have no idea why you'd put that kind of pressure on yourself to pay it off in 10 years, that's not realistic. The thing you didn't mention in your student loan analysis is that it's unsecured. Meaning, you're not under pressure to meet a payment schedule or risk having your license to practice law taken away from you. This is a game changer when compared to say, a mortgage, where the bank is gonna take your house if you don't meet your payments. But yeah, if you put immense pressure on yourself because of carrying a lot of debt, then you should realize that beforehand and only go to a school that gives you a more manageable debt burden (and in exchange, that may be the difference between a school that gives you a great shot at a high salary right off the bat and one that will put you in a more modest starting salary).

As for up and out in biglaw, the impact of that is going to depend on what your exit options are after. If all the biglaw rejects are jumping back in to $30K data entry monkey jobs, then yeah, that sucks and is really going to depress your thirty year earnings potential. But if they are getting jobs, whether "lawyer" jobs or not, that they wouldn't have gotten without the experience the JD allowed for and pay a good salary, then that is not so bad. I don't really know the answer.

Old "where did all the lawyers go?" posts should also factor in that it's very different to be graduating in a depressed labor market versus a regular one. Of course it's fair to factor in that if the economy tanks again you might be screwed, but there is a certain amount of risk tolerance to most things in life. If you don't want to take any risks ever then yeah, don't go to law school. But if you have some risk tolerance then you should be able to weigh what effect getting recession-pwned has on the decision to go to law school and take out debt to do so.

HonestAdvice

Bronze
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 12:33 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby HonestAdvice » Sat Feb 04, 2017 4:22 pm

somedeadman wrote:
katthegreat11 wrote:Something I've heard mentioned before is, say you take the LSAT cold and get a 150. You study for a reasonable amount of time (say 10-15 hours a week for 4-6 months) and get a 160. But you're not happy with that score, you want to retake, so you spend hours, weeks, months studying and studying your ass off. You study so so incredibly hard, devote your entire life to studying the LSAT, and finally, 6 months or a year later, you take it again and get a 170.

How the hell would you keep that kind of insane studying schedule up in law school? the LSAT is intended to be a proxy for success in law school, so if you have to use a study schedule that is impossible to stick to long-term (aka 3 years) to get there, what will you do when you get there?

I'm not saying I 100% agree with this, but I do think it's interesting.

.....lol

if one could go to law school for free based off of their score, wouldn't you say it was worth it to "devote their life to it"? People study "hard" for the LSAT based off the outcome; a 170 puts one in a whole new ball game than a 160. In addition, I'm interested to hear what you think an unsustainable studying schedule is lmao.

The lsat isn't that time consuming. That kind of score improvement requires one to essentially become an expert at the test (48th to 98th percentile).

If you can make that kind of improvement, you're likelier to be able to teach yourself in LS. The reality is the opposite of your philosophy. Is it really that hard to see someone who says, "ah I don't test well - I'll just work hard in LS" saying "ah Studying blows, I'll just get lucky on the exam" a year later?

User avatar
star fox

Diamond
Posts: 20786
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:13 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby star fox » Sat Feb 04, 2017 4:28 pm

The kind of gunning needed for the LSAT and the kind of gunning needed for law school exams are different kinds of gunning. It's a pretty decent predictor but it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

somedeadman

Bronze
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby somedeadman » Sat Feb 04, 2017 4:34 pm

star fox wrote:The kind of gunning needed for the LSAT and the kind of gunning needed for law school exams are different kinds of gunning. It's a pretty decent predictor but it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

Can you explain that more? Curious 0L

User avatar
star fox

Diamond
Posts: 20786
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:13 pm

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby star fox » Sat Feb 04, 2017 5:02 pm

somedeadman wrote:
star fox wrote:The kind of gunning needed for the LSAT and the kind of gunning needed for law school exams are different kinds of gunning. It's a pretty decent predictor but it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

Can you explain that more? Curious 0L

The LSAT you need to learn the basic rules and then drill repeatedly. For law school, you want to learn the doctrine like the back of your hand (read E&Es throughout the semester) and then start outlining early so you will have time to take like 5 practice exams per class and "learn how to take an exam."

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29317
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Stop Telling People to Retake

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sat Feb 04, 2017 5:16 pm

star fox wrote:
somedeadman wrote:
star fox wrote:The kind of gunning needed for the LSAT and the kind of gunning needed for law school exams are different kinds of gunning. It's a pretty decent predictor but it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

Can you explain that more? Curious 0L

The LSAT you need to learn the basic rules and then drill repeatedly. For law school, you want to learn the doctrine like the back of your hand (read E&Es throughout the semester) and then start outlining early so you will have time to take like 5 practice exams per class and "learn how to take an exam."

Also law school exams are written and graded by profs who can vary in what they want to see. That's not true of the LSAT.



Return to “Law School Admissions Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests