Gamble2 wrote:What do you define as "decent" LSAT score? Anything under 165 is laughable if you want T-14 w/ money. Anything under 173 is laughable if you want HYS or CCN w/ money. That kind of score doesn't materialize out of nowhere unless you are a genius. It can take years of studying to achieve a +170.
I'd say "decent" is 160+, depending on the person's situation. The more financially vulnerable they are, the less risk they need to be taking, and the higher their score should be. I'm also not a T-14 or bust type. I'd think twice before going T2 or below, but there's nothing wrong with going to a top-tier regional school, assuming that you aren't paying sticker. Frankly, a soon-to-be undergrad shouldn't be worrying about getting into HYSCCN law school. What a friggin waste of time and emotional energy. They could've spent that time and effort making their undergrad resume stand out so that they get a decent shot at a good job without a graduate degree.
There's something wrong if somebody needs more than 18 months to break 160. Either you're studying wrong, you're not studying intensely enough, or you may need to rethink law school*. The LSAT is a learnable test, and there are tons of resources out there to get you additional points within weeks, not months. For example, the logic games are completely learnable. It's a pity if you give up points in that section. Plenty of everyday non-geniuses make up 20 or more points in 6 months.
* Whether or not the LSAT is a particularly good predictor of law school performance, the inability to effectively study for and achieve on a learnable test, no matter the content, is a negative indicator.
But sure, wait until your last year of undergrad to study for the LSAT. And then when you get a 160 watch these same people tell you to work full time and study for the LSAT when you could have frontloaded your studying during a time when you had the least amount of responsibilities you will likely ever have.
I'm not telling OP to spend every waking moment of undergrad studying for the LSAT but he should be gaining fluency in the test as early as possible if he wants to be in range for a 170 by the time he's ready to apply. If OP is a natural genius and PTs a cold 160 then sure he could probably knock out a high score in less than a year. But if not he will follow your advice and then post a: "Got a 160 on the LSAT, Retake or ???" in the next 3 years.
The point is that this kid is in high school. They haven't even stepped foot on campus for real yet. The idea that they need to be prepping for a JD before they crack open their first college textbook is insane. There's a line between gently guiding your path in the direction of law school and completely overdoing it, and this crosses that line by a mile. This kid needs to focus on getting good grades in a major that actually has job prospects, possibly getting some work experience, and figuring out what they want to do with their life. Then, 3 years from now, if law is still on their radar, they can start planning their path into law school. At that point, if it takes them 3 years to get a decent LSAT score, all they have to do is take a gap year. It's more likely at this point that the OP will change their mind about law school sometime in the next 4.5 years than it taking them 3 years to crack a 165 LSAT.