Is a 165 really that bad?

Total Litigator
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:17 pm

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby Total Litigator » Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:52 pm

youknowryan wrote: With a solid app, UCLA isn't out of the question especially if you live in CA. One point to consider: most retakers score about the same while some go up and some go down. To most law schools 165 or 167 does not show a useful difference in ability. Unless you are sure you can get yourself to 170 or some score that clearly moves you into a higher tier, think long and hard about retaking. On another note: 165 is a good score by any standard.

165 is a good score. However,there is a really big difference between a 165 and a 167. Sad but true. But yeah, not worth retaking unless you get your practice scores up to the consistent point where you are confident you will score at least a 167.

User avatar
Flips88
Posts: 13563
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby Flips88 » Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:13 pm

Total Litigator wrote: However,there is a really big difference between a 165 and a 167. Sad but true. \.

+1.

If I would have gotten 1 more question per section, my chances at T-14 schools would be significantly higher. Very annoying part of the scale between 164-170. If you're going to retake, every question matters. The harder LG section on December was really disconcerting. I had taken a -0 to -2 for granted, but now I could still see a -0 to -2 but more expect in between -3 to -5. So if you retake, you better be confident that you are doing significantly better on practice sets and PTs and will do so on the real thing.

iceland
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby iceland » Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:31 pm

.
Last edited by iceland on Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SchopenhauerFTW
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:22 pm

Re: .

Postby SchopenhauerFTW » Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:52 pm

.
Last edited by SchopenhauerFTW on Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

pelmen74
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 4:41 pm

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby pelmen74 » Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:56 pm

http://ucla.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/0910/
As you can see, no one gets into UCLA with a 165. That does not mean 165 is not a good score, but your chances at UCLA are near zero so if you really want to go there, retake.

LSATclincher
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:09 pm

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby LSATclincher » Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:25 pm

If you're stuck on one school and one score, you will only add extra pressure on yourself when you re-take the LSAT. If you re-take, make it a goal to score higher than a 165 to open the door to more schools and/or more scholarship money. Ultimately, one LSAT score and a certain law school does not make you a good lawyer.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby robotclubmember » Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:00 pm

SchopenhauerFTW wrote:Aristotle says retake.


Epicurus says to retake, but only if the experience will be absent of pain. Or if you believe this will lead to a more happy and fulfilling life (of doing doc review 80 hours a week).

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby dresden doll » Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:15 pm

Pizon wrote:
DieAntwoord wrote:
danielle9281 wrote:I have a 3.85 GPA and got a 165 on my LSAT. I am debating about retaking the LSAT becase i did make a couple errors that I usually do not make and feel I could possibly get a better score. The top school I am applying to is UCLA. I know I would be better off with a 167-168 for UCLA, but I don't want to have to retake the test since it was so stressful the first time I took it.

Also, would it help if I aply early decision to UCLA?


Get over the fact that it is stressful, law school is stressful. Retake if you want to save money and/or get into a better school. study harder


LSAT stress >>>>>>>> law school stress


No, not by a long shot.

User avatar
kkklick
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:33 pm

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby kkklick » Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:48 pm

It depends what your goals are, if you want top 14 a 165 won't guarantee you anything. But if you just want to go to law school in general, that score will get you into a ton of places.

danielle9281
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 5:32 pm

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby danielle9281 » Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:25 pm

So I didn't get into UCLA, still waiting on USC. But I am thinking of taking a year off and re-taking the test. I know I could do a whole lot better on it. I had a lot going on in my life to have done a re-take in December. I know I could do better, because I have narcolepsy and was supposed to get accommodations to have the time on the reading section lengthened, but I decided not to. When I got my results back on the LSAT I did great in all the sections, except the reading, which I had 10 wrong. I didn't mention my narcolepsy to any of the schools I applied to, because I was not sure if they wouldn't accept me because of it. If I do re-take than I may or may not decide to get the accommodations, but even without them, I won't be a full-time student so I will have time to study. The first time I took the test I was a full time student and worked full time, so all I did was attend a Kaplan course, but did not actually have time or energy to study for the test.

Also, would it be a bad thing for me to mention my narcolepsy to schools? If I choose one of the schools I did get into, I want to negotiate my scholarship money. Maybe if I mention why my score was not as good as it could have been, then it could help me receive more scholarship money. Let me know.

User avatar
downing
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:03 am

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby downing » Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:04 am

A 165 is way above average, and it's a good score.

However, I think, with your stellar GPA you could gain a lot with a significantly higher score, especially if you manage to push it to the 170s. I guess what I'm saying is that you shouldn't be ashamed of your score - so no, it's not that bad - but if there's a chance you might earn a much higher score next time, it would be in your best interest to take it again.

I have a 165 too (albeit with a mediocre GPA), and I'm taking it again for the 3rd time this June, and I really, really, despise the LSAT.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby Veyron » Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:10 am

UCLA at sticker? ITE? Bad call dood. Get over 170 and get some money from them.

User avatar
tinman
Posts: 223
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby tinman » Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:17 am

danielle9281 wrote:So I didn't get into UCLA, still waiting on USC. But I am thinking of taking a year off and re-taking the test. I know I could do a whole lot better on it. I had a lot going on in my life to have done a re-take in December. I know I could do better, because I have narcolepsy and was supposed to get accommodations to have the time on the reading section lengthened, but I decided not to. When I got my results back on the LSAT I did great in all the sections, except the reading, which I had 10 wrong. I didn't mention my narcolepsy to any of the schools I applied to, because I was not sure if they wouldn't accept me because of it. If I do re-take than I may or may not decide to get the accommodations, but even without them, I won't be a full-time student so I will have time to study. The first time I took the test I was a full time student and worked full time, so all I did was attend a Kaplan course, but did not actually have time or energy to study for the test.

Also, would it be a bad thing for me to mention my narcolepsy to schools? If I choose one of the schools I did get into, I want to negotiate my scholarship money. Maybe if I mention why my score was not as good as it could have been, then it could help me receive more scholarship money. Let me know.


Danielle,

I like you. You seem genuine. I am not sure whether you should your schools about your narcolepsy. I'd only do this if there is some sort of narcolepsy-boast in admissions. Narcolepsy is protected by the ADA, and there may be a legit disability boast.

Regardless of whether you go that route, I would absolutely get the accommodations (extra time for the reading section) if you retake.

Best of luck!

User avatar
tinman
Posts: 223
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby tinman » Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:18 am

robotclubmember wrote:
SchopenhauerFTW wrote:Aristotle says retake.


Epicurus says to retake, but only if the experience will be absent of pain. Or if you believe this will lead to a more happy and fulfilling life (of doing doc review 80 hours a week).


You made my night that you quoted Epicurus. He is my avatar, and I think he is the greatest philosopher is history.

User avatar
well-hello-there
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:38 pm

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby well-hello-there » Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:04 am

danielle9281 wrote:So I didn't get into UCLA, still waiting on USC. But I am thinking of taking a year off and re-taking the test. I know I could do a whole lot better on it. I had a lot going on in my life to have done a re-take in December. I know I could do better, because I have narcolepsy and was supposed to get accommodations to have the time on the reading section lengthened, but I decided not to. When I got my results back on the LSAT I did great in all the sections, except the reading, which I had 10 wrong. I didn't mention my narcolepsy to any of the schools I applied to, because I was not sure if they wouldn't accept me because of it. If I do re-take than I may or may not decide to get the accommodations, but even without them, I won't be a full-time student so I will have time to study. The first time I took the test I was a full time student and worked full time, so all I did was attend a Kaplan course, but did not actually have time or energy to study for the test.

Also, would it be a bad thing for me to mention my narcolepsy to schools? If I choose one of the schools I did get into, I want to negotiate my scholarship money. Maybe if I mention why my score was not as good as it could have been, then it could help me receive more scholarship money. Let me know.

I met some dude with narcolepsy and that shit is no joke. He was able to feel it coming on and so he wouldn't just do a faceplant like "rusty the narcoleptic dog" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zVCYdrw-1o but it still put him out of commission just the same.

retake ftw!

Sandro
Posts: 2526
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 am

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby Sandro » Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:15 am

165 is good, but its not as good as say, 167. The difference is that being able to say you are smarter than 95% of everyone sounds much cleaner and pretentious than say, 92 or 93 percent. Its also very easy with a 167 to write off the other 5% as socially inept geniuses who will never compete with you in the job market but rather spend all of their free time doing LSAT logic games.

User avatar
well-hello-there
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:38 pm

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby well-hello-there » Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:20 am

Sandro wrote:165 is good, but its not as good as say, 167. The difference is that being able to say you are smarter than 95% of everyone sounds much cleaner and pretentious than say, 92 or 93 percent. Its also very easy with a 167 to write off the other 5% as socially inept geniuses who will never compete with you in the job market but rather spend all of their free time doing LSAT logic games.

wtf?!! LOL

User avatar
powerlawyer06
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 3:20 am

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby powerlawyer06 » Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:39 am

Your question can only be answered if we know your URM status.

If you are a URM, then no.

If you are not a URM, then yes that is terrible retake or you are doomed.

/thread
Last edited by powerlawyer06 on Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

SchopenhauerFTW
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:22 pm

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby SchopenhauerFTW » Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:25 am

well-hello-there wrote:
Sandro wrote:165 is good, but its not as good as say, 167. The difference is that being able to say you are smarter than 95% of everyone sounds much cleaner and pretentious than say, 92 or 93 percent. Its also very easy with a 167 to write off the other 5% as socially inept geniuses who will never compete with you in the job market but rather spend all of their free time doing LSAT logic games.

wtf?!! LOL

Have you been drinking, Sandro?

Sandro
Posts: 2526
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 am

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby Sandro » Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:23 pm

SchopenhauerFTW wrote:
well-hello-there wrote:
Sandro wrote:165 is good, but its not as good as say, 167. The difference is that being able to say you are smarter than 95% of everyone sounds much cleaner and pretentious than say, 92 or 93 percent. Its also very easy with a 167 to write off the other 5% as socially inept geniuses who will never compete with you in the job market but rather spend all of their free time doing LSAT logic games.

wtf?!! LOL

Have you been drinking, Sandro?


no :oops: I was obviously just kidding....

sighsigh
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby sighsigh » Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:33 pm

Pizon wrote:
pppokerface wrote:
Pizon wrote:
DieAntwoord wrote:Get over the fact that it is stressful, law school is stressful. Retake if you want to save money and/or get into a better school. study harder


LSAT stress >>>>>>>> law school stress

It could be a different type of stress. However, I am a 0L so :|


To clarify, I meant the stress of taking the LSAT is much worse than most of what you'll endure in law school. The whole law school admissions process is more stressful than law school itself.


Are you quite sure about that? Your LSAT determines the chances you will get unemployment, 40k or 160k. Your law school grades ACTUALLY determine whether you will get unemployment, 40k or 160k.

SchopenhauerFTW
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:22 pm

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby SchopenhauerFTW » Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:44 pm

Sandro wrote:
SchopenhauerFTW wrote:
well-hello-there wrote:
Sandro wrote:165 is good, but its not as good as say, 167. The difference is that being able to say you are smarter than 95% of everyone sounds much cleaner and pretentious than say, 92 or 93 percent. Its also very easy with a 167 to write off the other 5% as socially inept geniuses who will never compete with you in the job market but rather spend all of their free time doing LSAT logic games.

wtf?!! LOL

Have you been drinking, Sandro?


no :oops: I was obviously just kidding....

I thought it was funny! :lol:

User avatar
coldshoulder
Posts: 963
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 4:05 pm

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby coldshoulder » Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:55 pm

There's really only one answer to your question. Retake and ED to UVA.
Also, make sure to do all that tomorrow, on Friday Friday Friday.
Fun fun fun fun.

User avatar
Neidermeyer519
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:20 am

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby Neidermeyer519 » Fri Mar 25, 2011 11:51 am

I used to hate all the retake banter I heard on here, but I'm afraid I have joined the bandwagon. Schools place a lot of emphasis on the LSAT score, and if you can prepare well enough, retake and get a high enough score, is it worth it? ABSOLUTELY. Would you rather hurry up to get in law school and come out with $$$$ of debt, or stop, take a year, prep much better, land a 170+ and go to school for free (or closde to it)?

I just think people get so hell bent on going in a particular cycle that they drastically underestimate the value of nailing the LSAT and applying next cycle. Take a year off, prepare, enjoy yourself a little, and don't listen to anyone's bitching about "what are you doing with your life? Why did you take time off of school? Now you probably won't go back!"

When you retake it, nail the score you want and go to law school for free, that smug satisfaction will be all you'll need.

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: Is a 165 really that bad?

Postby Emma. » Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:01 pm

Pizon wrote:
To clarify, I meant the stress of taking the LSAT is much worse than most of what you'll endure in law school. The whole law school admissions process is more stressful than law school itself.


lolwut?




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Pneumonia, rk42 and 6 guests