NVM

anonymiB
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:49 pm

NVM

Postby anonymiB » Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:53 pm

Nevermind, you are correct, I misread. Was wondering how it could be so low...
Last edited by anonymiB on Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:03 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
WhatSarahSaid
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:01 pm

Re: 90% of people who score a 170+ score LOWER on their retake

Postby WhatSarahSaid » Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:56 pm

Your title says 170+, and your post says 170.

Also, where are you getting your data from?

http://www.lsac.org/jd/PDFs/RepeaterData.pdf

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: 90% of people who score a 170+ score LOWER on their retake

Postby d34d9823 » Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:59 pm

WhatSarahSaid wrote:Your title says 170+, and your post says 170.

Also, where are you getting your data from?

http://www.lsac.org/jd/PDFs/RepeaterData.pdf

Wow, that data is the complete opposite of OP.

anonymiB
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:49 pm

Re: 90% of people who score a 170+ score LOWER on their retake

Postby anonymiB » Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:59 pm

WhatSarahSaid wrote:Your title says 170+, and your post says 170.

Also, where are you getting your data from?

http://www.lsac.org/jd/PDFs/RepeaterData.pdf


That form, if I am correct in my interpretation of the data.

krad
Posts: 1897
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:33 am

Re: 90% of people who score a 170+ score LOWER on their retake

Postby krad » Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:00 pm

WhatSarahSaid wrote:Your title says 170+, and your post says 170.

Also, where are you getting your data from?

http://www.lsac.org/jd/PDFs/RepeaterData.pdf


Unless I'm interpreting that chart wrong at a quick glance- why the F would you retake the LSAT if you had a 180 on your most recent test??!!? :?

User avatar
artichoke
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: 90% of people who score a 170+ score LOWER on their retake

Postby artichoke » Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:01 pm

anonymiB wrote:
WhatSarahSaid wrote:Your title says 170+, and your post says 170.

Also, where are you getting your data from?

http://www.lsac.org/jd/PDFs/RepeaterData.pdf


That form, if I am correct in my interpretation of the data.


I don't think you are.

User avatar
artichoke
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: 90% of people who score a 170+ score LOWER on their retake

Postby artichoke » Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:02 pm

krad wrote:
WhatSarahSaid wrote:Your title says 170+, and your post says 170.

Also, where are you getting your data from?

http://www.lsac.org/jd/PDFs/RepeaterData.pdf


Unless I'm interpreting that chart wrong at a quick glance- why the F would you retake the LSAT if you had a 180 on your most recent test??!!? :?


Maybe for funsies? Maybe on a bet? Maybe they are SUPERGUNNERS and think TWO 180's are better than one? haha... either way, it makes me feel bad about my score.

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: 90% of people who score a 170+ score LOWER on their retake

Postby d34d9823 » Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:02 pm

krad wrote:
WhatSarahSaid wrote:Your title says 170+, and your post says 170.

Also, where are you getting your data from?

http://www.lsac.org/jd/PDFs/RepeaterData.pdf


Unless I'm interpreting that chart wrong at a quick glance- why the F would you retake the LSAT if you had a 180 on your most recent test??!!? :?

The worst part is the 2 people with a 178 and 179 who fell below 170.

krad
Posts: 1897
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:33 am

Re: 90% of people who score a 170+ score LOWER on their retake

Postby krad » Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:05 pm

d34dluk3 wrote:
krad wrote:
WhatSarahSaid wrote:Your title says 170+, and your post says 170.

Also, where are you getting your data from?

http://www.lsac.org/jd/PDFs/RepeaterData.pdf


Unless I'm interpreting that chart wrong at a quick glance- why the F would you retake the LSAT if you had a 180 on your most recent test??!!? :?

The worst part is the 2 people with a 178 and 179 who fell below 170.


lulz what a waste of $130 or whatever it was...

User avatar
artichoke
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: 90% of people who score a 170+ score LOWER on their retake

Postby artichoke » Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:06 pm

krad wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:
krad wrote:
WhatSarahSaid wrote:Your title says 170+, and your post says 170.

Also, where are you getting your data from?

http://www.lsac.org/jd/PDFs/RepeaterData.pdf


Unless I'm interpreting that chart wrong at a quick glance- why the F would you retake the LSAT if you had a 180 on your most recent test??!!? :?

The worst part is the 2 people with a 178 and 179 who fell below 170.


lulz what a waste of $130 or whatever it was...


What a waste of the thousands of dollars in counseling fees probably needed afterwards.

User avatar
WhatSarahSaid
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:01 pm

Re: NVM

Postby WhatSarahSaid » Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:07 pm

I think the data are really interesting but fairly useless when figuring out what you personally should do. After sufficient prep, you should know if your result on test day was at or close to your potential. I saw that chart when I was considering retaking on my 173 (out of 8, four improved, four did worse), and even if the data had encouraged me not to, I still would've retaken because I saw my score report and knew I hadn't reached the ceiling.

krad
Posts: 1897
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:33 am

Re: NVM

Postby krad » Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:10 pm

WhatSarahSaid wrote:I think the data are really interesting but fairly useless when figuring out what you personally should do. After sufficient prep, you should know if your result on test day was at or close to your potential. I saw that chart when I was considering retaking on my 173 (out of 8, four improved, four did worse), and even if the data had encouraged me not to, I still would've retaken because I saw my score report and knew I hadn't reached the ceiling.


TITCR

User avatar
artichoke
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: NVM

Postby artichoke » Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:11 pm

WhatSarahSaid wrote:I think the data are really interesting but fairly useless when figuring out what you personally should do. After sufficient prep, you should know if your result on test day was at or close to your potential. I saw that chart when I was considering retaking on my 173 (out of 8, four improved, four did worse), and even if the data had encouraged me not to, I still would've retaken because I saw my score report and knew I hadn't reached the ceiling.


I disagree with this. After 170 I think most people are probably capable of scoring close to 180 in ideal conditions. If you have already achieved a 170+ you obviously understand the test and possess the logical skills needed to master it. The data helps you evaluate the chances of maintaing, lowering or increasing your score on a retake.

bartleby
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:23 am

Re: NVM

Postby bartleby » Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:12 pm

Aren't the multiple 180's or 178/179 retakes Testmasters teachers?

krad
Posts: 1897
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:33 am

Re: NVM

Postby krad » Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:20 pm

bartleby wrote:Aren't the multiple 180's or 178/179 retakes Testmasters teachers?


I was wondering if they were instructors of some kind... But still, why does anyone need >1 180?

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

Re: NVM

Postby robotclubmember » Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:01 pm

Not to be condescending, but this is TLS, as in top law schools. Not the place for people who coasted through undergrad and nailed a 146 on the LSAT to tell everyone else what's what. You can't just come into a forum filled with people who have studied hundreds and hundreds of hours for the LSAT, many of whom are already in law school and have ample familiarity with the process, and expect people to waste time reading your completely uninformed opinions. Just post less and lurk more.

anonymiB
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:49 pm

Re: NVM

Postby anonymiB » Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:09 pm

robotclubmember wrote:Not to be condescending, but this is TLS, as in top law schools. Not the place for people who coasted through undergrad and nailed a 146 on the LSAT to tell everyone else what's what. You can't just come into a forum filled with people who have studied hundreds and hundreds of hours for the LSAT, many of whom are already in law school and have ample familiarity with the process, and expect people to waste time reading your completely uninformed opinions. Just post less and lurk more.


This wasn't my opinion, but an LSAC survey I was posting. And although I misread the information, there was still a great discrepancy between those who scored above 170-175 and their retake scores. Good information there, no matter how bad a student or LSAT taker I may be. And I am allowed to post, even if no one wants to read. And on many of posts I am asking for help from these informed people, so...

User avatar
artichoke
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: NVM

Postby artichoke » Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:53 pm

robotclubmember wrote:Not to be condescending, but this is TLS, as in top law schools. Not the place for people who coasted through undergrad and nailed a 146 on the LSAT to tell everyone else what's what. You can't just come into a forum filled with people who have studied hundreds and hundreds of hours for the LSAT, many of whom are already in law school and have ample familiarity with the process, and expect people to waste time reading your completely uninformed opinions. Just post less and lurk more.


Lol, says the person with 170 posts.

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: NVM

Postby d34d9823 » Thu Dec 23, 2010 7:39 pm

artichoke wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:Not to be condescending, but this is TLS, as in top law schools. Not the place for people who coasted through undergrad and nailed a 146 on the LSAT to tell everyone else what's what. You can't just come into a forum filled with people who have studied hundreds and hundreds of hours for the LSAT, many of whom are already in law school and have ample familiarity with the process, and expect people to waste time reading your completely uninformed opinions. Just post less and lurk more.


Lol, says the person with 170 posts.

User avatar
Attorney
Posts: 332
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:52 am

Re: NVM

Postby Attorney » Thu Dec 23, 2010 7:53 pm

artichoke wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:Just post less and lurk more.

Lol, says the person with 170 posts.

Irony fail

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: NVM

Postby d34d9823 » Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:54 pm

Attorney wrote:
artichoke wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:Just post less and lurk more.

Lol, says the person with 170 posts.

Irony fail

Cognition fail.

delusional
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:57 pm

Re: 90% of people who score a 170+ score LOWER on their retake

Postby delusional » Sat Dec 25, 2010 10:19 pm

krad wrote:
WhatSarahSaid wrote:Your title says 170+, and your post says 170.

Also, where are you getting your data from?

http://www.lsac.org/jd/PDFs/RepeaterData.pdf


Unless I'm interpreting that chart wrong at a quick glance- why the F would you retake the LSAT if you had a 180 on your most recent test??!!? :?

Maybe the person was worried about being YPed.

Re: the OP, which I was going to respond to before it was edited:
These surveys and advice things are only worth so much - in the end, people are not statistics. Yes, many people probably score lower the second time. They may also have studied less, and taken more for granted. Everyone is happy to throw numbers and advice at you on LSAT, admissions, etc. And it's very helpful, to a point. Maybe you need to be top 10% in certain schools to get a Biglaw job. But you are a big part of the decision to be in the top 10%. Or maybe you don't want biglaw. or maybe sticker will barely take a bite out of your allowance. Whatever.

anonymiB
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:49 pm

Re: 90% of people who score a 170+ score LOWER on their retake

Postby anonymiB » Sat Dec 25, 2010 10:42 pm

delusional wrote:
krad wrote:
WhatSarahSaid wrote:Your title says 170+, and your post says 170.

Also, where are you getting your data from?

http://www.lsac.org/jd/PDFs/RepeaterData.pdf


Unless I'm interpreting that chart wrong at a quick glance- why the F would you retake the LSAT if you had a 180 on your most recent test??!!? :?

Maybe the person was worried about being YPed.

Re: the OP, which I was going to respond to before it was edited:
These surveys and advice things are only worth so much - in the end, people are not statistics. Yes, many people probably score lower the second time. They may also have studied less, and taken more for granted. Everyone is happy to throw numbers and advice at you on LSAT, admissions, etc. And it's very helpful, to a point. Maybe you need to be top 10% in certain schools to get a Biglaw job. But you are a big part of the decision to be in the top 10%. Or maybe you don't want biglaw. or maybe sticker will barely take a bite out of your allowance. Whatever.


Most people actually score higher, but people at the very top of the score range, in the 170 area are only about 60% more likely to score in the 170 range again..so retaking with an already high score is riskier than retaking with an already low score.

User avatar
artichoke
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: NVM

Postby artichoke » Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:15 am

d34dluk3 wrote:
Attorney wrote:
artichoke wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:Just post less and lurk more.

Lol, says the person with 170 posts.

Irony fail

Cognition fail.


Not to give new life to this thread but.... +1

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

Re: NVM

Postby kkklick » Sun Dec 26, 2010 10:29 am

Please stop bumping this thread... I know I just did but...




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: badhombre, Baidu [Spider], bcapace, Yahoo [Bot] and 18 guests