need to get into 140sor 150s Forum

[Grizz]

After over a yr. on TLS, I can finally admit it. I hate 99% of all cat gifs.

[Kess]

After over a yr. on TLS, I can finally admit it. I hate 99% of all cat gifs.

Just the gifs, or cats themselves too?

[Grizz]

After over a yr. on TLS, I can finally admit it. I hate 99% of all cat gifs.

Just the gifs, or cats themselves too?

Hate only 50% of cats.

[JamMasterJ]

After over a yr. on TLS, I can finally admit it. I hate 99% of all cat gifs.

Just the gifs, or cats themselves too?

Hate only 50% of cats.

I'm actually the opposite. I hate far more cats than cat gifs

[mattviphky]

I can only hope that some "real" misguided person finds this thread one day and listens to my advice. The things I tell myself to feel better about wasted time

[AriGoldButNicer]

This is too unonpinionated to be a flame. It isn't the Middle East or Cooley. The odds of someone just wanting internet attention are low. I found as many of my friends bombed the LSAT that the people who start the lowest also tend to be the laziest and least rational, and least likely to learn from their mistakes. This isn't universally true but a trend. I don't think just bec he starts with a 138 means he should not go to LS any more than starting with a 160 would mean he should, and passion does have merit. However, just passion with the desire for short cuts and refusal to accept reality, and work to improve the skills s/he'll need, OP will likely be back on May 1 after not studying from Dec till then asking about the 3rd try.

[Bella175]

This is too unonpinionated to be a flame. It isn't the Middle East or Cooley. The odds of someone just wanting internet attention are low. I found as many of my friends bombed the LSAT that the people who start the lowest also tend to be the laziest and least rational, and least likely to learn from their mistakes. This isn't universally true but a trend. I don't think just bec he starts with a 138 means he should not go to LS any more than starting with a 160 would mean he should, and passion does have merit. However, just passion with the desire for short cuts and refusal to accept reality, and work to improve the skills s/he'll need, OP will likely be back on May 1 after not studying from Dec till then asking about the 3rd try.

I disagree.

[Bella175]

I can only hope that some "real" misguided person finds this thread one day and listens to my advice. The things I tell myself to feel better about wasted time

You were very helpful!

[nelaw2010]

If you're in the 130's after studying a long time, there are probably fundamental problems in your skill set. I think a 138 means you missed somewhere around 65 questions out of 100. When you think about it from that perspective, that should tell you there is perhaps a serious problem.

My advice, start with basic reading comprehension skills. I read that the makers of the LSAT expect you to be able to read at a college level, and at about 300 wpm with good comprehension.

Once you build your reading comprehension skills, then move on to your logical reasoning skills. I don't mean by studying for the LSAT, but by reading books geared towards understanding informal and formal logic.

I think the skills can be learned, but a 138 tells me that you have a long way to go. I assume there are no documented learning disabilities. If so, you might be able to get more time to complete the test.

The first time I took the test, completely raw, I probably got somewhere around a 140 (at best). I finished with a 167 on the October 2010 LSAT. It took me about 1 year and 2 attempts to reach that score.

You can see significant movement, but a 138 is concerning. I know that for me it helped to learn informal and formal logic. I know these things can be learned, since I did it. The LSAT is basically a logic test, and arguably a simple one at that. A friend of mine was a philosophy major, and he was surprised how simplistic LSAT logic is.

Lastly, do not make the mistake that the LSAT does not correlate to law school or being a lawyer. Of course it does.

RC = Briefing cases, synthesizing material.
LR = thinking logically, being able to spot flaws in arguments.
LG = working with multiple factors, applying rules correctly.

The more you work on your foundational skills, reading, formal and informal logic, and math (LG's are a type of math called Set Theory), the better you will do on the LSAT.

ps. I'm a minority too, and English is my second language.

[josh43299]

You can see significant movement, but a 138 is concerning. I know that for me it helped to learn informal and formal logic. I know these things can be learned, since I did it. The LSAT is basically a logic test, and arguably a simple one at that. A friend of mine was a philosophy major, and he was surprised how simplistic LSAT logic is.

Lastly, do not make the mistake that the LSAT does not correlate to law school or being a lawyer. Of course it does.

RC = Briefing cases, synthesizing material.
LR = thinking logically, being able to spot flaws in arguments.
LG = working with multiple factors, applying rules correctly.

It makes me so angry when people whine about the LSAT not demonstrating law school potential for the reasons you pointed out. If anything, I would say that if you cannot get a 140+ on the LSAT, you have very little hope of being able to sufficiently prepare to pass your state's bar exam.

[nelaw2010]

You can see significant movement, but a 138 is concerning. I know that for me it helped to learn informal and formal logic. I know these things can be learned, since I did it. The LSAT is basically a logic test, and arguably a simple one at that. A friend of mine was a philosophy major, and he was surprised how simplistic LSAT logic is.

Lastly, do not make the mistake that the LSAT does not correlate to law school or being a lawyer. Of course it does.

RC = Briefing cases, synthesizing material.
LR = thinking logically, being able to spot flaws in arguments.
LG = working with multiple factors, applying rules correctly.

It makes me so angry when people whine about the LSAT not demonstrating law school potential for the reasons you pointed out. If anything, I would say that if you cannot get a 140+ on the LSAT, you have very little hope of being able to sufficiently prepare to pass your state's bar exam.

It surprises me that people think there is no correlation. I would say that once you break into a certain area, top 15% or higher, then a great work ethic comes into play.

But if you're missing 65 out of 100 questions, on a LOGIC test, what the hell are you doing entering a field that requires you to read, synthesize, and apply logic on a daily basis????

Who doesn't want a lawyer that can: 1) spot flaws in argument, 2) read and synthesize material quickly and effectively, 3) understand and apply rules, 4) make logical arguments????

Remember, law school is essentially a vocational school. You will be trained in a skill that your customers will rely on. If you are a shitty lawyer, you will badly injure your clients (much like a shitty doctor). If that happens, you will eventually be sued for malpractice and disbarred.

Does doing well on the LSAT mean you'll be a good lawyer? No. But I think a sub 158 LSAT (75% percentile) generally shows a lack of basic skills necessary to be an effective attorney.

Wow, a 138 is the bottom 10%. Who the hell wants that person for a lawyer??? Get the hell outta here. Would you go to a doctor who scored in the bottom 10% of his/her MCATS????

No, you would not.

[Kess]

I definitely agree with the above posts regarding 140's, but I feel like often times those who score around 160 are told to reconsider law for the same reasons. Obviously you're not going far with a 160 (as a non-URM) but you still could have the potential to do well in law school and as an attorney with that kind of score.

[josh43299]

You can see significant movement, but a 138 is concerning. I know that for me it helped to learn informal and formal logic. I know these things can be learned, since I did it. The LSAT is basically a logic test, and arguably a simple one at that. A friend of mine was a philosophy major, and he was surprised how simplistic LSAT logic is.

Lastly, do not make the mistake that the LSAT does not correlate to law school or being a lawyer. Of course it does.

RC = Briefing cases, synthesizing material.
LR = thinking logically, being able to spot flaws in arguments.
LG = working with multiple factors, applying rules correctly.

It makes me so angry when people whine about the LSAT not demonstrating law school potential for the reasons you pointed out. If anything, I would say that if you cannot get a 140+ on the LSAT, you have very little hope of being able to sufficiently prepare to pass your state's bar exam.

It surprises me that people think there is no correlation. I would say that once you break into a certain area, top 15% or higher, then a great work ethic comes into play.

But if you're missing 65 out of 100 questions, on a LOGIC test, what the hell are you doing entering a field that requires you to read, synthesize, and apply logic on a daily basis????

Who doesn't want a lawyer that can: 1) spot flaws in argument, 2) read and synthesize material quickly and effectively, 3) understand and apply rules, 4) make logical arguments????

Remember, law school is essentially a vocational school. You will be trained in a skill that your customers will rely on. If you are a shitty lawyer, you will badly injure your clients (much like a shitty doctor). If that happens, you will eventually be sued for malpractice and disbarred.

Does doing well on the LSAT mean you'll be a good lawyer? No. But I think a sub 158 LSAT (75% percentile) generally shows a lack of basic skills necessary to be an effective attorney.

Wow, a 138 is the bottom 10%. Who the hell wants that person for a lawyer??? Get the hell outta here. Would you go to a doctor who scored in the bottom 10% of his/her MCATS????

No, you would not.

Yeah, which is why those people pretty much exclusively end up in basements looking through 10,000 e-mails during sporadic temp jobs, if they are lucky.

A thought: Is there a sort of Cooley equivalent for med schools? A school where everyone says, "Good luck next year at X." Just wondering.

[josh43299]

I definitely agree with the above posts regarding 140's, but I feel like often times those who score around 160 are told to reconsider law for the same reasons. Obviously you're not going far with a 160 (as a non-URM) but you still could have the potential to do well in law school and as an attorney with that kind of score.

This is very true. You could get into a school like Georgia State and do quite well with a score like that. Some people on these forums think it is T14 or you eat noodles for rest of your life.

[Kess]

You can see significant movement, but a 138 is concerning. I know that for me it helped to learn informal and formal logic. I know these things can be learned, since I did it. The LSAT is basically a logic test, and arguably a simple one at that. A friend of mine was a philosophy major, and he was surprised how simplistic LSAT logic is.

Lastly, do not make the mistake that the LSAT does not correlate to law school or being a lawyer. Of course it does.

RC = Briefing cases, synthesizing material.
LR = thinking logically, being able to spot flaws in arguments.
LG = working with multiple factors, applying rules correctly.

It makes me so angry when people whine about the LSAT not demonstrating law school potential for the reasons you pointed out. If anything, I would say that if you cannot get a 140+ on the LSAT, you have very little hope of being able to sufficiently prepare to pass your state's bar exam.

It surprises me that people think there is no correlation. I would say that once you break into a certain area, top 15% or higher, then a great work ethic comes into play.

But if you're missing 65 out of 100 questions, on a LOGIC test, what the hell are you doing entering a field that requires you to read, synthesize, and apply logic on a daily basis????

Who doesn't want a lawyer that can: 1) spot flaws in argument, 2) read and synthesize material quickly and effectively, 3) understand and apply rules, 4) make logical arguments????

Remember, law school is essentially a vocational school. You will be trained in a skill that your customers will rely on. If you are a shitty lawyer, you will badly injure your clients (much like a shitty doctor). If that happens, you will eventually be sued for malpractice and disbarred.

Does doing well on the LSAT mean you'll be a good lawyer? No. But I think a sub 158 LSAT (75% percentile) generally shows a lack of basic skills necessary to be an effective attorney.

Wow, a 138 is the bottom 10%. Who the hell wants that person for a lawyer??? Get the hell outta here. Would you go to a doctor who scored in the bottom 10% of his/her MCATS????

No, you would not.

Yeah, which is why those people pretty much exclusively end up in basements looking through 10,000 e-mails during sporadic temp jobs, if they are lucky.

A thought: Is there a sort of Cooley equivalent for med schools? A school where everyone says, "Good luck next year at X." Just wondering.

I think med school and especially other medically based professions such as nursing, pharmacy, physical therapy, etc.. play out a little differently. People go to med school in the Caribbean all the time and come back to NYC and are practicing MDs. Law school is largely a prestige game. I am willing to be that some people in T2s have potential to be better attorneys than their LSAT numbers may suggest.

I admit that I maybe a little biased as person who does not generally perform well on standardized tests. (Case & Point: Very good high school GPA, an SAT score that was slightly above average. Now deja vu: a 4.0 GPA and a score that isn't looking like it's getting me into any T14s)

[nelaw2010]

a 160 is in the top 20th percentile. I don't think being in the top 20% is too low.

But I do think that being below the 75th percentile gives me a reason to be concerned.

Now being below 140 (bottom 10th percentile), that's just absurd. I would want to know why the score is that low. I'm certain there are fundamental problems regarding reading skills. Or, there might be a learning disability. Regardless, I would want to know what is going on. Remember, that's missing 65 out of 100 questions.

How many of you would hire a lawyer that scored a sub 140 on the LSAT?

[Kess]

a 160 is in the top 20% percentile. I don't think being in the top 20% is too low.

But I do think that being below the 75% percentile gives me a reason to be concerned.

Now being below 140 (bottom 10%), that's just absurd. I would want to know why the score is that low. I'm certain there are fundamental problems regarding reading skills. Or, there might be a learning disability.

How many of you would hire a lawyer that scored a sub 140 on the LSAT?

Oh I definitely agree with you there, I was just slightly digressing a bit about the attitude I feel that some on this board have.

[cinephile]

People go to med school in the Caribbean all the time and come back to NYC and are practicing MDs.

Really? I only know one girl who went to med school in the Caribbean, but she wasn't able to get a residency position in the US and got the impression that her degree was seen as invalid or at least inferior. She's working in a lab now, which isn't that bad, but still.

[Kess]

People go to med school in the Caribbean all the time and come back to NYC and are practicing MDs.

Really? I only know one girl who went to med school in the Caribbean, but she wasn't able to get a residency position in the US and got the impression that her degree was seen as invalid or at least inferior. She's working in a lab now, which isn't that bad, but still.

I don't know- maybe the people that I met aren't representative of the general public, but I know quite a few who went there and are doing fine. They didn't do their residencies in the most prestigious of hospitals, but if they had complaints otherwise, I haven't heard them.

[romothesavior]

It makes me so angry when people whine about the LSAT not demonstrating law school potential for the reasons you pointed out. If anything, I would say that if you cannot get a 140+ on the LSAT, you have very little hope of being able to sufficiently prepare to pass your state's bar exam.

If a person can't get a 140, I'm shocked they were able to graduate high school.

[romothesavior]

I definitely agree with the above posts regarding 140's, but I feel like often times those who score around 160 are told to reconsider law for the same reasons. Obviously you're not going far with a 160 (as a non-URM) but you still could have the potential to do well in law school and as an attorney with that kind of score.

People who go to lower tier schools may have the potential to be the best attorney in the world, but if they can't get a job, then I guess we'll never know.

[AriGoldButNicer]

You can see significant movement, but a 138 is concerning. I know that for me it helped to learn informal and formal logic. I know these things can be learned, since I did it. The LSAT is basically a logic test, and arguably a simple one at that. A friend of mine was a philosophy major, and he was surprised how simplistic LSAT logic is.

Lastly, do not make the mistake that the LSAT does not correlate to law school or being a lawyer. Of course it does.

RC = Briefing cases, synthesizing material.
LR = thinking logically, being able to spot flaws in arguments.
LG = working with multiple factors, applying rules correctly.

I think the lack of desire to put in real time over a year or years to develop the logic skills is equally important. I agree the sub-150 shows a lack of logic. However, I know some really successful solo trial lawyers who scored a 155 including some on TV (and not bec they advertise there) so it seems there is a bottom number that must be reached, and then it's other skills.


It makes me so angry when people whine about the LSAT not demonstrating law school potential for the reasons you pointed out. If anything, I would say that if you cannot get a 140+ on the LSAT, you have very little hope of being able to sufficiently prepare to pass your state's bar exam.

It surprises me that people think there is no correlation. I would say that once you break into a certain area, top 15% or higher, then a great work ethic comes into play.

But if you're missing 65 out of 100 questions, on a LOGIC test, what the hell are you doing entering a field that requires you to read, synthesize, and apply logic on a daily basis????

Who doesn't want a lawyer that can: 1) spot flaws in argument, 2) read and synthesize material quickly and effectively, 3) understand and apply rules, 4) make logical arguments????

Remember, law school is essentially a vocational school. You will be trained in a skill that your customers will rely on. If you are a shitty lawyer, you will badly injure your clients (much like a shitty doctor). If that happens, you will eventually be sued for malpractice and disbarred.

Does doing well on the LSAT mean you'll be a good lawyer? No. But I think a sub 158 LSAT (75% percentile) generally shows a lack of basic skills necessary to be an effective attorney.

Wow, a 138 is the bottom 10%. Who the hell wants that person for a lawyer??? Get the hell outta here. Would you go to a doctor who scored in the bottom 10% of his/her MCATS????

No, you would not.