ITE, yes, you absolutely must retake! Forum

[traehekat]

traehekat,

You sound like a 2L that recently started second semester, didn't get offers from OCI, regrets some past decisions and is now freaking out and cracking under the pressure.

Calm down, it's a marathon not a sprint. Take some time off during your spring break period, enjoy good R&R time and then refocus. Your freaking out stress level practically bled through my monitor while reading your posts in this thread.

Start now with this song, two performances of the same song. I like the first one more but they are both great and applicable to what seems to be your current state of affairs.

Under Pressure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-rkJmRiFug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEJg8w9fGdA

Good luck. Maybe go for a jog and do some extracurricular activities too to stop you from freaking out more and possibly cracking up completely.

Received offers from multiple V100s. Solid read, buddy. Rather than further derail discussion of a topic I believe is very important any more than you already have, I'll save the rest of my remarks for PM.

[Jeffort]

Received offers from multiple V100s. Solid read, buddy. Rather than further derail discussion of a topic I believe is very important any more than you already have, I'll save the rest of my remarks for PM.

Cool, that's good news. Send me PM's when you have the time. I went through the stressing and freaking out phase of law school first semester of 1L and got it out of my system.

Back on the topic. I don't agree with the idea of planning ahead of time to take the LSAT two or three times. You can if necessary to achieve a goal score if things don't go as planned.

Re-taking it once or twice should be viewed as a backup contingency plan. Going in with the plan of taking it multiple times is IMHO a counterproductive mindset for putting in full effort to prepare for the test properly to be able to perform the best you can the first time.

[traehekat]

Received offers from multiple V100s. Solid read, buddy. Rather than further derail discussion of a topic I believe is very important any more than you already have, I'll save the rest of my remarks for PM.

Re-taking it once or twice should be viewed as a backup contingency plan. Going in with the plan of taking it multiple times is IMHO a counterproductive mindset for putting in full effort to prepare for the test properly and be able to perform the best you can the first time.

A fair point, I'll admit. You definitely don't want to go into your first LSAT thinking, "Oh well this one doesn't matter that much because I'll be able to take it two more times." I agree that is counterproductive. You need to just prepare for the task at hand. You're goal is to get the highest score possible. Whether it takes one, two or three tries, all you are concerned about it the test that is in front of you. If you get your score back and it is NOT the highest possible, then you should decide to retake and begin focusing on the next LSAT administration. Rinse and repeat a third time, if necessary.

The problem is that you probably KNOW you won't get the highest score possible the first or second time, so it is kind of a paradox. If you are PT'ing at 155, you know you aren't going to score a 170, and thus you are going to go into the LSAT planning on retaking, which is bad. An alternative approach to taking the LSAT 3 times is to just study until you are PT'ing in the 170's and then take it, as it will be reasonable to assume you will not have to retake because you have a good chance of scoring in the 170's, but not everyone is going to get to that level. Now, I will save the whole, "Don't go to law school unless you get a 170+ and get into a T14" argument for another time, but my immediate point is that you have 3 opportunities to maximize your score, and you are silly if you don't take advantage of all three opportunities.

[princeR]

This is my LSAT story:
1st time: Studied for a week by looking over the princeton review cracking the LSAT. I was being heavily pushed by my family to take the test, as I am a pretty good test taker, considering I scored a very good score on the SAT with minimal studying, my family assumed I could do the same on the LSAT. I hadn't even looked up what a good score was, I literally went in with this being my first timed test... Yes, I was one of those people that literally had no clue what was going on. So, I scored a 152

2nd time: I studied for about 3 months but met a girl in my LSAT prep class. This distracted my tremendously as instead of doing homework before class we were hooking up at her house because her mom was gone. I was still in my post-college wanting to hook up phase, so I let myself get distracted. I didn't improve at all because of my class. Furthermore, the girl and I eventually became a couple and planned on going to law school together. She is a very bright individual and had already been studying for 3 months prior to our class, so she was already PT'ing in the mid 160's, while I was in the mid 150's. This caused me great anxiety as I truly thought this was the girl for me. Literally talking to each other every day about how our PT's were going and how she was blowing me out of the water freaked me the fuck out. Not to mention I was studying in the worst way possible, just taking PT after PT hoping that I could get a score close to hers. The pressure was terrible, and looking back on it, I was a fucking idiot... So I studied for about 3 months, but my studying entailed just taking a PT every other day and my review comprised of "oh, I can't believe I missed that one". Somehow I was able to improve my scores up to around 162 average. However, on test day I went into the test thinking "this is it" instead of "this is just another test" and completely threw out all of my strategies, as terrible as they were, they definitely would have helped me. So, I scored a 159

3rd time: So after going through all of that and being able to look back on how not to study, I really know how to properly approach it! I am not gonna let this thing run my life, I understand that you really need to maintain a regular life while you study for this. I am working full time, volunteer on the side, and am having no problem studying for a couple hours a day. I am actually practicing and studying properly this time. As I am now working on RC I am really starting to get it. I am using Velocity for this test and honestly, with how much I am just "getting" it now, I expect nothing less than a 170, I know I can do it.

Look at my LSAT history. I think a lot of people underestimate and just don't understand how many things can contribute to a score. My first test, I was one of those naive 0L's that thought "it doesn't matter what law school you go it". My second time around, I was stressed out of my mind and it completely destroyed me. I know that it might sound like I am just making excuses, but honestly, I know what happened and the effects that it had on my scores. I can't wait to take the test in June and really show what I am capable of. I am not going to sell myself short.

So yes OP, I definitely agree, why the hell would you not retake? That is exactly what I told my parents when they told me "Why don't you just go to Seattle University?" Well, that's the thing, I know I can do better with the proper approach and the right mindset, so shit, why wouldn't I take it again.

[Lawbro]

I don't completely understand why people take a year off just to retake the lsat. I think it would always be more worth it to just go to a law school, study your ass off, and transfer. Then again I'm biased and hate wasting precious years of my life.

[bk1]

I don't completely understand why people take a year off just to retake the lsat. I think it would always be more worth it to just go to a law school, study your ass off, and transfer. Then again I'm biased and hate wasting precious years of my life.

Damn, I didn't realize it was just as easy to do well in law school as it was to improve on the LSAT. This changes everything.

[IAFG]

I don't completely understand why people take a year off just to retake the lsat. I think it would always be more worth it to just go to a law school, study your ass off, and transfer. Then again I'm biased and hate wasting precious years of my life.

Damn, I didn't realize it was just as easy to do well in law school as it was to improve on the LSAT. This changes everything.

I mean it's not like everyone in law school is trying to do this or anything. Since 90% of your class sees it as a 3 year vacation, you can pretty much grind your way into top 10%.

[Lawbro]

Who said it was easy? Besides, I'd hate to be the one who took a year off to flip burgers and study for the lsat, only to find out you didn't improve much. Sounds riskier than going to a lower ranked school tbh

[IAFG]

Who said it was easy? Besides, I'd hate to be the one who took a year off to flip burgers and study for the lsat, only to find out you didn't improve much. Sounds riskier than going to a lower ranked school tbh

The point is, no matter how easy or hard it is, failure costs you a LOT less with the LSAT than with attending shitty schools.

Also, why are you flipping burgers on your year off? Find something that will make you a better candidate at OCI. With any luck you'll find something better to do with your life than law school.

[Lawbro]

Not me, I studied philosophy

[bk1]

Who said it was easy? Besides, I'd hate to be the one who took a year off to flip burgers and study for the lsat, only to find out you didn't improve much. Sounds riskier than going to a lower ranked school tbh

The point is, no matter how easy or hard it is, failure costs you a LOT less with the LSAT than with attending shitty schools.

This.

Fail at Getting 170+ LSAT = Can just retake the LSAT again and again until you get a 170+.
Fail at Being Top 10% at TTT = Very tough to get any legal job and likely under piles of debt.

You can retake the LSAT. You can't retake 1L.

[IAFG]

right. because no one with lib arts degrees can hustle their way into entry-level work. Fucking K-JDs.

[Lawbro]

right. because no one with lib arts degrees can hustle their way into entry-level work. Fucking K-JDs.

Why you mad though?

[IAFG]

right. because no one with lib arts degrees can hustle their way into entry-level work. Fucking K-JDs.

Why you mad though?

I ain't even mad since I go to NU.

[Lawbro]

nice

[HeavenWood]

Regarding the issue with the parents, if they won't let you stay in their house while you study for a test that could save you tens upon thousands of dollars, then you are dealing with some irrational actors and it's really no fault of your own. If your parents will LITERALLY make you homeless if you do not attend law school this very year, not much you can do. Otherwise, do as the other poster did, and just fight with them on it and try to explain how retaking has a significant impact upon whether or not you will live under a mountain of debt for the rest of your life.

I think you misunderstood. This was the difference between getting all of law school taken care of and none of it at all (I could have finagled my way into a menial-paying-but-but-fun-job to make ends meet for the time being). I got into my top choice anyway, and given my career goals, the only schools that would have been better for my purposes were YHS (and given my unimpressive softs, I would have needed an additional six points to even be in the running for H).

That's fair I would say. If your choices were "Go to Penn now and parents will pay for everything" v. "Retake for a chance at HYS but lose money from parents for Penn," then you probably made the right decision. It wasn't like you were gunning for more scholarship money, since it was pretty much taken care of. I mean, haha, rational for YOU, but not your parents who are footing the bill, but whatever. As I'm sure you know, however, that whole situation is impossibly rare and you are fortunate your parents are in the position to help! The vast majority of law students, however, are heading to law school (T14s included) with little to no scholarship money or financial assistance and without taking the LSAT 3 times, and that's crazy.

I don't disagree with your general point in that people shouldn't be averse to taking the LSAT multiple times, but I think the one-all "everyone should take the LSAT three times" bit comes off more as a motivational speaker-style buzz phrase than words of universal wisdom.

[traehekat]

Regarding the issue with the parents, if they won't let you stay in their house while you study for a test that could save you tens upon thousands of dollars, then you are dealing with some irrational actors and it's really no fault of your own. If your parents will LITERALLY make you homeless if you do not attend law school this very year, not much you can do. Otherwise, do as the other poster did, and just fight with them on it and try to explain how retaking has a significant impact upon whether or not you will live under a mountain of debt for the rest of your life.

I think you misunderstood. This was the difference between getting all of law school taken care of and none of it at all (I could have finagled my way into a menial-paying-but-but-fun-job to make ends meet for the time being). I got into my top choice anyway, and given my career goals, the only schools that would have been better for my purposes were YHS (and given my unimpressive softs, I would have needed an additional six points to even be in the running for H).

That's fair I would say. If your choices were "Go to Penn now and parents will pay for everything" v. "Retake for a chance at HYS but lose money from parents for Penn," then you probably made the right decision. It wasn't like you were gunning for more scholarship money, since it was pretty much taken care of. I mean, haha, rational for YOU, but not your parents who are footing the bill, but whatever. As I'm sure you know, however, that whole situation is impossibly rare and you are fortunate your parents are in the position to help! The vast majority of law students, however, are heading to law school (T14s included) with little to no scholarship money or financial assistance and without taking the LSAT 3 times, and that's crazy.

I don't disagree with your general point in that people shouldn't be averse to taking the LSAT multiple times, but I think the one-all "everyone should take the LSAT three times" bit comes off more as a motivational speaker-style buzz phrase than words of universal wisdom.

How about ALMOST everyone should be taking the LSAT 3 times? Does that work? I think in those very few situations that may arise in which it would be of little benefit to retake the LSAT it will be obvious that retaking would be pointless.

[RodionRaskolnikov]

After going through the LSAT, LS apps, first year of LS, OCI, etc., here is something that I cannot believe is not stressed more on here, because it is so unbelievably obvious. First, three simple, noncontroversial facts:

1. Legal hiring is still down from 2007/2008 and will likely never return to those levels, and thus it is extremely competitive.
2. Legal hiring is predominately based on two factors: (1) what law school you attend, and (2) what your law school grades are.
3. What law school you attend is predominately based on two factors: (1) your LSAT score, and (2) your undergraduate GPA.

So, it is pretty easy to see that the higher your LSAT score is, the better your chances are of finding a job out of law school. When I say "finding a job," for a lot of people I'm talking about the difference between being crushed by mountains of debt for the rest of your life with very few job prospects, and landing a job with a firm paying you $160,000 to start.

Also, no one will deny that the better your LSAT score is, the better your chances are of not only getting into a better school, but receiving a large scholarship from a great school. Again, I'm talking about a difference of up to $150,000 for a lot of schools, which actually comes out to something like $420,000+ with interest on those loans.

Now, it isn't an exact science, but I think it is pretty obvious that EVERY SINGLE POINT ON THE LSAT is worth a SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY. Within a certain range, 3-4 points can be worth MILLIONS in lifetime earnings. Here is a final fact:

4. YOU CAN TAKE THE LSAT MULTIPLE TIMES AT RELATIVELY VERY LITTLE COST IN TERMS OF TIME AND MONEY.

I do not think it is controversial to say that given the value of each LSAT point, rational actors who want to attend law school will take the LSAT at least 3 times before they are precluded from retaking it again for another two years. Unless you score a 175+ on your first or second attempt, there is absolutely NO reason to not max out your score.

TL/DR: Given the value of every LSAT point and the nature/current state of legal hiring, you are out of your mind if you do not take the at least LSAT 3 times, regardless of your score.

The amount of people taking the LSAT dropped significantly. Are you some sort of LSAT salesman trying to scare people into taking it again?

If you get a 168 - 175, where you'd say you should retake for scholarship increase, you're most likely aiming for T14. T14 schools rarely give much merit aid. Nearly all of it is need based and if it is merit aid, it goes to those who have 179/180 and 3.98/4.0. So retaking 168 - 175 would be a waste of time if your goal was to get more money, unless you want to drop out of T14, which no one would want to do.

If you get a 168 - 175, retaking just to increase your chances of getting into your first choice law school isn't a good idea either. Studies show that those at 168 or above only increase by about 2, and that is only for people who increased (not counting those who stay the same or decrease). To take a risk for an extra 2 points when you could get the same score or even lower isn't smart.

[IAFG]

T14 schools rarely give much merit aid. Nearly all of it is need based and if it is merit aid, it goes to those who have 179/180 and 3.98/4.0. So retaking 168 - 175 would be a waste of time if your goal was to get more money, unless you want to drop out of T14, which no one would want to do.

Every single part of this is wrong.

[suspicious android]

I don't completely understand why people take a year off just to retake the lsat. I think it would always be more worth it to just go to a law school, study your ass off, and transfer. Then again I'm biased and hate wasting precious years of my life.

There's a whole world out there, and the only thing that wouldn't be a waste is law school?

[bk1]

To take a risk for an extra 2 points when you could get the same score or even lower isn't smart.

There is no risk. If you get the same or lower score you are in the exact same position you were prior to the retake.

[luuma]

After going through the LSAT, LS apps, first year of LS, OCI, etc., here is something that I cannot believe is not stressed more on here, because it is so unbelievably obvious. First, three simple, noncontroversial facts:

1. Legal hiring is still down from 2007/2008 and will likely never return to those levels, and thus it is extremely competitive.
2. Legal hiring is predominately based on two factors: (1) what law school you attend, and (2) what your law school grades are.
3. What law school you attend is predominately based on two factors: (1) your LSAT score, and (2) your undergraduate GPA.

So, it is pretty easy to see that the higher your LSAT score is, the better your chances are of finding a job out of law school. When I say "finding a job," for a lot of people I'm talking about the difference between being crushed by mountains of debt for the rest of your life with very few job prospects, and landing a job with a firm paying you $160,000 to start.

Also, no one will deny that the better your LSAT score is, the better your chances are of not only getting into a better school, but receiving a large scholarship from a great school. Again, I'm talking about a difference of up to $150,000 for a lot of schools, which actually comes out to something like $420,000+ with interest on those loans.

Now, it isn't an exact science, but I think it is pretty obvious that EVERY SINGLE POINT ON THE LSAT is worth a SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY. Within a certain range, 3-4 points can be worth MILLIONS in lifetime earnings. Here is a final fact:

4. YOU CAN TAKE THE LSAT MULTIPLE TIMES AT RELATIVELY VERY LITTLE COST IN TERMS OF TIME AND MONEY.

I do not think it is controversial to say that given the value of each LSAT point, rational actors who want to attend law school will take the LSAT at least 3 times before they are precluded from retaking it again for another two years. Unless you score a 175+ on your first or second attempt, there is absolutely NO reason to not max out your score.

TL/DR: Given the value of every LSAT point and the nature/current state of legal hiring, you are out of your mind if you do not take the at least LSAT 3 times, regardless of your score.

Very... very.. well said.

[luuma]

Lower ranked school with debt and no job prospect. Or.. one year of purgatory, higher score, scholarship money, top school, a mean burger flip... hmmm..

Who said it was easy? Besides, I'd hate to be the one who took a year off to flip burgers and study for the lsat, only to find out you didn't improve much. Sounds riskier than going to a lower ranked school tbh

[Gail]

I'll volunteer to weather the fire storm and gnashing of teeth and be the contrarian for a moment.


Honestly. A legitimate fear has always been that you're just not going to improve. Not that you won't improve much. But you won't improve at all. And while number inflation continues to run the gauntlet, your original number loses value with time. I think that this is a common fear and a legitimate one that you're quickly glossing over in the interest of optimism about everyone being able to max out at 175 if they just try hard enough.


Look. You can say that it's no big deal if you get a lower score or the same score, but come admissions time in the next cycle and see. Someone with a large scholarship (full or almost full tuition) at a lower tier 1 has a legitimate reason for taking the money. And yes, I realize that the rest of tier 1 isn't top 14, but for the low tuition, it is extremely tempting. I know I'm not the only one who thinks this on this board. Many alumni here outside of the top 14/20/whatever.



Now, for the stranger belief that people will hate me for.

I'm not going to say it's shameful to retake the test, but there's something... unfair about it going without penalty. I don't have any statistics for it cuz i lazy, but I imagine that a score in the mid 160s would be a lot more valuable if people were dissuaded from retaking indefinitely until they get the flow of the test while other people actually took their first shot in earnest. It isn't equitable. Some people have more of a luxury with being able to take a year off just to come back and take a test until jackpot score. I know. I know. Blasphemy from the damn K-JDer.

But here's an example. I have a job offer. I might take that instead. Say I come back and score a 170 (plausible because that's about what I PT'd at and the difference between my test day score and PT score is the natural nervousness). Does that make me better/smarter/more deserving than the girl who scored 169 her first time? Maybe, but probably not.


I just had the fortune of taking a job, blowing that employer off after he trusted me to stick around, and then taking advantage of a system by acclimating to the environment beforehand, while the other person is staring down unemployment at this moment, might have already maxed out her ability, and is being cut off by her makers if she doesn't go through with LS. This is wrong.


TL;DR

We shouldn't be allowed to retake without penalty. Schools should be forced to report the average of LSAT scores. It would more accurately reflect what it actually means to only have four logical lapses in a four hour period. Those of us who will score into the top 14 simply because of a retake do not deserve it. And I may be the biggest hypocrite in the world yet for doing just that.


I also rant a lot and this will be ignored. nvm. lolz.

[20130312]

Bet you're a big fan of normativism.