jwg6x6 wrote: jvincent11 wrote:
Holynorth wrote:Went in pting and expecting 170-172, a 168 was a pessimistic score in case of a blunder. I'd be happy to get a 164 or 165 after missing every question on the last RC passage. My goal is to matriculate this fall. However, I have one more retake left and will use it this summer. Depending on how I do there (aiming for a 172-175, I may have to rethink my future).
There are more successful lawyers with sub 165 scores than 165+. But good luck. I PT'd 170+ though I also have a pessimistic view and think I will end up in the mid 160s. One thing is for sure, this grueling wait is coming to an end!
That is the most logically fallacious way to look at LSAT scores I have ever heard. There may be more successful lawyers with sub 165 scores than 165+ but that is only because there are so many MORE TOTAL lawyers with sub 165 lawyers. If you look at a proportion, I would be willing to bet my LSAT score that a higher PROPORTION of 165+ lawyers are successful.
The way you interpreted my comment makes it seem like you thought I was advocating a sub 165 is better than 165+ and I don't even know how to address that. OP alluded to having to rethink his future if he doesn't score in the 170's, and I was just reassuring him that if he really wants to be a successful lawyer he can do that despite a 164, which is still 90%. There are schools like Vanderbilt, UCLA, BC, Fordham, ND, just to name a few, that produce good lawyers and a 164 is competitive at all of those.