lollypotter wrote: superfrodo wrote: akahrpaperstacks wrote:
superfrodo wrote:I've also visited several law school web sites recently that show the average LSAT scores of the first year class rather than the median.
What does this mean? It just means that they report the average of the highest scores.
superfrodo wrote:And even the highest score is reported, I still say it's a waste of time and money to retake the test for a measly 2 points if you could be working on other important things in life.
It depends. If it gets you from 158 to 160, 168 to 170, etc, its not a waste of time.
Dude, seriously...get over yourself.
'Dude' you're a f***ing moron. The median to 75% on many schools is THREE LSAT POINTS. Tiny changes in LSAT, esp at the top end, make a huge difference in the likelihood of admission. Especially at the top end. Are two points worth it? If they take you from below a school's 25% to the median, of course its worth it.
If you don't understand that you're an idiot who knows nothing about law school admissions so shut up.
So the median to 75% is THREE LSAT POINTS. Sorry if I have, you know, a life and other priorities to worry about that don't involve me flushing $130 down the toilet to retake a test and get into a T14 school that will look good on my resume but that I will probably hate. The only people I know who retook the LSAT only raised their score by 1 point.
And if it takes you from below a schools 25% to the median, then it might be worth it if you can afford the extra time, money, etc...but that's not going to be the case for a lot of people, like those of us who have kids to take care of and other responsibilities to deal with.
That being said, arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded. So congratulations on winning the gold medal for those unnecessarily rude comments.
I'm done with this forum. You people need a fucking attitude adjustment.