Ok, hit me. Forum

[purplepanther44]

Hi everyone. I'm new here and have been browsing around looking for answers but haven't quite found what I'm looking for. So here goes....what are my chances of getting into a T14 or just under (think down to 18) with the following....

1. 3.82 UGPA (in engineering)
2. 163 LSAT (ouch, I know. I had a rough day. But let's assume I'm not retaking given timelines)
3. PhD from an Ivy League
4. 7 years work experience post-PhD, and am currently a VP (so, have been successful)
5. As an undergrad, I had significant research/work experience as well, including many awards. Held significant leadership positions as an undergrad and graduate student.

Obviously my LSAT is going to hurt me. But I haven't seen much of a real discussion of soft factors for older students such as myself (outside of taxguy discussions) that really address the question of will these "soft" factors push that sub-par LSAT into acceptable territory? I'm agonizing. Help! Thanks

[stillwater]

people are going to tell you to retake. you are just leaving too much on the table. as for the timeline, theyll say its worth deferring a year.

also, fyi, taxguy was a joke.

[noobishned]

You'll probably make it in to the top 20. FWIW, almost all other responses are going to ask why you are going to law school and/ or why you can't retake.

[bizzybone1313]

How many hours of prep did you do more or less for your LSAT score? Since you are a PhD, you probably have a high ceiling.

[rinkrat19]

You're already REALLY late this cycle. Combined with what a waste of a great GPA that LSAT score is, it'd just be beyond silly to not retake in June.

You'd be looking at an entirely different group of schools, or huge money in slightly lower schools! Speaking as one engineer to another: you know what the logical answer is here.

[potterpirate04]

You're already REALLY late this cycle. Combined with what a waste of a great GPA that LSAT score is, it'd just be beyond silly to not retake in June. you know what the logical answer is here.

You work experience is good, but TITCR.

[purplepanther44]

Thanks...and yea figured out taxguy was a total joke.

So the general consensus is the "soft" factors will likely not make up for the LSAT.

Bummer. I didn't want to have to study

[purplepanther44]

How many hours of prep did you do more or less for your LSAT score? Since you are a PhD, you probably have a high ceiling.

To be honest not a lot, work was a bit nutty at the time and so despite my best efforts, I didn't end up with a ton of study time. 20 hours max?

[gnomgnomuch]

Ok, your softs, coupled with that beautiful holy grail 3.8 gpa demands a retake of the LSAT. Youre obviously very, very smart, break that 170, you'd be a lock at ccn and down, hit the 173 range, and you would be incredibly competitive at YSH, and also, you had "a bad day" at the lsat, and scored a 163, that means you were pt-ing around the 166-170 area, so you are already capable of getting that Lsat score. In terms of your current grades, you'd prob have a fighting chance at Cornell and down, maybe Michigan if you ED.

Best of luck!

[rinkrat19]

How many hours of prep did you do more or less for your LSAT score? Since you are a PhD, you probably have a high ceiling.

To be honest not a lot, work was a bit nutty at the time and so despite my best efforts, I didn't end up with a ton of study time. 20 hours max?

That's basically not studying at all. I'd bet you're easily capable of mid-170s with a few months' organized effort.

[PRgradBYU]

How many hours of prep did you do more or less for your LSAT score? Since you are a PhD, you probably have a high ceiling.

To be honest not a lot, work was a bit nutty at the time and so despite my best efforts, I didn't end up with a ton of study time. 20 hours max?

That's basically not studying at all. I'd bet you're easily capable of mid-170s with a few months' organized effort.

You'd be doing yourself a disservice by not retaking. You're looking at HSY if you score mid-170s, like you're probably capable of.

[Crowing]

This is too late to apply anyway.

I applied in early Feb last year and didn't get anything better than WUSTL. I retook my 173 and scored a 172. FML I thought. I reapplied in September this cycle and am currently in at Vandy, GULC, Cornell, and Chicago.

Study hard, retake in June, and apply next fall.

[purplepanther44]

thanks for the advice all...

[bandenjamin]

If you're set on going this fall You'd probably have a decent shot at any school where your LSAT is close to the 25%, somebody is getting in this those results so you'd likely have a chance at Boalt, UCLA, or anything ranked lower than Minnesota (19). Again it's a chance and only if your circumstances dictate that you HAVE to go this year.

That said, what everyone else has indicated is correct. With a better score you'll likely have a shot at getting some serious $$ at lots of schools in the T14 with a little effort.

[Drake014]

How many hours of prep did you do more or less for your LSAT score? Since you are a PhD, you probably have a high ceiling.

I never understand why people assume these things. Why would being a PhD make his ceiling higher on average than most other 160 something scorers?

[Ti Malice]

If you're set on going this fall You'd probably have a decent shot at any school where your LSAT is close to the 25%, somebody is getting in this those results so you'd likely have a chance at Boalt, UCLA, or anything ranked lower than Minnesota (19). Again it's a chance and only if your circumstances dictate that you HAVE to go this year.

What? Just no. OP would have virtually no chance at Boalt or UCLA at any time, but especially this late in the cycle.

[mindarmed]

retake, a sub 170 with an engineering background is a joke. the LSAT is not that hard.

also, why law?

[bbsg]

Re: "timelines"

Think of it this way:

-If you rewrite and wait a year, you could get scholarship $$ that actually is *more* than what your annual income will be if you don't retake. In that sense, you legitimately save a year of your life financially.

Timeline schmineline. Retake, friend!

[bizzybone1313]

How many hours of prep did you do more or less for your LSAT score? Since you are a PhD, you probably have a high ceiling.

I never understand why people assume these things. Why would being a PhD make his ceiling higher on average than most other 160 something scorers?

OP is better educated and well read than 99% of the world's population. His or her reasoning, reading and logical thinking ability is most likely superior to the vast majority of people sitting for this test. The LSAT supposedly tests for this. His 163 proves he has a decent knack for this test. A lot of people can't score this even after studying. Basically OP for a 170+ LSAT score, you most likely have about 300 more hours of prep time that is going to be needed. Even then, a 170+ is not guaranteed, but you have a much better chance than most people of accomplishing this.

[PRgradBYU]

the LSAT is not that hard.

I strongly disagree, and I bet the 98% of LSAT takers that get below a 170 would disagree as well.

[mindarmed]

the LSAT is not that hard.

I strongly disagree, and I bet the 98% of LSAT takers that get below a 170 would disagree as well.

yeah if you're some typical poli sci major that never had to do any critical thinking it's probably difficult. if you're an engineering UG with a 3.8 gpa, to say your LSAT plateau is 16x, total joke

[Drake014]

How many hours of prep did you do more or less for your LSAT score? Since you are a PhD, you probably have a high ceiling.

I never understand why people assume these things. Why would being a PhD make his ceiling higher on average than most other 160 something scorers?

OP is better educated and well read than 99% of the world's population. His or her reasoning, reading and logical thinking ability is most likely superior to the vast majority of people sitting for this test. The LSAT supposedly tests for this. His 163 proves he has a decent knack for this test. A lot of people can't score this even after studying. Basically OP for a 170+ LSAT score, you most likely have about 300 more hours of prep time that is going to be needed. Even then, a 170+ is not guaranteed, but you have a much better chance than most people of accomplishing this.

Nothing that you just said explains why more studying would help him more than most of those scoring around 163. It may be more likely that given how much more educated he is when it comes to something like reading comprehension, someone with less reading comprehension experience who scored a 163 would benefit more from further studying than he would.

[rinkrat19]

How many hours of prep did you do more or less for your LSAT score? Since you are a PhD, you probably have a high ceiling.

I never understand why people assume these things. Why would being a PhD make his ceiling higher on average than most other 160 something scorers?

OP is better educated and well read than 99% of the world's population. His or her reasoning, reading and logical thinking ability is most likely superior to the vast majority of people sitting for this test. The LSAT supposedly tests for this. His 163 proves he has a decent knack for this test. A lot of people can't score this even after studying. Basically OP for a 170+ LSAT score, you most likely have about 300 more hours of prep time that is going to be needed. Even then, a 170+ is not guaranteed, but you have a much better chance than most people of accomplishing this.

Nothing that you just said explains why more studying would help him more than most of those scoring around 163. It may be more likely that given how much more educated he is when it comes to something like reading comprehension, someone with less reading comprehension experience who scored a 163 would benefit more from further studying than he would.

Because he got a 163 after barely studying. If he'd put in 9 months and two tests, maybe we'd accept that he'd scored near his ceiling, but he studied for 20 hours or something. Honestly, that's barely even learning which section is which.

[sinfiery]

the LSAT is not that hard.

I strongly disagree, and I bet the 98% of LSAT takers that get below a 170 would disagree as well.

yeah if you're some typical poli sci major that never had to do any critical thinking it's probably difficult. if you're an engineering UG with a 3.8 gpa, to say your LSAT plateau is 16x, total joke

Agreed, but going back to your original statement of anyone with an engineering background scoring a sub-170 equals a joke, I'm betting instead of 98% of that pool falling into that category, maybe 90% are instead scoring in the "joke" range?

Anyways, OP retake (If only because it is very late in the cycle by now) and I'd recommend looking at some of the resources on this website for LSAT prep. Goodluck.

Also, you can apply and retake if not satisfied if you have the energy to.

[dingbat]

Hi everyone. I'm new here and have been browsing around looking for answers but haven't quite found what I'm looking for. So here goes....what are my chances of getting into a T14 or just under (think down to 18) with the following....

1. 3.82 UGPA (in engineering)
2. 163 LSAT (ouch, I know. I had a rough day. But let's assume I'm not retaking given timelines)
3. PhD from an Ivy League
4. 7 years work experience post-PhD, and am currently a VP (so, have been successful)
5. As an undergrad, I had significant research/work experience as well, including many awards. Held significant leadership positions as an undergrad and graduate student.

Obviously my LSAT is going to hurt me. But I haven't seen much of a real discussion of soft factors for older students such as myself (outside of taxguy discussions) that really address the question of will these "soft" factors push that sub-par LSAT into acceptable territory? I'm agonizing. Help! Thanks

As someone with similarly impressive work credentials, I can tell you that you need to retake. As depressing as it is to hear this, if you're more than 1 point below a school's 25%, then you probably won't get in. (on the other hand, if you're at the 25%, you'll probably be competitive)