"reverse splitter" 161/3.97. Vandy, Duke, UVA Forum

[rebexness]

That said, if someone came on this board with a 3.1 and a 174, everyone would scream ED UVA. It's not an objectively bad decision like sticker at, say, George Mason. I think very few people would tell the 3.1/174 to not go to law school at all, so why are we telling this person to either increase their score and/or not go?

Apples and oranges, breh.

A 3.1 cannot increase his below median GPA. Even if he retook, the odds scholarship/acceptance don't increase much after 174. This is literally the best he is going to do.

A 4.0, 161 CAN improve their below median score. They can increase their odds of being accepted to better schools with more scholarship money.

So in essence, the 174 has done almost every thing possible to get a favorable outcome without a time machine, but the 161 has not.

[jbagelboy]

You're a dummy if you don't retake. If you don't have the wherewithal to retake an easy test, what makes you think you're going to do well in law school?

Funny, maybe its just me, but if I had to put my money on one of two people to succeed in law school, a 16X/4.00 vs. 17X/3.00 I'd put my money on the former, every time. People are quick to call people lazy for not getting a 170 on a test that is designed so only <5% obtain such a score, but never call out the fools for being lazy that blew off undergrad and got a 3.00 in a time where grade inflation is rampid accross the board, and you literally have to TRY to do that poorly in college.

Congrats OP.

Disagree on two accounts, 1) I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of sub 3.3 posters had a really crappy freshman year and then basically got 4.0 from then out or had medical issues and didn't withdraw from classes because they were, you know, dying. 2) The LSAT is an easy brightline to see and conquer, whereas UGrad is a 4-5 year experience. If you're taking the LSAT, it's because you know you want to go to law school, and laziness in that area is unforgivable; doesn't matter what your GPA is.

The bolded does happen.. this was my situation, but I wound up with a 3.7; (horrible first semester freshmen year when I was in the hospital for a while, good grades after). To get a 3.3 you have to tank yourself time and time again, not just one year, or just major in a subject you really aren't that comfortable with. I knew a Chem major who just struggled with the material but really wanted to complete the major.. she got a C in ochem and pchem but passed and probably graduated with ~3.3. I think its a stretch to say the "vast majority" of B average students had an extreme extenuating circumstance.

[kingjones59]

You're a dummy if you don't retake. If you don't have the wherewithal to retake an easy test, what makes you think you're going to do well in law school?

Funny, maybe its just me, but if I had to put my money on one of two people to succeed in law school, a 16X/4.00 vs. 17X/3.00 I'd put my money on the former, every time. People are quick to call people lazy for not getting a 170 on a test that is designed so only <5% obtain such a score, but never call out the fools for being lazy that blew off undergrad and got a 3.00 in a time where grade inflation is rampid accross the board, and you literally have to TRY to do that poorly in college.

Congrats OP.

Disagree on two accounts, 1) I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of sub 3.3 posters had a really crappy freshman year and then basically got 4.0 from then out or had medical issues and didn't withdraw from classes because they were, you know, dying. 2) The LSAT is an easy brightline to see and conquer, whereas UGrad is a 4-5 year experience. If you're taking the LSAT, it's because you know you want to go to law school, and laziness in that area is unforgivable; doesn't matter what your GPA is.

The bolded does happen.. this was my situation, but I wound up with a 3.7; (horrible first semester freshmen year when I was in the hospital for a while, good grades after). To get a 3.3 you have to tank yourself time and time again, not just one year, or just major in a subject you really aren't that comfortable with. I knew a Chem major who just struggled with the material but really wanted to complete the major.. she got a C in ochem and pchem but passed and probably graduated with ~3.3. I think its a stretch to say the "vast majority" of B average students had an extreme extenuating circumstance.

Exactly. Even if you got a 2.5 for the entire first year (any lower you’d likely be kicked out), and got a 3.8 for the remaining 3 years, you’d still graduate with a 3.475. My statement still stands, give me someone who worked their ass off for 4 years on every single class and every single test, and got a 3.9X-4.00 but got a 16X over someone who slacked for 4 years but got 5 or 6 more questions right on the LSAT. Saying the latter is more likely to succeed than the former, or that because the former didn't retake the LSAT enough times and get a 170 they do not have what it takes to succeed in law school, is a joke.

[Mack12]

Kingjones59, thanks for the support! As I've said before, I worked my ass off for my 161, as well as my summa cum laude in undergrad, and while LSAT score is deemed an indicator of 1L success, it is by no means the ONLY indicator. I am confident that my work ethic, determination, and passion for this pursuit will give me success at UVA, just as I am sure those who have a lower GPA and higher LSAT have their own personal means that will help them climb the ladder. Law school is different for everyone, which is why you cant just group different people into massive piles of "sure to fail" or "sure to succeed" based solely on LSAT or GPA.

[ManOfTheMinute]

Kingjones59, thanks for the support! As I've said before, I worked my ass off for my 161, as well as my summa cum laude in undergrad, and while LSAT score is deemed an indicator of 1L success, it is by no means the ONLY indicator. I am confident that my work ethic, determination, and passion for this pursuit will give me success at UVA, just as I am sure those who have a lower GPA and higher LSAT have their own personal means that will help them climb the ladder. Law school is different for everyone, which is why you cant just group different people into massive piles of "sure to fail" or "sure to succeed" based solely on LSAT or GPA.

It's not a question of if you'll succeed in law school - no one is saying you should retake the LSAT so you can do better in law school. They're saying that you should retake the LSAT so you can get into a good law school where your future success is much more likely. You are being bullheaded if you are unwilling to re-take what is probably the single most important test of your life... But hey, if kingjones59 agrees with you, who am I to argue?

[BigZuck]

The OP bullheadedness aside- I think probably one of the reasons the LSAT is a better indicator of law school grades than a history of good grades is because if one cracks under pressure of a big test, even after tons of preparation, there is a decent chance they will do so on law school exams. Grades are predicated on the performance of one test much more so than classes in undergrad. I would rather be someone who is capable of doing whatever it takes to rise to the occasion for one test (a 3.0/170 if you will) than a hard worker who just hard works their way through school (a 4.0/160 if you will).

[sinfiery]

Yeah, I agree that UVA at sticker isn't an absolutely bad decision but a reverse splitter has such an upside with a retake that the retake or die screams are warranted.

But OP seems to have put forth a decent effort (albeit if I were they, I would certainly take once more)for the LSAT that you could be near accepting the acceptance offer even in the mind of some informed consumers but definitely not all.

[che3055]

The OP bullheadedness aside- I think probably one of the reasons the LSAT is a better indicator of law school grades than a history of good grades is because if one cracks under pressure of a big test, even after tons of preparation, there is a decent chance they will do so on law school exams. Grades are predicated on the performance of one test much more so than classes in undergrad. I would rather be someone who is capable of doing whatever it takes to rise to the occasion for one test (a 3.0/170 if you will) than a hard worker who just hard works their way through school (a 4.0/160 if you will).

Agree for the most part, especially that law grades are almost exclusively given on the basis of one exam, whereas that same one exam is only a fraction of an undergrad grade (typically my finals make up between 20% and 50% of my grade, rarely more than that).

Still, I think the "rise to the occasion" thing only goes so far. After all, an LSAT of 165 and and LSAT of 170 is only a few multiple choice bubbles apart, yet makes a HUGE difference. How much of an indicator of success are a few extra bubbles, done in a few minutes, versus a few extra As which, however easily they may be earned, still represent a body of 4-5 months' work?

[jbagelboy]

The OP bullheadedness aside- I think probably one of the reasons the LSAT is a better indicator of law school grades than a history of good grades is because if one cracks under pressure of a big test, even after tons of preparation, there is a decent chance they will do so on law school exams. Grades are predicated on the performance of one test much more so than classes in undergrad. I would rather be someone who is capable of doing whatever it takes to rise to the occasion for one test (a 3.0/170 if you will) than a hard worker who just hard works their way through school (a 4.0/160 if you will).

Agree for the most part, especially that law grades are almost exclusively given on the basis of one exam, whereas that same one exam is only a fraction of an undergrad grade (typically my finals make up between 20% and 50% of my grade, rarely more than that).

Still, I think the "rise to the occasion" thing only goes so far. After all, an LSAT of 165 and and LSAT of 170 is only a few multiple choice bubbles apart, yet makes a HUGE difference. How much of an indicator of success are a few extra bubbles, done in a few minutes, versus a few extra As which, however easily they may be earned, still represent a body of 4-5 months' work?

I can see both sides to this. Your point has validity regarding the different between LSAT scores being only a matter of a few questions. Obviously its an imperfect system. At the same time, part of the diligence for the LSAT is in studying and retaking when you underperform. This demonstrates, as Zuck stated, a "rising to the occasion" as well. For law school exams, you will also be taking PTs and have prep materials from class. If you can't take the extra time to review them and do as best you can, then idk what that says about your willingness it perform in LS

[Mal Reynolds]

You're wasting your gpa if you go to UVA this year.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

You're wasting your gpa if you go to UVA this year.

This is doubly true because statistically, you weren't even supposed to get into UVA (see the first post ITT). But with apps being down, high GPAs and LSATs are in insanely high demand, so you lucked out.

Your parents may be subsidizing your education but you have a great shot at $$ and a higher ranked school if you retake and apply next year.

Again, not doing so is a waste of that GPA and of a lot of free money you don't have to mooch off your folks.

[Drake014]

You're wasting your gpa if you go to UVA this year.

And she's wasting a year of her life if she doesn't. I suppose it just depends on which you value more.

[Mal Reynolds]

You're wasting your gpa if you go to UVA this year.

And she's wasting a year of her life if she doesn't. I suppose it just depends on which you value more.

I guess this is kind of valid if her parents are footing the bill. I'd still disagree

[hephaestus]

You're wasting your gpa if you go to UVA this year.

And she's wasting a year of her life if she doesn't. I suppose it just depends on which you value more.

I guess this is kind of valid if her parents are footing the bill. I'd still disagree

Especially if her parents are paying, they should pay for a better school.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

You're wasting your gpa if you go to UVA this year.

And she's wasting a year of her life if she doesn't. I suppose it just depends on which you value more.

I guess this is kind of valid if her parents are footing the bill. I'd still disagree

If her parents are willing to give her that money, she should use some of it towards school with a nice scholly and the rest towards the down payment of a house.

Throwing a quarter of a million dollars at law school when she could do much better isn't a waste of a year, it's smart.

[che3055]

I can see both sides to this. Your point has validity regarding the different between LSAT scores being only a matter of a few questions. Obviously its an imperfect system. At the same time, part of the diligence for the LSAT is in studying and retaking when you underperform. This demonstrates, as Zuck stated, a "rising to the occasion" as well. For law school exams, you will also be taking PTs and have prep materials from class. If you can't take the extra time to review them and do as best you can, then idk what that says about your willingness it perform in LS

Good point, but I still think that there is only a certain amount of prep that can be done, and at a certain point, it's just what the test gods decide to give you. I'm sure there are a lot of people who were as prepared as they could be for October 2012 and then the subzones game came along...

But you're right, the same thing will happen with law school exams. There is an inherent level of unpredictability that just makes both the LSAT and law school grades a bit of a crapshoot.

Kind of off topic, but the scenario you present (diligence in prep and retaking until you're out of tries or have a killer score) is kind of what schools discourage publicly. While admissions statistics certainly suggest otherwise, many adcomms will tell prospective students that retaking will almost always bring at best a marginal increase, and it really isn't worth it. I wonder why this is. (Not really expecting an answer, just a thought.)

[hephaestus]

I can see both sides to this. Your point has validity regarding the different between LSAT scores being only a matter of a few questions. Obviously its an imperfect system. At the same time, part of the diligence for the LSAT is in studying and retaking when you underperform. This demonstrates, as Zuck stated, a "rising to the occasion" as well. For law school exams, you will also be taking PTs and have prep materials from class. If you can't take the extra time to review them and do as best you can, then idk what that says about your willingness it perform in LS

Good point, but I still think that there is only a certain amount of prep that can be done, and at a certain point, it's just what the test gods decide to give you. I'm sure there are a lot of people who were as prepared as they could be for October 2012 and then the subzones game came along...

But you're right, the same thing will happen with law school exams. There is an inherent level of unpredictability that just makes both the LSAT and law school grades a bit of a crapshoot.

Kind of off topic, but the scenario you present (diligence in prep and retaking until you're out of tries or have a killer score) is kind of what schools discourage publicly. While admissions statistics certainly suggest otherwise, many adcomms will tell prospective students that retaking will almost always bring at best a marginal increase, and it really isn't worth it. I wonder why this is. (Not really expecting an answer, just a thought.)

I feel like schools say this to encourage people like OP to drop six figures instead of going for free. It's unfortunate.

[Mal Reynolds]

You're 100% wrong with regards to test prep. And LOL at listening to what Adcomms say publicly. Just lol.

[bruin91]

Oh brother.... trolling again on mack.

She got into UVA off the WL with a 161. She'd need to hit a 167 to receive some scholly money from a peer of UVA, a 6 point difference just for some aid-- aid that I'd argue OP could pay off faster by not wasting a year of her life.

For her to look at significant scholly money, she'd need a 8-10 point boost--statistically improbable.

By not taking this offer, she'd risk losing a very good opportunity, that is far from guaranteed next cycle. If her parents are nice enough and have the means to provide for her law school education, then that seals the deal.

In this case, retake is not the right call.

I'm happy for you OP.

[jbagelboy]

You're 100% wrong with regards to test prep. And LOL at listening to what Adcomms say publicly. Just lol.

Which statement is 100% wrong? Im curious

[hephaestus]

Oh brother.... trolling again on mack.

She got into UVA off the WL with a 161. She'd need to hit a 167 to receive some scholly money from a peer of UVA, a 6 point difference just for some aid-- aid that I'd argue OP could pay off faster by not wasting a year of her life.

For her to look at significant scholly money, she'd need a 8-10 point boost--statistically improbable.

By not taking this offer, she'd risk losing a very good opportunity, that is far from guaranteed next cycle. If her parents are nice enough and have the means to provide for her law school education, then that seals the deal.

In this case, retake is not the right call.

This really isn't true at all. A 165+ and OP gets substantial $$$ from cornell. 168+ and serious money from the rest of the lower t14. And stop with the "statistically improbable" nonsense. The correct prep strategy can lead to big gains for almost any applicant.
Retaking is almost certainly the best decision.

[bruin91]

Oh brother.... trolling again on mack.

She got into UVA off the WL with a 161. She'd need to hit a 167 to receive some scholly money from a peer of UVA, a 6 point difference just for some aid-- aid that I'd argue OP could pay off faster by not wasting a year of her life.

For her to look at significant scholly money, she'd need a 8-10 point boost--statistically improbable.

By not taking this offer, she'd risk losing a very good opportunity, that is far from guaranteed next cycle. If her parents are nice enough and have the means to provide for her law school education, then that seals the deal.

In this case, retake is not the right call.

This really isn't true at all. A 165+ and OP gets substantial $$$ from cornell. 168+ and serious money from the rest of the lower t14. And stop with the "statistically improbable" nonsense. The correct prep strategy can lead to big gains for almost any applicant.
Retaking is almost certainly the best decision.

What part of what I said was untrue? I said, OP would need at least a 167 for some aid at a peer (Cornell is not a peer of UVA). And I agreed that a 168 would yield substantial $ from a lower T14.

I don't know what the "correct" strategy is... but generally speaking not everyone is capable of attaining a 168 within a reasonable time frame. But I'm not intending to engage in an argument with you on that. But that is the only premise of my previous post you actually tried to refute. Everything else in your comment reiterated what I had said previously.

[BigZuck]

Oh brother.... trolling again on mack.

She got into UVA off the WL with a 161. She'd need to hit a 167 to receive some scholly money from a peer of UVA, a 6 point difference just for some aid-- aid that I'd argue OP could pay off faster by not wasting a year of her life.

For her to look at significant scholly money, she'd need a 8-10 point boost--statistically improbable.

By not taking this offer, she'd risk losing a very good opportunity, that is far from guaranteed next cycle. If her parents are nice enough and have the means to provide for her law school education, then that seals the deal.

In this case, retake is not the right call.

This really isn't true at all. A 165+ and OP gets substantial $$$ from cornell. 168+ and serious money from the rest of the lower t14. And stop with the "statistically improbable" nonsense. The correct prep strategy can lead to big gains for almost any applicant.
Retaking is almost certainly the best decision.

What part of what I said was untrue? I said, OP would need at least a 167 for some aid at a peer (Cornell is not a peer of UVA). And I agreed that a 168 would yield substantial $ from a lower T14.

I don't know what the "correct" strategy is... but generally speaking not everyone is capable of attaining a 168 within a reasonable time frame. But I'm not intending to engage in an argument with you on that. But that is the only premise of my previous post you actually tried to refute. Everything else in your comment reiterated what I had said previously.

I'll say it for him so he doesn't get accused of being a homer: how is Cornell not a peer of UVA? UVA, Cornell, Berkeley, Duke, Northwestern, and Penn are all peers.

HYS
CCN
VPBDCN

are the peers as far as employment opportunities go. And that's all that really matters (besides cost).

[Bfalcon]

Give this guy a break. He's not saying people shouldn't retake, he was just posting the results of his cycle. He didn't ask for any advice about retaking and he pretty clearly is not interested in TLS's thoughts about his family's financial situation.

+1

[drive4showLSAT4dough]

'Grats on UVA. Haters gonna hate, Slaters gonna Slate.