jvincent11 wrote:WokeUpInACar wrote:LOL at 4 years of sacrifice and dedication. How about you spend 6 months of sacrifice and dedication and just get a 170+, and have excellent options?
(1) Not everybody is capable of 170+, or else the LSAT would be a pretty bad test. Similarly, not everyone is capable of graduating with a 3.94. There is a reason law schools request academic transcripts. GPA can say a lot about a person - it can also say nothing. Same goes for the LSAT.
(2) I have a range of 167-173 and a high of 176. Can't really help if on test day I fall on the lower end of my range, or miss 170 by 1 question.
Don't act like the LSAT is a tell all test and discount a 3.94 GPA just because you are a splitter.
There is a big difference between deciding not to put the effort in and not being capable of it. There is also a notable difference between not achieving a 170 due to lack of effort, and just having some bad luck on test day and falling short. If you fell below your range, you should retake.
Not everyone will decide to put the effort in to get 170+, just as not everyone will decide to put in the effort for a 3.94. That doesn't mean that most of them aren't capable. I can look back at my grades in undergrad and pinpoint exact situations that cost me my grades and decisions I made that resulted in lower grades. It wasn't because I wasn't capable of a 4.0, but rather because of my immaturity and poor study habits at various times.