Deleted Forum

[20170322]

You are in a wonderful position. Can't believe there are people telling a 4.0 with a 165 to retake, smfh. You're going to have some great choices!

What is your argument for the OP not retaking?

OP's GPA is above the 75th of every school in the country. A 4.0 makes up for some of the splitters these schools want to admit. Her LSAT should get her into everything but the T6 with money( and could probably get accepted to at least one of Chicago, Columbia or NYU with little to no money if dead set on it, if shed applied). She didn't apply to the T6 anyway. A 90th percentile plus LSAT score isn't worth waiting a cycle(I'm of the philosophy that taking a year off between undergrad and graduate studies is a terrible idea unless you have a specific reason to do so) to retake unless you need to compensate for the GPA, which is not the case here. The LSAT simply isn't weak enough to keep OP out of almost any school and the opens the door at every single one. If the OP had time to retake without delaying a cycle, I'd say go for it why not, but there's no guarantee that the score will improve(and the OP is skeptical it will)and taking a year off on the chance the score will go up doesn't seem to be worth it. OP has applied to 7 of the T14, will probably be admitted to almost all or all of them and receive various amounts of money from them(look at the 509's) There really is no reason for OP to retake unless they are dead set on one of the 6 schools in the T14 they didn't apply to and are willing to wait a year for a chance(not a guarantee) to be admitted to one. Don't like the retake consensus guilt you into thinking you're making the wrong decision, you're not. If you're happy with one of your options do it, if not wait a year and reapply and/or retake. You're in a great position and don't let the disproportionate amount of people with higher LSAT scores on here fool you into thinking otherwise. You did better than over 90% of LSAT test takers and have a higher GPA that every single person on this thread would do virtually anything for. The fact that people would advise retake on an applicant like this, really weakens the credibility of their arguments. If this applicant should retake that means that every sub 165 LSAT should retake(because they will inherently have an equal or lesser GPA), not to mention people with higher LSAT's and lower GPA's. I understand the market is saturated but in a hypothetical world where students were forced to retake or not go to law school if they were in a situation equal or worse than this over 95% of LSAT test takers would not be going to law school and most of the nations law schools would close(maybe even 1 or 2 of the beloved T14). Best of luck with your applications and I hope you get lots of money from whatever school you like best or decide is the best fit for you!

You consistently give some of the worst advice on this forum.

There is no world in which the OP retaking is a bad idea. Add 5 points, he's got full rides at Cornell and NU. At 10, they've got a shot at full rides at every school except HYS. That's about 200,000 dollars (including interest), not even including increases to potential earnings. You're saying it wouldn't be worth an extra year to make 200k+? Also, they will (I assume) be working and gaining experience during this time, so that's even more money.


OP, I was in a similar situation (4.0, 164 starting point on the LSAT). I took an entire summer, spent a fortune in printing, studied my ass off, and made a 174. It was one of the best decisions I ever made.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Ferrisjo, I have to admit that when you talk about taking time off that way you sound unrealistic and absolutely terrified of dealing with the real world. If you live in a dangerous place, move. No one's saying that you literally have to stay in your home town for a year; and yes, I do think it's actually good for people to work jobs they're not excited about, even bad jobs. Yes, work at a frigging gas station for a year - you could learn a lot from that (although I also strongly dispute that this is everyone's best/only option). I get that some of the "spend your 20s having fun!!" stuff can come across as condescending. But no one is entitled to an interesting, secure, well-paying job the day after graduation and to expect such a thing and consider not having one as a tragedy is unrealistic and, well, entitled. It's the way of the world that people start off in crappy jobs. The reason people have to pay a lot of money and spend 3 years in law school is that they're trying to jump the queue so to speak, and skip that part.

Again, if you personally believe K-JD is right for you for whatever reason, that's great. But you argue as if telling people to take time off is this terrible, cruel, misinformed thing you have to crusade against, and it simply isn't.

[ToGetIntoTheBoysHole]

Yes, work at a frigging gas station for a year - you could learn a lot from that (although I also strongly dispute that this is everyone's best/only option).

I am not too familiar with the current undergrad job market, but in what world does Ivy grad/Econ/4.0 = gas station clerk lol

I don't want to keep piling on Ferrisjo, but it is clear he/she is projecting his/her own situation/feelings on to the OP/the advice in this thread in general.

[blackmamba8]

I have a higher GPA and a slightly lower LSAT and I didn't even bother applying to schools this cycle. I might've been able to squeak into a T14 or two and a full-ride at my state school, but the only thing between me and infinitely better options is a 4 hour multiple choice test. I never planned on taking a year off, and working some shit job I don't really like is going to suck, but whatever, it's a helluva lot better than $300,000 in loans. If you're capable of a 4.0 in Econ at an Ivy League school you're capable of a 170+ LSAT. Maybe it doesn't happen, but you owe it to yourself to at least try. Worst case scenario you don't get a higher score and you spend a year gaining maturity and real world experience.

[BigZuck]

I guess the gas station thing came from a post I made a couple days ago. I didn't say people should work at a gas station. I said that a young partner told me that he sometimes daydreams of being a cashier at a gas station when he was talking about what sucks about being a lawyer. He said that. That is a literal thing that he said to me.

Anyway, you're not comprehending the stuff people are saying dude. Read things carefully, let them sink in. This crusade is weird.

[Ferrisjso]

Ferrisjo, I have to admit that when you talk about taking time off that way you sound unrealistic and absolutely terrified of dealing with the real world. If you live in a dangerous place, move. No one's saying that you literally have to stay in your home town for a year; and yes, I do think it's actually good for people to work jobs they're not excited about, even bad jobs. Yes, work at a frigging gas station for a year - you could learn a lot from that (although I also strongly dispute that this is everyone's best/only option). I get that some of the "spend your 20s having fun!!" stuff can come across as condescending. But no one is entitled to an interesting, secure, well-paying job the day after graduation and to expect such a thing and consider not having one as a tragedy is unrealistic and, well, entitled. It's the way of the world that people start off in crappy jobs. The reason people have to pay a lot of money and spend 3 years in law school is that they're trying to jump the queue so to speak, and skip that part.

Again, if you personally believe K-JD is right for you for whatever reason, that's great. But you argue as if telling people to take time off is this terrible, cruel, misinformed thing you have to crusade against, and it simply isn't.

The whole point I'm trying to make is that people have alot more good reasons to not take a gap year than one would think. There are people in far worse situations than me (environment wise) and it is not a small group. I am not saying that a gap year is always terrible, if someone has a good reason to skip that's wonderful, I'm just saying there are good reasons not to as well(and that gambling on getting a higher LSAT score simply might not be worth it). I think the concept of assuming one only wants to take a gap year because they are impatient(which I infer quite a few people on here believe) I strongly disagree with accepting the way of the world precisely because "it's crappy"(unless one is forced to) and that someone trying to skip working a crappy job is entitled. OP said they prefer not to take a year off, I have no idea what those reasons are but to just assume they aren't worth retaking(especially in the wonderful situation OP is in) is wrong.

[Ferrisjso]

Yes, work at a frigging gas station for a year - you could learn a lot from that (although I also strongly dispute that this is everyone's best/only option).

I am not too familiar with the current undergrad job market, but in what world does Ivy grad/Econ/4.0 = gas station clerk lol

I don't want to keep piling on Ferrisjo, but it is clear he/she is projecting his/her own situation/feelings on to the OP/the advice in this thread in general.

If you think this was about me, you are missing the entire point of my post. The point was that people have good reasons to want to go straight to law school(especially in great situations like OP's) and we shouldn't assume they don't and that people's situations across this very diverse country are very different.

[cavalier1138]

The whole point I'm trying to make is that people have alot more good reasons to not take a gap year than one would think. There are people in far worse situations than me (environment wise) and it is not a small group. I am not saying that a gap year is always terrible, if someone has a good reason to skip that's wonderful, I'm just saying there are good reasons not to as well(and that gambling on getting a higher LSAT score simply might not be worth it). I think the concept of assuming one only wants to take a gap year because they are impatient(which I infer quite a few people on here believe) I strongly disagree with accepting the way of the world precisely because "it's crappy"(unless one is forced to) and that someone trying to skip working a crappy job is entitled. OP said they prefer not to take a year off, I have no idea what those reasons are but to just assume they aren't worth retaking(especially in the wonderful situation OP is in) is wrong.

And when you unnecessarily put yourself in six figures of debt, future-you is going to be really angry that past-you didn't have the maturity to think about the big picture.

No one is advocating staying in a harmful or dangerous environment. But you are advocating the exact opposite of good advice. There is, in fact, no good reason to rush this decision just because the OP doesn't feel like waiting another year, which is exactly the situation here (and I'm betting it's the situation with you). Law school is not a shortcut to a fulfilling career. It is not a shortcut to money. It isn't a shortcut to anything.

You keep using this idiotic metric of "Look at how high the OP's score is compared to X% of test-takers!", which is nonsensical. Most people who take the LSAT shouldn't go to law school, and many of them don't end up going. If the 90th percentile score won't get the OP the admissions decisions and scholarships she wants this cycle, then the 90th percentile isn't good enough for the OP. If she wanted something different, maybe this score would be just fine. But she doesn't, so patting her on the head and flat-out lying to her about her numbers isn't helpful; it's dangerous. Please stop.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Ferrisjo, I have to admit that when you talk about taking time off that way you sound unrealistic and absolutely terrified of dealing with the real world. If you live in a dangerous place, move. No one's saying that you literally have to stay in your home town for a year; and yes, I do think it's actually good for people to work jobs they're not excited about, even bad jobs. Yes, work at a frigging gas station for a year - you could learn a lot from that (although I also strongly dispute that this is everyone's best/only option). I get that some of the "spend your 20s having fun!!" stuff can come across as condescending. But no one is entitled to an interesting, secure, well-paying job the day after graduation and to expect such a thing and consider not having one as a tragedy is unrealistic and, well, entitled. It's the way of the world that people start off in crappy jobs. The reason people have to pay a lot of money and spend 3 years in law school is that they're trying to jump the queue so to speak, and skip that part.

Again, if you personally believe K-JD is right for you for whatever reason, that's great. But you argue as if telling people to take time off is this terrible, cruel, misinformed thing you have to crusade against, and it simply isn't.

The whole point I'm trying to make is that people have alot more good reasons to not take a gap year than one would think. There are people in far worse situations than me (environment wise) and it is not a small group. I am not saying that a gap year is always terrible, if someone has a good reason to skip that's wonderful, I'm just saying there are good reasons not to as well(and that gambling on getting a higher LSAT score simply might not be worth it). I think the concept of assuming one only wants to take a gap year because they are impatient(which I infer quite a few people on here believe) I strongly disagree with accepting the way of the world precisely because "it's crappy"(unless one is forced to) and that someone trying to skip working a crappy job is entitled. OP said they prefer not to take a year off, I have no idea what those reasons are but to just assume they aren't worth retaking(especially in the wonderful situation OP is in) is wrong.

A lot of that is fair, as long as you aren't too strongly projecting your own concerns onto someone else. Just as much as you object to people assuming applicants who want to go K-JD have other options, I object to you assuming they don't.

But there absolutely are many many people out there who go to law school because it's safer and easier to get into a grad program than it is actually to go out in the world and figure something out. And if you don't think it's reasonable that someone has to start at the bottom and work their way up, I'm not sure what to say. I strongly disagree that people don't have options to work towards a long-term career without going to grad school, especially law school. Yes, people work crappy jobs. That's a stepping-stone in life. Crappy jobs can get you somewhere.

[Ferrisjso]

You are in a wonderful position. Can't believe there are people telling a 4.0 with a 165 to retake, smfh. You're going to have some great choices!

What is your argument for the OP not retaking?

OP's GPA is above the 75th of every school in the country. A 4.0 makes up for some of the splitters these schools want to admit. Her LSAT should get her into everything but the T6 with money( and could probably get accepted to at least one of Chicago, Columbia or NYU with little to no money if dead set on it, if shed applied). She didn't apply to the T6 anyway. A 90th percentile plus LSAT score isn't worth waiting a cycle(I'm of the philosophy that taking a year off between undergrad and graduate studies is a terrible idea unless you have a specific reason to do so) to retake unless you need to compensate for the GPA, which is not the case here. The LSAT simply isn't weak enough to keep OP out of almost any school and the opens the door at every single one. If the OP had time to retake without delaying a cycle, I'd say go for it why not, but there's no guarantee that the score will improve(and the OP is skeptical it will)and taking a year off on the chance the score will go up doesn't seem to be worth it. OP has applied to 7 of the T14, will probably be admitted to almost all or all of them and receive various amounts of money from them(look at the 509's) There really is no reason for OP to retake unless they are dead set on one of the 6 schools in the T14 they didn't apply to and are willing to wait a year for a chance(not a guarantee) to be admitted to one. Don't like the retake consensus guilt you into thinking you're making the wrong decision, you're not. If you're happy with one of your options do it, if not wait a year and reapply and/or retake. You're in a great position and don't let the disproportionate amount of people with higher LSAT scores on here fool you into thinking otherwise. You did better than over 90% of LSAT test takers and have a higher GPA that every single person on this thread would do virtually anything for. The fact that people would advise retake on an applicant like this, really weakens the credibility of their arguments. If this applicant should retake that means that every sub 165 LSAT should retake(because they will inherently have an equal or lesser GPA), not to mention people with higher LSAT's and lower GPA's. I understand the market is saturated but in a hypothetical world where students were forced to retake or not go to law school if they were in a situation equal or worse than this over 95% of LSAT test takers would not be going to law school and most of the nations law schools would close(maybe even 1 or 2 of the beloved T14). Best of luck with your applications and I hope you get lots of money from whatever school you like best or decide is the best fit for you!

You consistently give some of the worst advice on this forum.

There is no world in which the OP retaking is a bad idea. Add 5 points, he's got full rides at Cornell and NU. At 10, they've got a shot at full rides at every school except HYS. That's about 200,000 dollars (including interest), not even including increases to potential earnings. You're saying it wouldn't be worth an extra year to make 200k+? Also, they will (I assume) be working and gaining experience during this time, so that's even more money.


OP, I was in a similar situation (4.0, 164 starting point on the LSAT). I took an entire summer, spent a fortune in printing, studied my ass off, and made a 174. It was one of the best decisions I ever made.

This post is exactly the problem. You are assuming he will get 5-10 points based on your own experiences and that a year off will be worth 200k. However the year off is very likely not to be worth 200k(even if he goes up a point or two) you are simply referring to the best case scenario. This reeks of the whole "I did it, so can you" kind of mentality while the fact of the matter most people don't end up doing what you did. You are in a very very small minority and what happened to you is wonderful(can't understate that enough) and I can see why this would make you passionate about convincing others to do the same but jumping 9 points on the LSAT is not that likely nm the shoo in I seem to think many of you guys think it is. I've said my piece on this, OP if you think the year off is worth the chance to get a better outcome than your already great outcomes then it's the right decision for you. If you don't, it's not. Just want to fight off the ridiculous notion that a retake here is some sort of no brainier, it isn't.

[lawlorbust]

You are in a wonderful position. Can't believe there are people telling a 4.0 with a 165 to retake, smfh. You're going to have some great choices!

What is your argument for the OP not retaking?

...

You consistently give some of the worst advice on this forum.

This post is exactly the problem. You are assuming he will get 5-10 points based on your own experiences and that a year off will be worth 200k. However the year off is very likely not to be worth 200k(even if he goes up a point or two) you are simply referring to the best case scenario. This reeks of the whole "I did it, so can you" kind of mentality while the fact of the matter most people don't end up doing what you did. You are in a very very small minority and what happened to you is wonderful(can't understate that enough) and I can see why this would make you passionate about convincing others to do the same but jumping 9 points on the LSAT is not that likely nm the shoo in I seem to think many of you guys think it is. I've said my piece on this, OP if you think the year off is worth the chance to get a better outcome than your already great outcomes then it's the right decision for you. If you don't, it's not. Just want to fight off the ridiculous notion that a retake here is some sort of no brainier, it isn't.

OP is a 4.0 econ major at an ivy. If there's any single better data point that would indicate that she's in a good position to outperform a 165, let me know. Otherwise please state your IQ before I engage you any further.

[Paul Campos]

Sticker at a lower T-14 is not a "great" outcome for somebody with a 4.0 in Econ from an Ivy League school. In fact unless the person comes from a background where spending $250,000 In mommy and daddy's cash on law school is no big deal, it's a really bad outcome, given the opportunity costs.

[Skye94]

deleted

[BigZuck]

Thanks everyone for all the feedback!

Yes, I am an Economics major (1 year out) and worked really hard for my GPA during undergrad because I knew I wanted to go to law school. Law school has always been my goal since Day 1. I honestly don't care about paying sticker for law school but I do care care about which law school I go to. I've always wanted to go to HYP and I've had a few close friends try to convince me to sit out another cycle and just do better on the LSAT, but I don't think I can. I didn't apply to T1-6 yet because I'm considering sitting out another cycle and I don't want to be a re-applicant. Does anyone know anything about being a re-applicant/if it matters?

I took the LSAT once previously and could not even finish the exam due to severe test anxiety and cancelled my score. The 2nd time I took the LSAT I only got a 165 due to test anxiety coupled with a bad test center experience. I've never had test anxiety on any undergraduate exams (4.0 GPA) so this was really unexpected. My score was somewhat demoralizing because I studied hard (I did ALL ~80 PrepTests) and consistently hit a 175+ on all my practice exams so I don't know if I'm up for taking the test a 3rd time now because I'm drained.

I've never heard good things about Princeton Law School, I'd avoid that one if you can.

I'd take the test one more time in Feb (if you can) or June and see if you can squeeze out a few more points because even one might make a difference in terms of scholarships/acceptances. The nice thing is there's no pressure: if you score lower than no big deal, it won't make a difference. They only consider your highest score. It's a freeroll with no downside.

I'd say as a general matter you're going to have to figure out a way to defeat the standardized test demon. Your first year of law school your grades are solely determined by a series of tests, and there's a big ol standardized test called the Bar Exam looming at the end of law school. Might as well figure out a way to get over your test taking anxiety with one more try at the LSAT. It's the last no pressure exam you'll likely ever take.

[20170322]

Thanks everyone for all the feedback!

Yes, I am an Economics major (1 year out) and worked really hard for my GPA during undergrad because I knew I wanted to go to law school. Law school has always been my goal since Day 1. I honestly don't care about paying sticker for law school but I do care care about which law school I go to. I've always wanted to go to HYP and I know I should sit out another cycle and just do better on the LSAT, but I don't think I can. Also, I am NOT adverse to gap years (my siblings took 1-3 years off before law school and medical school and benefited them greatly).

I didn't apply to T1-6 yet because I'm considering sitting out another cycle if I don't get into 7-14 and I don't want to be a re-applicant. Does anyone know anything about being a re-applicant/if it matters or if I should just apply?

I took the LSAT once previously and could not even finish the exam due to severe test anxiety and cancelled my score. The 2nd time I took the LSAT I only got a 165 due to test anxiety coupled with a bad test center experience. I've never had test anxiety on any undergraduate exams (4.0 GPA) so this was really unexpected. My score was somewhat demoralizing because I studied hard (I did ALL ~80 PrepTests) and consistently hit a 175+ on all my practice exams so I don't know if I'm up for taking the test a 3rd time now because I'm drained.

This seals the deal. Dude, you're fucking yourself so hard if you don't retake.

Listen, here's your new life plan. If anyone thinks there's anything wrong with it, please voice your concern.

1. Figure out something cool to do for a year or two. Do Peace Corps, or TFA, or Americorps, or a business job, or consulting, or be a paralegal. Literally, anything will do. Hell, if you find a fully funded MA, do that. Literally anything works.

2. Retake the LSAT. If you were PTing consistently at 175+, you just have to work on reducing your anxiety on test day. You know how you do that? PT under super shitty conditions. 30 minute sections, 10 section tests, practicing in Starbucks, whatever. Do what it takes, retake, get a 172+.

3. When you decide you definitely want law school, take your pick of MVBPCCN for free, or HYS.


You've worked really hard to get here. You've already done the hardest part-- don't trip at the finish line.

[Skye94]

deleted

[20170322]

Thanks everyone for all the feedback!

Yes, I am an Economics major (1 year out) and worked really hard for my GPA during undergrad because I knew I wanted to go to law school. Law school has always been my goal since Day 1. I honestly don't care about paying sticker for law school but I do care care about which law school I go to. I've always wanted to go to HYP and I've had a few close friends try to convince me to sit out another cycle and just do better on the LSAT, but I don't think I can. I didn't apply to T1-6 yet because I'm considering sitting out another cycle and I don't want to be a re-applicant. Does anyone know anything about being a re-applicant/if it matters?

I took the LSAT once previously and could not even finish the exam due to severe test anxiety and cancelled my score. The 2nd time I took the LSAT I only got a 165 due to test anxiety coupled with a bad test center experience. I've never had test anxiety on any undergraduate exams (4.0 GPA) so this was really unexpected. My score was somewhat demoralizing because I studied hard (I did ALL ~80 PrepTests) and consistently hit a 175+ on all my practice exams so I don't know if I'm up for taking the test a 3rd time now because I'm drained.

I've never heard good things about Princeton Law School, I'd avoid that one if you can.

I'd take the test one more time in Feb (if you can) or June and see if you can squeeze out a few more points because even one might make a difference in terms of scholarships/acceptances. The nice thing is there's no pressure: if you score lower than no big deal, it won't make a difference. They only consider your highest score. It's a freeroll with no downside.

I'd say as a general matter you're going to have to figure out a way to defeat the standardized test demon. Your first year of law school your grades are solely determined by a series of tests, and there's a big ol standardized test called the Bar Exam looming at the end of law school. Might as well figure out a way to get over your test taking anxiety with one more try at the LSAT. It's the last no pressure exam you'll likely ever take.

Oh, I see. I will consider retaking...I was always terrified at the prospect of possibly doing worser the 3rd time and being shut out from all T-14 schools which would create a quarter-life crisis for me.

Just a few corrections:

1. Princeton doesn't have a law school.

2. Worse, not worser.

3. Schools (sans maybe Yale) only care about your highest score, so you literally can't hurt yourself.

[ToGetIntoTheBoysHole]

Thanks everyone for all the feedback!

Yes, I am an Economics major (1 year out) and worked really hard for my GPA during undergrad because I knew I wanted to go to law school. Law school has always been my goal since Day 1. I honestly don't care about paying sticker for law school but I do care care about which law school I go to. I've always wanted to go to HYP and I know I should sit out another cycle and just do better on the LSAT, but I don't think I can. Also, I am NOT adverse to gap years (my siblings took 1-3 years off before law school and medical school and benefited them greatly).

I didn't apply to T1-6 yet because I'm considering sitting out another cycle if I don't get into 7-14 and I don't want to be a re-applicant. Does anyone know anything about being a re-applicant/if it matters or if I should just apply?

I took the LSAT once previously and could not even finish the exam due to severe test anxiety and cancelled my score. The 2nd time I took the LSAT I only got a 165 due to test anxiety coupled with a bad test center experience. I've never had test anxiety on any undergraduate exams (4.0 GPA) so this was really unexpected. My score was somewhat demoralizing because I studied hard (I did ALL ~80 PrepTests) and consistently hit a 175+ on all my practice exams so I don't know if I'm up for taking the test a 3rd time now because I'm drained.

If you don't retake and are set on HYS, from personal experience, you will regret not retaking for maybe 4-5 years. If not caring about sticker means my parents are paying for law school, IMO you'd be fine anywhere in the T14 and should just go to the best school you get into (if rank is more important than location). In the past, I've heard of others who got into NYU with similar stats, but that is purely anecdotal. Maybe consider applying there, I am unsure about Chicago & Columbia, and don't think HYS are realistic given where you're at.

If not caring about sticker means "hey those loan repayments are so far in the future and if I were at HYS I wouldn't be getting merit aid anyways" I would take some time and really think if this is a smart train of thought, considering all that debt could be pretty easily avoided.

It might have been mentioned in this thread already, but I always thought it was smart when people who got some acceptances but had a low LSAT score retook the test in June. If you get into a school you like, you can put down a seat deposit (assuming you can afford it) and just retake the test without pressure. If you end up doing better, you can just withdraw the deposit and apply again next cycle. If not, you are already set to go in a school you are happy with.

Just take a breather, don't think about the LSAT for a few months. Then when you feel refreshed, take a month or two and do some prep, you have a history of scoring 175+ so it doesn't even really have to be that intense (maybe just a PT every few days). I'm not you, but I'd think that would take some of the anxiety away of feeling like I have to get XXX score. Its been a while, but I do remember how nerve racking getting back that first score is.

In the end, you've burned through your retakes, already are set to start law school the following fall and have saved yourself from the lingering doubt of what could have been.

Best of luck, with whatever you decide!

[Skye94]

deleted

[Ferrisjso]

Thanks everyone for all the feedback!

Yes, I am an Economics major (1 year out) and worked really hard for my GPA during undergrad because I knew I wanted to go to law school. Law school has always been my goal since Day 1. I honestly don't care about paying sticker for law school but I do care care about which law school I go to. I've always wanted to go to HYS** and I know I should sit out another cycle and just do better on the LSAT, but I don't think I can. Also, I am NOT adverse to gap years (my siblings took 1-3 years off before law school and medical school and benefited them greatly).

I didn't apply to T1-6 yet because I'm considering sitting out another cycle if I don't get into 7-14 and I don't want to be a re-applicant. Does anyone know anything about being a re-applicant/if it matters or if I should just apply?

I took the LSAT once previously and could not even finish the exam due to severe test anxiety and cancelled my score. The 2nd time I took the LSAT I only got a 165 due to test anxiety coupled with a bad test center experience. I've never had test anxiety on any undergraduate exams (4.0 GPA) or the SAT's so this was really unexpected. My score was somewhat demoralizing because I studied hard (I did ALL ~80 PrepTests) and consistently hit a 175+ on all my practice exams so I don't know if I'm up for taking the test a 3rd time now because I'm drained.

If you do not mind the year off and are convinced you could achieve your PT scores in real life which is very difficult to do with anxiety(I know because I have severe diagnosed anxiety, although it seems like you're far better at managing it if you got a 165:) you should retake because you are shooting for HYS and your numbers aren't good enough. One thing I'd recommend is trying to get a different test center if the one you were in last time had alot of people and/or super strict proctors because that certainly can make one more anxious. Try to find a real testing atmosphere as close to the PT as possible because even if with anxiety there is no way the real test will be the same for you as a PT, you can at least try and should if you're going to retake. Wish you the best of luck and I hope you get into at least one of HYS next cycle, with a 4.0 GPA you clearly worked super hard for it!