Loyola LA vs Pepperdine Forum

[kaydee]

Retake.

I`m so sick of being greeted with that damn crotch avatar on every thread I want to read.

[A.Taarabt7]

go with Loyola OP


some bad advice in here. It would be good to retake if you are still in UG or a recent graduate. You can be a paralegal for a year to get some practical experience. It seems like u know which way to head and you'll be graduating with little debt at LLS. Sounds good to me.

Angelino speaking here, if u can't do USC then LLS sounds good.

[rad lulz]

go with Loyola OP


some bad advice in here. It would be good to retake if you are still in UG or a recent graduate. You can be a paralegal for a year to get some practical experience. It seems like u know which way to head and you'll be graduating with little debt at LLS. Sounds good to me.

Angelino speaking here, if u can't do USC then LLS sounds good.

You don't need to be an Angelino to realize that LLS probably won't even enable you to get a job as a lawyer, but you do you OP

[Dr. Dre]

This is TLS

You get the advice you need

Not necessarily the advice you want

[BigZuck]

go with Loyola OP


some bad advice in here. It would be good to retake if you are still in UG or a recent graduate. You can be a paralegal for a year to get some practical experience. It seems like u know which way to head and you'll be graduating with little debt at LLS. Sounds good to me.

Angelino speaking here, if u can't do USC then LLS sounds good.

I'm almost thirty. You're telling me that I should have gone to Hastings as sticker last year versus UCLA on almost a full ride this year? Keep in mind that the only reason I got into UCLA, let alone the big scholarship, was because I retook the LSAT and passed on the "opportunity" to attend Hastings last year.

[Mr. Jones]

go with Loyola OP


some bad advice in here. It would be good to retake if you are still in UG or a recent graduate. You can be a paralegal for a year to get some practical experience. It seems like u know which way to head and you'll be graduating with little debt at LLS. Sounds good to me.

Angelino speaking here, if u can't do USC then LLS sounds good.

I'm almost thirty. You're telling me that I should have gone to Hastings as sticker last year versus UCLA on almost a full ride this year? Keep in mind that the only reason I got into UCLA, let alone the big scholarship, was because I retook the LSAT and passed on the "opportunity" to attend Hastings last year.

Nobody should go to Hastings at sticker so good move on your part. Personally, I think law school kind of sucks -- I would want to get it over with ASAP at a good price/decent school. UCLA full ride though, that's hard to argue with.

[A.Taarabt7]

go with Loyola OP


some bad advice in here. It would be good to retake if you are still in UG or a recent graduate. You can be a paralegal for a year to get some practical experience. It seems like u know which way to head and you'll be graduating with little debt at LLS. Sounds good to me.

Angelino speaking here, if u can't do USC then LLS sounds good.

I'm almost thirty. You're telling me that I should have gone to Hastings as sticker last year versus UCLA on almost a full ride this year? Keep in mind that the only reason I got into UCLA, let alone the big scholarship, was because I retook the LSAT and passed on the "opportunity" to attend Hastings last year.

congratulations.

The thing is not everyone is in your situation. Some people have kids, a significant other, some just don't want to retake and take another year. Everyones situation is different. Some people don't want to go big law. Maybe some people come from a finance background and were working 80 some hours a week and wanted a transition. Maybe some people were engineers and didn't like their job so they used their science background for law

Im not telling you to do anything. Only one telling you what to do is your self. Its your life you do what you want. Its good to hear it paid off for you and that you got a big scholarship.

[Dr. Dre]

The thing is not everyone is in your situation. Some people have kids, a significant other, some just don't want to retake and take another year. Everyones situation is different. Some people don't want to go big law. Maybe some people come from a finance background and were working 80 some hours a week and wanted a transition. Maybe some people were engineers and didn't like their job so they used their science background for law

Im not telling you to do anything. Only one telling you what to do is your self. Its your life you do what you want. Its good to hear it paid off for you and that you got a big scholarship.

[150s_or_bust]

The thing is not everyone is in your situation. Some people have kids, a significant other, some just don't want to retake and take another year. Everyones situation is different. Some people don't want to go big law. Maybe some people come from a finance background and were working 80 some hours a week and wanted a transition. Maybe some people were engineers and didn't like their job so they used their science background for law

Im not telling you to do anything. Only one telling you what to do is your self. Its your life you do what you want. Its good to hear it paid off for you and that you got a big scholarship.

167 RETAKE or don't go

[A.Taarabt7]

well I tried OP

the trolls are back in town

[Dr. Dre]

The thing is not everyone is in your situation. Some people have kids, a significant other, some just don't want to retake and take another year. Everyones situation is different. Some people don't want to go big law. Maybe some people come from a finance background and were working 80 some hours a week and wanted a transition. Maybe some people were engineers and didn't like their job so they used their science background for law

Im not telling you to do anything. Only one telling you what to do is your self. Its your life you do what you want. Its good to hear it paid off for you and that you got a big scholarship.

167 RETAKE or don't go

[rad lulz]

,

[Allie]

Thank you to those who have actually tried to be helpful.

I would like to point out to those saying "retake" that 1) I didn't list that as an option so your opinion on said matter is void and 2) which is WAY MORE IMPORTANT, I think people need to get off their high horse and realize that not everyone can score in the high 60s or 70s. Not everyone is that smart. It's not an unwillingness to miss a year, it's the fact that sometimes a low 60s is all you're really cut out for. People have ceilings and they are different for everyone. Congratulations on being born smarter than most people and reaching that potential. Doesn't mean everyone is as clever as you.

[Dr. Dre]

Not everyone is that smart.

You are EQUIVICATING "intelligence" with "work ethic";

the LSAT is not about how smart you are, it's about how much work you will put into learning that damn test. If you give up, call it quits, throw in the towel, because you are not smart enough to learn the LSAT, then you are not trying hard enough.

[150s_or_bust]

Not everyone is that smart.

You are EQUIVICATING "intelligence" with "work ethic";

the LSAT is not about how smart you are, it's about how much work you will put into learning that damn test. If you give up, call it quits, throw in the towel, because you are not smart enough to learn the LSAT, then you are not trying hard enough.

Mr. 167 didn't try hard enough

[Dr. Dre]

Mr. 167 didn't try hard enough

which is why im going to retake

[Lasers]

Not everyone is that smart.

You are EQUIVICATING "intelligence" with "work ethic";

the LSAT is not about how smart you are, it's about how much work you will put into learning that damn test. If you give up, call it quits, throw in the towel, because you are not smart enough to learn the LSAT, then you are not trying hard enough.

i am on the retake bandwagon because loyola or pepperdine are just too insanely risky...it could be disastrous.

however, i don't think it's true that someone isn't trying hard enough if they don't score well. the LSAT is a VERY learnable exam, but only to a certain extent. it is not that people have inherent ceilings on their ability to learn the LSAT, it's that it takes certain people much longer to do so. i would not doubt almost anyone with years of prep could score 170+ on the LSAT, but that just isn't feasible.

if OP has not put enough time or effort into the exam, then yes, OP should retake. but if OP has already spent a lot of time and effort and has studied correctly and still hasn't scored well, improvement will be unlikely to come in a retake a few months later. in such an event, a retake isn't necessary because law school just isn't a prudent decision, period.

[sublime]

..

[ManoftheHour]

Thank you to those who have actually tried to be helpful.

I would like to point out to those saying "retake" that 1) I didn't list that as an option so your opinion on said matter is void and 2) which is WAY MORE IMPORTANT, I think people need to get off their high horse and realize that not everyone can score in the high 60s or 70s. Not everyone is that smart. It's not an unwillingness to miss a year, it's the fact that sometimes a low 60s is all you're really cut out for. People have ceilings and they are different for everyone. Congratulations on being born smarter than most people and reaching that potential. Doesn't mean everyone is as clever as you.

OP, hear me out:

3.6, 162, and one cancelled score. Retaking in 3 days.

I have the EXACT same offers as you on the table. I agree. In the end, some of us aren't cut out for higher than the low 160s. I may find out in 3 days (I'm retaking) that all I'm cut out for is the low 160s. But you can be damn sure that I tried. If you're not taking the LSAT 3 times, you're not trying hard enough (unless you got something close to a 180). You probably still have untapped potential. Have you gone through the Manhattan bundle? Have you drilled the Cambridge series? Have you taken every LSAT in existence? If the answer is no to any of these, then you have not peaked. I'm confident in a 4-5 point increase. I'm optimistic for a 169/170. But if I fail, at least I left no doubt that I did the best I could and I put myself in the best possible situation for law school.

And this is coming from someone WITH a job lined up after graduation (although, I want big law and this job isn't a big law job). The point is, if you can go for something better, ALWAYS go for something better. You really have nothing to lose. With a 3.8, 3 or 4 points higher and you'd be looking at USC/UCLA with $$ AND Loyola/Pepperdine with a full ride AND money for housing. That's right. The school will give you money for housing. If you live at home, you get a $500 check sent to you every month. Doesn't that sound WAY better than taking out 30k in loans for either school right now?

GL on your decision. If not and I bomb the LSAT, I'll see you at LLS.

[shifty_eyed]

Sure, maybe not everyone can reach 168+, but how will you know if you don't try? The only downsides are the annoyance of studying (which you would be doing more of as a 1L anyway!!) and telling people you aren't going this year (easy to point them to NYT articles about the poor job prospects to explain why) and the upsides are huge.

I say this as someone who waited 3 years after undergrad, took the LSAT three times, and only improved my initial score by TWO points. It was still worth it because the applicant pool decreased dramatically (which will continue for you, OP), and as a splitter, LSAT was all I had going for me. I never actually applied before this cycle, but by LSN predictions I went from likely rejection at UT to 18k/yr. All from time plus two LSAT points.

[ManoftheHour]

I say this as someone who waited 3 years after undergrad, took the LSAT three times, and only improved my initial score by TWO points. It was still worth it because the applicant pool decreased dramatically (which will continue for you, OP), and as a splitter, LSAT was all I had going for me. I never actually applied before this cycle, but by LSN predictions I went from likely rejection at UT to 18k/yr. All from time plus two LSAT points.

TITCR

I'll take the extreme and say even if I don't improve a single point on my last retake, I regret nothing at all.

[shifty_eyed]

I say this as someone who waited 3 years after undergrad, took the LSAT three times, and only improved my initial score by TWO points. It was still worth it because the applicant pool decreased dramatically (which will continue for you, OP), and as a splitter, LSAT was all I had going for me. I never actually applied before this cycle, but by LSN predictions I went from likely rejection at UT to 18k/yr. All from time plus two LSAT points.

TITCR

I'll take the extreme and say even if I don't improve a single point on my last retake, I regret nothing at all.

TBH, I'm not sure the 2 points even helped me, but still NO REGRETS (I've never seen a TLSer say they regret sitting a cycle out either)!

[Micdiddy]

Thank you to those who have actually tried to be helpful.

I would like to point out to those saying "retake" that 1) I didn't list that as an option so your opinion on said matter is void and 2) which is WAY MORE IMPORTANT, I think people need to get off their high horse and realize that not everyone can score in the high 60s or 70s. Not everyone is that smart. It's not an unwillingness to miss a year, it's the fact that sometimes a low 60s is all you're really cut out for. People have ceilings and they are different for everyone. Congratulations on being born smarter than most people and reaching that potential. Doesn't mean everyone is as clever as you.

OP, I tutored someone over the past few months that started at a 135 and is now testing at a 170. What did she do differently? Listened. That's it. She listened and applied the things I said extremely well. Is her case unusual absolutely it is but not because she is way way smarter than everyone else, but because she has the discipline to listen intently and sponge things up word for word when someone was telling her "this is literally how you get a question like this right every time."
You'd be amazed by how many people don't listen, or let things go in one ear and out the other. The LSAT is not a test of raw intelligence, it is a test of how well you can learn the necessary skills and apply them and ANYONE is capable of doing this.
Right now there are many people in this very thread giving you extremely good advice, and all you have to do is listen and apply it, and you will be on your path to a better lsat score and better law school future.

[froglee]

Pepperdine does really well in entertainment law. If fact, it is called the Havard of entertainment law. Go to Pepperdine if you can't get into HYS

[ManoftheHour]

Pepperdine does really well in entertainment law. If fact, it is called the Havard of entertainment law. Go to Pepperdine if you can't get into HYS

What about for international law?