173/3.85 Selling myself short? Forum

[Ti Malice]

you will get into at least one HYS. if i was in your position OP i would apply to the top ten schools. you could get a great scholly somewhere - forget ASU

"Top ten" is an utterly meaningless designation.

OP, you do not have a "strong shot" at Stanford, unfortunately. You have a shot, but it's less than 50/50. You have a significantly stronger shot at Harvard, but you're definitely not a lock. You have essentially no shot at Yale.

Keep in mind that YHS all give exclusively need-based grants. Your age means that your parental income will not be considered; depending entirely upon your assets/income, it's possible to get a scholarship for substantially more than half-tuition at these schools.

Why do you say this?

[Micdiddy]

Fair enough. Rather small sample size (and any idea if some of those 7 got off the waitlist?)
Still easily worth the application fee IMO, but Harvard on down is op's best bet.

[Ti Malice]

Fair enough. Rather small sample size (and any idea if some of those 7 got off the waitlist?)
Still easily worth the application fee IMO, but Harvard on down is op's best bet.

Here's a larger sample size (3.8-3.9) that makes the same point. YLS is extremely difficult to crack for a non-URM at one median and below the other (or even exactly at both, apparently).



As for the WL, YLS usually only draws five to ten students from a WL of ~100 each year. Since LSN only represents a fairly small fraction of the applicant and admit pool, the WL effect on that sample would be pretty small. And the above students are probably less likely to be selected when the school has applicants like this on the WL (3.9-4.3/174-180):

[JoshuaFitch]

*

[062914123]

.

[Ti Malice]

Great info!

Another quick question. I have only taken the LSAT once (173). I imagine that I could increase my score if I took it again. But, it seems like a bit of a gamble. What do you think?

I'm probably more pro-retake than most for people in your situation. If you have really strong reasons (evidence-based) to believe that you could improve your score, it's worth retaking. If you're PTing at 172-175 before test day however, you're probably not going to make a jump. On the other hand, if you are consistently scoring at or above ~176, I would go for it. The difference between a 173 and a 174 is pretty significant for YH, because it's above rather than at the median. Here's the same table as the first one in my last post, but with LSAT changed to 174 from 173:

[JoshuaFitch]

*

[Micdiddy]

Retake is certainly justifiable. I have a 173 and would 100% retake if I sat out this year (though, as a tutor, I've been effectively studying for a year straight).
Take some pt's and if you're confident you won't do worse, retake. Another 173 won't be a huge deal and as pointed out above just one more point might be a huge deal.

[Doorkeeper]

I think retaking a 173 is a bit ridiculous with a 3.85. OP has a 70% chance at Harvard and is not K-JD, which boosts his odds even higher. Maybe retake if he didn't get HYS, but at some point you hit diminishing returns.

[sinfiery]

I think retaking a 173 is a bit ridiculous with a 3.85. OP has a 70% chance at Harvard and is not K-JD, which boosts his odds even higher. Maybe retake if he didn't get HYS, but at some point you hit diminishing returns.

Agreed. I never understood.the difference between being at median or above it but below the 75%. In every statistical form the school would have to fill out, you are the same. A higher score could be used as a soft bump but at that point I believe you're going to get accepted based on the rest of your app at HYS.


Also, the way you said you studied and your highest score being a non test conditioned 176, I am confused. If you put in a lot of effort and that was your peak, keep your current score. If you studied very lazily as is suggested by your method, if you can put forth a decent effort in your retake, it may pay huge dividends with a 176+.

[Micdiddy]

Retaking a 173 is not objectively bad. All depends on your pt scores. I would not advise someone scoring 174 and 175 every test to retake a 173, but I would definitely advise someone who scores mainly 178+ to retake it.

[radar714]

I think retaking a 173 is a bit ridiculous with a 3.85. OP has a 70% chance at Harvard and is not K-JD, which boosts his odds even higher. Maybe retake if he didn't get HYS, but at some point you hit diminishing returns.

This. You have a shot at every school because of your WE. Apply to YSH, and don't let LSN dissuade you, even if your statistical chance is small its definitely worth a try. Also, Applying several times might not be a bad idea, a close family friend of mine got into H with a 3.6/174 b/c they applied there 3 years in a row (denied the first time, WL'd second, WL->accept the third time).

[Doorkeeper]

Retaking a 173 is not objectively bad. All depends on your pt scores. I would not advise someone scoring 174 and 175 every test to retake a 173, but I would definitely advise someone who scores mainly 178+ to retake it.

Fair enough. Unless OP was consistently hitting 178-180, do not retake.

[Ti Malice]

I never understood.the difference between being at median or above it but below the 75%. In every statistical form the school would have to fill out, you are the same. A higher score could be used as a soft bump but at that point I believe you're going to get accepted based on the rest of your app at HYS.

And yet it clearly matters. Whether one understands why is irrelevant.

But to understand why, you certainly can't think of the question in terms of the individual applicant. Along with the school's 25/50/75 goals, you have to consider the school's goals for class size, for proportion of URMs in the class, and for importance of nonnumerical factors. You also have to consider that any higher-numbered applicant a school gets is one that none of its varyingly numbers-whorish competitors get.

[Ti Malice]

Retake is certainly justifiable. I have a 173 and would 100% retake if I sat out this year (though, as a tutor, I've been effectively studying for a year straight).
Take some pt's and if you're confident you won't do worse, retake. Another 173 won't be a huge deal and as pointed out above just one more point might be a huge deal.

Retaking a 173 is not objectively bad. All depends on your pt scores. I would not advise someone scoring 174 and 175 every test to retake a 173, but I would definitely advise someone who scores mainly 178+ to retake it.

Absolutely agree with both of these posts. There's no real downside, and there's potentially substantial upside. If after studying for some time, you are consistently scoring a few points above 173, then you should absolutely retake. And don't make the call after three weeks of studying. Really put in the effort to reach your potential. If you feel certain on test day that you bombed it, relatively speaking, you can always cancel.

And improving your chances of getting into YHS isn't the only potential upside. Depending on how much you improve, you could wind up with huge money from a T13 (which could be pretty appealing if you don't stand to get much need-based aid from H, for example). You're already in pretty nice shape for one of the $150K scholarships Northwestern gives ED applicants, considering your work experience; your odds would get better if you scored higher, and they wouldn't decrease if you didn't. Put simply, your chances for admission and large amounts of scholarship money go up across the board with a higher score and they don't really change without one.

And I forgot to mention that it's great that LG is your worst section, because it's the easiest to improve. With proper effort and practice, I think virtually anyone at your scoring level can eventually consistently score -2 or better on LG.

[Micdiddy]

Yeah if LG is your worst section that makes retaking look even better. I wouldn't even Ed NU (though it's not bad by any means) because you can maybe eek out a full ride (or close) at other t14's and possibly NU anyway without an Ed.
Gl next cycle! Stay close to TLS so you don't screw anything up

[sinfiery]

And yet it clearly matters. Whether one understands why is irrelevant.

Fair enough.

And yeah, a retake near 176 opens up full rides from CCN potentially.

[Clearly]

I can tell you this much, regardless of whether or not you retake, you are certainly selling yourself short with your applications this cycle.

[bruinfan10]

You're getting "yield protected" at those low-ranked schools because statistics suggest no one in their right mind with your numbers would attend them. My risk-averse roommate applied to UC Hastings with numbers similar to yours as a "safety," and they straight up rejected him because they didn't want to hurt their acceptance rate by letting him turn down their offer. Anywhere below HYSCCN among the top schools would give you more than a half-scholarship.

In terms of retaking, if you're regularly scoring 178+ on your practice tests, maybe do it, but otherwise I have no idea what these people are talking about. Maybe you choke under pressure, and that's why you scored lower on game day. a LOT of people do. Taking it again and getting a lower score, even to the admissions deans who claim they don't average, does not look good for your application. There is a downside to retaking when you have a 170+.

You've got a solid shot at HYS, please apply there, and I agree at the worst you should take solid money from CCN.

[BaiAilian2013]

Think about what you want to do with your degree while making this decision. The type of job you plan to pursue is a very important factor as you balance big name against no debt.

[WhiskeynCoke]

Ah, about the 50% thing, I'm not exactly sure why, and I am posting the results from memory 1 year out. I'm a bit hazy on the details. Maybe it was because I applied late in the cycle? For example, I was unable to apply at Stanford because my LSAT scores came in after their deadline. This time I will be early though. Would that make a difference?

My guess is that you only got 50% because the schools figured you were extremely unlikely to attend anyway (due to much better options), and would rather use the rest of the money on someone likely to accept the scholarship. I bet you could've easily negotiated that up to a full ride, had you convinced them you'd actually attend (demonstrating considerable interest).

However, you shouldn't go to either of those schools even for free + living stipend. Your current career is much better than anything you'd get out of those schools. You should be T14$$$/HYS or bust with those numbers and your background. You sold yourself super short.

[JoshuaFitch]

*

[jbagelboy]

Thank you all - again. I have a lot to think about now. To be honest, as a person of rather humble background I never seriously considered going to a top school. I knew my numbers were fairly good, but figured those sorts of schools were somehow out of my league. Now I have some reconsidering to do. Thank you again, I appreciate your time and experience.

Well, in the immortal words of Hawthorne,
"Families are always rising and falling in America"...

[Micdiddy]

Thank you all - again. I have a lot to think about now. To be honest, as a person of rather humble background I never seriously considered going to a top school. I knew my numbers were fairly good, but figured those sorts of schools were somehow out of my league. Now I have some reconsidering to do. Thank you again, I appreciate your time and experience.

I know exactly what you mean. Law school is a different beast. Schools that wouldn't give you the time of day for UG will now be throwing money your way. It takes a minute to get used to, but once you do it feels good. And it should, you've accomplished fantastic numbers and deserve a top school. Congrats and good luck!

[Ti Malice]

You're getting "yield protected" at those low-ranked schools because statistics suggest no one in their right mind with your numbers would attend them. My risk-averse roommate applied to UC Hastings with numbers similar to yours as a "safety," and they straight up rejected him because they didn't want to hurt their acceptance rate by letting him turn down their offer. Anywhere below HYSCCN among the top schools would give you more than a half-scholarship.

This is really bad advice. A statement saying that any non-T6 T14 would give OP "more than a half-scholarship" shows that you're simply uninformed. Scholarships are far from automatic even with strong numbers.

In terms of retaking, if you're regularly scoring 178+ on your practice tests, maybe do it, but otherwise I have no idea what these people are talking about.

No one is telling him to retake if he isn't scoring consistently scoring significantly higher than his 173 on legitimate PTs.

Taking it again and getting a lower score, even to the admissions deans who claim they don't average, does not look good for your application. There is a downside to retaking when you have a 170+.

You've got a solid shot at HYS, please apply there, and I agree at the worst you should take solid money from CCN.

The only potential downside is for Y and S -- two schools where his current numbers give him virtually no shot and a small shot, respectively. It simply will not matter anywhere else, especially with high-numbers applicants being as scarce as they are now.

His chances at H are decent, but he's far from a lock. While he's very likely to be admitted to CCN, it isn't necessarily going to be with big money. It will likely be with the kind of money that still leaves him in $190-230K of debt at graduation.

There is very little downside to retaking (though everyone has said he should have substantial reason to believe he'll improve) and potentially tremendous upside.