Help, TLS. Last minute decision. Forum

[cron1834]

I was exaggerating for effect, and referring to the bizarre set of claims he made earlier. Of course it's not an actual argument, "bra." Also, who actually cares about incoming LSAT 25/75s? Is this some "be at the top of your class" thing?

Anyway, Fordham is still a toilet, and the answer here is still "retake."

I guess this is our fundamental issue. You are straw manning (sorry, "exaggerating for effect") and name calling. I'm just looking at the data.

It's not a be at the top of your class thing. It's a http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source ... rmance.pdf thing

It's not a "one school is a toilet" thing. It's a http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/usc/2013/ and http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/fordham/ thing. (Including previous years.)

USC has been better than Fordham, prior to this year, by the data. That is beyond dispute.

Retake is the only option here. That is beyond dispute.

STFU.

[Scuppers]

USC has been better than Fordham, prior to this year, by the data. That is beyond dispute.

Retake is the only option here. That is beyond dispute.

STFU.

1) Prior data was not in dispute.

2) Lol.

3) Thanks for proving my point.

[cron1834]

USC has been better than Fordham, prior to this year, by the data. That is beyond dispute.

Retake is the only option here. That is beyond dispute.

STFU.

1) Prior data was not in dispute.

2) Lol.

3) Thanks for proving my point.

You are just the worst. Why are you here?

--

OP, both of these schools are much less than a slam dunk for full time lawyer-employment. You seem pretty bright, and I bet you can do better if you are willing to retake. I'm not that bright, and I have some T14 options, so I suspect you can get them, too. Srsly.

[Have you met Lydia?]

Retake is the only option here. That is beyond dispute.

STFU.

Why is everyone on this forum so angry? please don't come into my thread and tell people to "STFU."

About retaking: I'm not sure that's the best call for someone like me with a bad GPA and a reasonably good LSAT (for which I studied extensively and slightly outperformed my PTs). I do welcome the input of other splitters.

Edit: Maybe you didn't even read the original post, but I do have some T14s, including NU and small $ at Cornell. To get enough $$ out of them to make taking a year off worthwhile would require such a high LSAT that it seems quite improbable. The insistence that retaking is "beyond dispute" strikes me as a bit asinine.

[Onomatopoeia]

Retake is the only option here. That is beyond dispute.

STFU.

Why is everyone on this forum so angry? please don't come into my thread and tell people to "STFU."

About retaking: I'm not sure that's the best call for someone like me with a bad GPA and a reasonably good LSAT (for which I studied extensively and slightly outperformed my PTs). I do welcome the input of other splitters.

Edit: Maybe you didn't even read the original post, but I do have some T14s, including NU small $ at Cornell. To get enough $$ out of them to make taking a year off worthwhile would require such a high LSAT that it seems quite improbable. The insistence that retaking is "beyond dispute" strikes me as a bit asinine.

yeah. i was thinking about your situation. 60k for fordam is not terrible on its face. its even more enticing when you consider that your 3.4 gpa will bar you from good money in the t-14 regardless of lsat (unless you're a urm). retaking with that gpa would work if you were trying to get a full ride to a strong regional and 60k total COA for fordam is damn near a full ride. definitely a tough call.

[Scuppers]

You are just the worst. Why are you here?

OP, both of these schools are much less than a slam dunk for full time lawyer-employment. You seem pretty bright, and I bet you can do better if you are willing to retake. I'm not that bright, and I have some T14 options, so I suspect you can get them, too. Srsly.

There you go again with the ad hominems and nothing to back it up.

Why am I here? To correct your constant terrible advice. The latest one: retaking. Retaking makes very little sense for this applicant.

[cron1834]

Retake is the only option here. That is beyond dispute.

STFU.

Why is everyone on this forum so angry? please don't come into my thread and tell people to "STFU."

About retaking: I'm not sure that's the best call for someone like me with a bad GPA and a reasonably good LSAT (for which I studied extensively and slightly outperformed my PTs). I do welcome the input of other splitters.

Edit: Maybe you didn't even read the original post, but I do have some T14s, including NU and small $ at Cornell. To get enough $$ out of them to make taking a year off worthwhile would require such a high LSAT that it seems quite improbable. The insistence that retaking is "beyond dispute" strikes me as a bit asinine.

Sorry to offend your sensibilities. I was only addressing Scuppers, bc dude only seems interested in childish dick waiving and oneupsmanship. I went out of my way to compliment you, actually.

I remain convinced that a 60 percent chance of actually HAVING A CAREER is too low for a three year investment of time, money, and opportunity cost. That's a lot to give up for a 40 percent chance of not being a lawyer and a 70 percent chance of not being a well paid one. If you disagree, then bet your career on it. You do you.

Sorry for feeding the trolls and contributing to this thread becoming a Cleveland steamer.

[Mal Reynolds]

Retake is the only option here. That is beyond dispute.

STFU.

Why is everyone on this forum so angry? please don't come into my thread and tell people to "STFU."

About retaking: I'm not sure that's the best call for someone like me with a bad GPA and a reasonably good LSAT (for which I studied extensively and slightly outperformed my PTs). I do welcome the input of other splitters.

Edit: Maybe you didn't even read the original post, but I do have some T14s, including NU and small $ at Cornell. To get enough $$ out of them to make taking a year off worthwhile would require such a high LSAT that it seems quite improbable. The insistence that retaking is "beyond dispute" strikes me as a bit asinine.

Did you seriously just say you shouldn't retake because you have a BAD GPA? You need to retake BECAUSE you have a shit GPA. I swear people are getting dumber on this website.

[cron1834]

[Scuppers]

" " You two are like a tag team of idiocy, blithely bleating out the same stuff without any real consideration of the facts, throwing out ad hominems instead of sources, and trolling on both pages of this thread.

No one said he shouldn't retake because he has a low GPA. He said that with his GPA, improving upon a 169 LSAT enough to improve his options significantly enough to make up for an extra lost year was unlikely. And it is. HYS is out even with a 180. And a couple of points into 170 probably isn't doing a lot for his Cornell and NU.

For someone who has a low GPA and ALREADY has some $ at a few T14s and a near full ride at a regional AND doesn't feel that they can significantly improve upon a score around 170 = small potential upside to retaking.

I do understand that it's more fun to call people dumb and chant retake, retake, retake though, so carry on.

[MT Cicero]

" " You two are like a tag team of idiocy, blithely bleating out the same stuff without any real consideration of the facts, throwing out ad hominems instead of sources, and trolling on both pages of this thread.

No one said he shouldn't retake because he has a low GPA. He said that with his GPA, improving upon a 169 LSAT enough to improve his options significantly enough to make up for an extra lost year was unlikely. And it is. HYS is out even with a 180. And a couple of points into 170 probably isn't doing a lot for his Cornell and NU.

For someone who has a low GPA and ALREADY has some $ at a few T14s and a near full ride at a regional AND doesn't feel that they can significantly improve upon a score around 170 = small potential upside to retaking.

I do understand that it's more fun to call people dumb and chant retake, retake, retake though, so carry on.

I'm a super-splitter myself. My specific situation makes money less of an issue (VA benefits), but I was absolutely going to retake a 171 or less.

Given the bolded above, so many applicants in this forum "feel" they can't significantly improve their LSAT. Perhaps that's true for some, but it's stated too often for me to believe it to be a given.

MyLSN results given current numbers:



Bump LSAT to 170-171:



Monster that thing to 172-174:



Seems like a couple of points can make quite a difference to me. Oh, and since this data is based on the last 5 years and this cycle (and possibly the next few) are better for applicants, opportunities could be even better. I agree that HYS are a no-go. But the rest are in play, some more likely than others.

BTW, I dream of having a 3.4!

[Onomatopoeia]

Money makes all the difference in this case though. Cornell and NU at or near sticker aren't much better than mid t14 at or near sticker. I doubt OP wants to take out 200k for any school save HYS which is out of consideration permanently (unless urm). It's definitely a tough call because there is the possibility that OPs outlook on investing into a t 14 law degree changes or OP can rile up significant cash during the year they sit out. It's a tough call in this case. Things must go right in a big way for this year off to net a positive for a splitter concerned with COA

Edit: retaking does also have potential for significantly more money at NU and Cornell so OP should consider this also.

[MT Cicero]

Money makes all the difference in this case though. Cornell and NU at or near sticker aren't much better than mid t14 at or near sticker. I doubt OP wants to take out 200k for any school save HYS which is out of consideration permanently (unless urm). It's definitely a tough call because there is the possibility that OPs outlook on investing into a t 14 law degree changes or OP can rile up significant cash during the year they sit out. It's a tough call in this case. Things must go right in a big way for this year off to net a positive for a splitter concerned with COA

Very true. Although it looks like if OP nails the 170-171 he/she's got the fully at Penn! Haha. I thought that was curious when I saw it.

Anyway, I still think some decent money might be there for a 171+ from a few non-Berkeley lower T14 though...at least enough to get COA down to high five figures. It's not a guarantee of course, and that's if OP can rock out a damn decent LSAT. I happen to believe if you can lay down a 169 in one take, you can break into the 170s with a solid grind.

[Onomatopoeia]

Money makes all the difference in this case though. Cornell and NU at or near sticker aren't much better than mid t14 at or near sticker. I doubt OP wants to take out 200k for any school save HYS which is out of consideration permanently (unless urm). It's definitely a tough call because there is the possibility that OPs outlook on investing into a t 14 law degree changes or OP can rile up significant cash during the year they sit out. It's a tough call in this case. Things must go right in a big way for this year off to net a positive for a splitter concerned with COA

Very true. Although it looks like if OP nails the 170-171 he/she's got the fully at Penn! Haha. I thought that was curious when I saw it.

Anyway, I still think some decent money might be there for a 171+ from a few non-Berkeley lower T14 though...at least enough to get COA down to high five figures. It's not a guarantee of course, and that's if OP can rock out a damn decent LSAT. I happen to believe if you can lay down a 169 in one take, you can break into the 170s with a solid grind.

Agreed. It's your call OP. Im slightly leaning towards you retaking but I would not fault you for pulling the trigger on fordam.

[cron1834]

" " You two are like a tag team of idiocy, blithely bleating out the same stuff without any real consideration of the facts, throwing out ad hominems instead of sources, and trolling on both pages of this thread.

No one said he shouldn't retake because he has a low GPA. He said that with his GPA, improving upon a 169 LSAT enough to improve his options significantly enough to make up for an extra lost year was unlikely. And it is. HYS is out even with a 180. And a couple of points into 170 probably isn't doing a lot for his Cornell and NU.

For someone who has a low GPA and ALREADY has some $ at a few T14s and a near full ride at a regional AND doesn't feel that they can significantly improve upon a score around 170 = small potential upside to retaking.

I do understand that it's more fun to call people dumb and chant retake, retake, retake though, so carry on.

I'm a super-splitter myself. My specific situation makes money less of an issue (VA benefits), but I was absolutely going to retake a 171 or less.

Given the bolded above, so many applicants in this forum "feel" they can't significantly improve their LSAT. Perhaps that's true for some, but it's stated too often for me to believe it to be a given.

MyLSN results given current numbers:



Bump LSAT to 170-171:



Monster that thing to 172-174:



Seems like a couple of points can make quite a difference to me. Oh, and since this data is based on the last 5 years and this cycle (and possibly the next few) are better for applicants, opportunities could be even better. I agree that HYS are a no-go. But the rest are in play, some more likely than others.

BTW, I dream of having a 3.4!

This.

You're wasting your breathe by responding to that dude, though.

[Have you met Lydia?]

Seems like a couple of points can make quite a difference to me. Oh, and since this data is based on the last 5 years and this cycle (and possibly the next few) are better for applicants, opportunities could be even better. I agree that HYS are a no-go. But the rest are in play, some more likely than others.

Thanks for the continued discussion, but please keep it civil. (Not directed at you, Soco.)

I DID say in one of my first posts that I was NOT going to consider retaking. As a few of you seem to be unable to accept that condition, let me give some additional information:

1. I have taken every single PT and followed a lot of online advice. After a lot of effort I got my score up and got my logic games under control until my last PTs were between 167-169. When I took the real test I felt extraordinarily good and tied my highest even score. This is not like someone who says they got 169 cold and/or misses 10 on LG. I might be able to break 170. I might also easily go down to 167, with the added bonus of wasting another year in a place I hate and a job I do not like.

2. I searched LSN extensively for people with 3.4s and I feel like I outperformed. Particularly in the T14, I don't think I will beat my Cornell offer even with a 170-171. I might get some more acceptances, but they'd be marginally better than Cornell/NU at best. If there were even an outside chance of a 175, then I'd retake, but to repeat, I do not think 172-175 is in the cards for me. Is everyone in my thread in the 175-180 range or something?

[Onomatopoeia]

Seems like a couple of points can make quite a difference to me. Oh, and since this data is based on the last 5 years and this cycle (and possibly the next few) are better for applicants, opportunities could be even better. I agree that HYS are a no-go. But the rest are in play, some more likely than others.

Thanks for the continued discussion, but please keep it civil. (Not directed at you, Soco.)

I DID say in one of my first posts that I was NOT going to consider retaking. As a few of you seem to be unable to accept those conditions, let me give some additional information:

1. I have taken every single PT and followed a lot of online advice. After a lot of effort I got my score up and got my logic games under control until my last PTs were between 167-169. When I took the real test I felt extraordinarily good and tied my highest even score. This is not like someone who says they got 169 cold and/or misses 10 on LG. I might be able to break 170. I might also easily go down to 168. I do not think 175 is in the cards for me.

2. I searched LSN extensively for people with 3.4s and I feel like I outperformed at Fordham and Cornell. Particularly in the T14, I don't think I will beat my Cornell offer even with a 171, but I repeat that that is a real longshot. If there were even an outside chance of a 175, then I'd retake. Is everyone in my thread in the 175-180 range?? I mean that is one insane percentile we are talking about...

Not asking for that high of a score, but the 171-174 range does change a lot for you. You'd be at the 75 of every school minus t-6 with a 171. I agree that you do seem to have outperformed your numbers and if you really think one or two points aren't attainable then pull the trigger on Fordham. I will say that using all available materials is not a good reason to think you have peaked. I made the most strides doing the same few tests two to three times over

Edit: it's also a fair assumption to think you won't get big money at any t 14 with that gpa. Not sure but you Prolly know how a 3.4 plays with money better than i do. Your Lsat already helps their 75s in that variable and your gpa is not going to change

[Have you met Lydia?]

This.

You're wasting your breathe by responding to that dude, though.

You're a man in desperate need of a hug. Or a moderator.

I'm very interested to know your LSAT score(s) and which schools you are considering. I also saw you in the USC applicants thread where you said you were considering USC with $ which amazed me because by your comments I would expect you to only be in the HYS threads.

[Have you met Lydia?]

Edit: I allowed myself to get drawn into a debate that I didn't even want to have. Based on my own subjective self-assessment and an objective assessment of all of the available data compared to my existing offers convinced me that retaking and receiving the best, likely outcome may result in more choices but not substantially better ones. Finis.

[Onomatopoeia]

Edit: it's also a fair assumption to think you won't get big money at any t 14 with that gpa. Your Lsat already helps their 75s in that variable and your gpa is not going to change

This is exactly what I was attempting to convey when the retake crowd starting calling me dumb...

You gotta remember tho, a 169 on your first shot, even with exhausting all materials shows many of us that you can pull a 171 on your second or third try. You know yourself though and I know of sub 25 gpa/above 75 Lsat combos that are paying sticker to near sticker despite scoring over a 170. A very tough call.

[Onomatopoeia]

Edit: it's also a fair assumption to think you won't get big money at any t 14 with that gpa. Your Lsat already helps their 75s in that variable and your gpa is not going to change

Right. If you look through Cornell's 3.4s, you see people with higher LSATs and the same aid. I don't see much at Cornell or any T14 that is MUCH more attractive until I start searching for 174-175s. As I don't think this is attainable for me, I'm still failing to see how retaking is the odds-on favorite here since I will forever be limited by that GPA. This is what I was attempting to explain to the retake crowd when they started calling me dumb.

Didn't know this was the case. I'm officially on the proverbial Fence now.

[cron1834]

This.

You're wasting your breathe by responding to that dude, though.

You're a man in desperate need of a hug. Or a moderator.

I'm very interested to know your LSAT score(s) and which schools you are considering. I also saw you in the USC applicants thread where you said you were considering USC with $ which amazed me because by your comments I would expect you to only be in the HYS threads.

I turned down a fully at USC to retake.

Imagine that.

ETA - it's not an easy decision. I want to just get on with things, already. But I also want a job if I'm going to invest this much of myself. So I'm not going to settle.

[Have you met Lydia?]

I turned down a fully at USC to retake.

Imagine that.

ETA - it's not an easy decision. I want to just get on with things, already. But I also want a job if I'm going to invest this much of myself. So I'm not going to settle.

Fair enough.

I'm willing to bet that a) your GPA is higher, b) your confidence that you can improve your score is higher, c) you underperformed this cycle, or d) your current living situation is tolerable. Or, more likely, some combination of some or all four of those. In which case you ABSOLUTELY SHOULD RETAKE 100%. None of those is true for me, however, so I still take exception to your blasé, blanket statements about retaking.

[Onomatopoeia]

This.

You're wasting your breathe by responding to that dude, though.

You're a man in desperate need of a hug. Or a moderator.

I'm very interested to know your LSAT score(s) and which schools you are considering. I also saw you in the USC applicants thread where you said you were considering USC with $ which amazed me because by your comments I would expect you to only be in the HYS threads.

I turned down a fully at USC to retake.

Imagine that.

ETA - it's not an easy decision. I want to just get on with things, already. But I also want a job if I'm going to invest this much of myself. So I'm not going to settle.

You potentially settled by sacrificing cost of attendance concerns. If you're a splitter, a full ride at a strong non t14 school is probably your best bet unless money is not an issue. People ignore splitter financial woes on this site 2 often

[cron1834]

I turned down a fully at USC to retake.

Imagine that.

ETA - it's not an easy decision. I want to just get on with things, already. But I also want a job if I'm going to invest this much of myself. So I'm not going to settle.

Fair enough.

I'm willing to bet that a) your GPA is higher, b) your confidence that you can improve your score is higher, or c) you underperformed this cycle. Or all three. In which case you ABSOLUTELY SHOULD RETAKE 100%. None of those is true for me, however, so I still take exception to your blasé, blanket statements about retaking.

A & C are definitely true. B, I'm not so certain. I'm glad the highest is all that matters, that's for sure ...