emory or wait and try for T14? Forum

[swtlilsoni]

I was admitted to Emory, however my goal was T14 and I am thinking about waiting a year, retaking the LSAT and reapplying. I have a 3.2 GPA and 166 as of now. I am sure that if I retake it I can get a 170+. Is there a solid chance for T14 if I retake and fair well? Or is it best to go with Emory?

[bk1]

With a low 170's and ED you will likely snag at least one T14.

[enron123]

I was pting at 175 and got a 169, im not sure i could get 170s why should u be?

[crit_racer]

I was pting at 175 and got a 169, im not sure i could get 170s why should u be?

Love the optimism.

[enron123]

I was pting at 175 and got a 169, im not sure i could get 170s why should u be?

Love the optimism.

I just think its a weird question to be asking/attitude to be putting forward. Some people like myself consistently drop on test day others get their highest score. Obviously OP just wants the standard TLS response of retake as they have not given any context for people to give useful advice.

[crit_racer]

yeah...it always has surprised me that TLS users seem to take for granted that retake=higher score automatically. If you studied hard the 1st go around, there may not be that much room for improvement.

Still, when it comes to investing this much time/money, I think everyone owes it to themselves to give this test their absolute best shot. If someone doesn't have any qualms with taking another year off (i.e. they have a job lined up, etc), then I would almost always encourage them to TRY to get a higher score by retaking.

The way OP phrased her question has me thinking that she doesn't have any problems with retaking/reapplying. If that's the case, then I say study your ass off and go for it. Nothing to lose really.

EDIT: Isn't the average score increase for LSAT retakes marginal? I forget what it is, but I heard it before and was unimpressed. Kind of funny that TLS users seem to think they can be the exception to this statistic when, in general, they preach realistic expectations in every other facet of LS (placement, grades, etc)

[bk1]

I was pting at 175 and got a 169, im not sure i could get 170s why should u be?

You realize that you can retake 2 more times and that an outside observer would estimate your chances of getting a 170+ as pretty high?

[bk1]

yeah...it always has surprised me that TLS users seem to take for granted that retake=higher score automatically. If you studied hard the 1st go around, there may not be that much room for improvement.

Still, when it comes to investing this much time/money, I think everyone owes it to themselves to give this test their absolute best shot. If someone doesn't have any qualms with taking another year off (i.e. they have a job lined up, etc), then I would almost always encourage them to TRY to get a higher score by retaking.

The way OP phrased her question has me thinking that she doesn't have any problems with retaking/reapplying. If that's the case, then I say study your ass off and go for it. Nothing to lose really.

EDIT: Isn't the average score increase for LSAT retakes marginal? I forget what it is, but I heard it before and was unimpressed. Kind of funny that TLS users seem to think they can be the exception to this statistic when, in general, they preach realistic expectations in every other facet of LS (placement, grades, etc)

The average increase is 2 points, iirc.

That being said, I would imagine that somebody redoubling their efforts and studying hard is not representative of the average retaker, just like somebody who studies hard for their first go round is not representative of the average first time taker.

The thing about retaking the LSAT is that only a few questions in one way or another can make huge differences in an application (e.g. the difference between a 168 and 170, and 170 and 172, etc). Plus, the LSAT has minimal costs to at least trying to get a better score compared to the 3 years and massive debt that LS costs.

ETA: Everyone will be studying their ass off in law school so you can't get much of a benefit of "outstudying" your classmates. However the same is not true of the LSAT taker pool where a large fraction, perhaps even a majority, are not studying, studying minimally, or studying in a poor fashion.

[drummerboy]

Emory is great. If you only took the test once, maybe another try would help. However, if you did study real hard the first time, whats to say you wont actually decrease your score? There is always that chance.Good Luck!!

[enron123]

I was pting at 175 and got a 169, im not sure i could get 170s why should u be?

You realize that you can retake 2 more times and that an outside observer would estimate your chances of getting a 170+ as pretty high?

At the time I was fresh out of school and not working so my mind was LSAT focused, this would not be the case upon retake. Late response but just saying and fairly ok with my options i suppose, they suck for TLS but...

With respect to the people are not studying hard or the right way I think thats true until your in the mid 160's and so on, there aren't that many people at that point your beating because you worked harder I should think.

[drummerboy]

go to emory

[bk1]

With respect to the people are not studying hard or the right way I think thats true until your in the mid 160's and so on, there aren't that many people at that point your beating because you worked harder I should think.

If you're implying that talent is what separates people in the 165-180 bracket, then you are sorely mistaken.

[Pricer]

yeah...it always has surprised me that TLS users seem to take for granted that retake=higher score automatically. If you studied hard the 1st go around, there may not be that much room for improvement.

Still, when it comes to investing this much time/money, I think everyone owes it to themselves to give this test their absolute best shot. If someone doesn't have any qualms with taking another year off (i.e. they have a job lined up, etc), then I would almost always encourage them to TRY to get a higher score by retaking.

The way OP phrased her question has me thinking that she doesn't have any problems with retaking/reapplying. If that's the case, then I say study your ass off and go for it. Nothing to lose really.

EDIT: Isn't the average score increase for LSAT retakes marginal? I forget what it is, but I heard it before and was unimpressed. Kind of funny that TLS users seem to think they can be the exception to this statistic when, in general, they preach realistic expectations in every other facet of LS (placement, grades, etc)

My score went up 7 points, and I did nothing different during preparation except take LESS practice tests. My first score was a fluke, though, as it was significantly lower than ALL of my last 10 or so PTs, while my second score was right at the bottom end of my PT range.

I completely agree with the bolded part, but ONLY if you think you can improve your score and have a job lined up to at least pay all of your rent, bills, expenses, etc. over the next year.

[flexityflex86]

Emory is great. If you only took the test once, maybe another try would help. However, if you did study real hard the first time, whats to say you wont actually decrease your score? There is always that chance.Good Luck!!

i don't think people who study really have score decreases as long as they study with the same intensity.

the difference between a 165 and 170 is so slight in terms of talent (5 questions or so) that your competition in the classroom will be just as high all things considered. top 50% at NYU is not necessarily placing top 25% at Emory.

[bk1]

I completely agree with the bolded part, but ONLY if you think you can improve your score and have a job lined up to at least pay all of your rent, bills, expenses, etc. over the next year.

Or they could take the test in June and figure out whether they needed to get a job and then get a job (even if it is at Starbucks or Walmart).

If you can't get a job that you can live off of for a year after college, you've got problems.

[Pricer]

I completely agree with the bolded part, but ONLY if you think you can improve your score and have a job lined up to at least pay all of your rent, bills, expenses, etc. over the next year.

Or they could take the test in June and figure out whether they needed to get a job and then get a job (even if it is at Starbucks or Walmart).

If you can't get a job that you can live off of for a year after college, you've got problems.

Retaking in June is definitely the best option, you are right.

I completely disagree with the last part, though. I had a 3.7 at my state school in finance. There were no jobs available when I graduated unless I moved back home and worked for $30,000 a year, which was NOT enough to pay for all of my expenses and my credit card and student loans that had built up during my last semester of undergrad (scholarship paid for all tuition, but my parents did not pay anything my last summer or last semester and only some things the year before, and I didn't work). I could not even get interviews, much less job offers. The only two interviews I got, I was given the job, but one was a financial advising job contingent on me bringing in 50 clients off the bat, and the other was a bank auditing job that would not pay enough and had no chance of advancement.

[flexityflex86]

I completely agree with the bolded part, but ONLY if you think you can improve your score and have a job lined up to at least pay all of your rent, bills, expenses, etc. over the next year.

Or they could take the test in June and figure out whether they needed to get a job and then get a job (even if it is at Starbucks or Walmart).

If you can't get a job that you can live off of for a year after college, you've got problems.

where do you live that you could live off of Starbucks or Walmart?

i couldn't get a job i could live off of after college, and at a fairly good college. oh and fyi, i have very good social skills and have a wide array of professional skills. i just had a useless degree.

for what it's worth i started a moderately successful business, and make as much as my friends who went to business schools, and have jobs..... but i tried to find a job for a year with no luck.

[bk1]

Retaking in June is definitely the best option, you are right.

I completely disagree with the last part, though. I had a 3.7 at my state school in finance. There were no jobs available when I graduated unless I moved back home and worked for $30,000 a year, which was NOT enough to pay for all of my expenses and my credit card and student loans that had built up during my last semester of undergrad (scholarship paid for all tuition, but my parents did not pay anything my last summer or last semester and only some things the year before, and I didn't work). I could not even get interviews, much less job offers. The only two interviews I got, I was given the job, but one was a financial advising job contingent on me bringing in 50 clients off the bat, and the other was a bank auditing job that would not pay enough and had no chance of advancement.

If somebody can't survive out of college, the solution is to take on more debt and go to graduate school? Excuse me but that sounds atrocious.

[bk1]

where do you live that you could live off of Starbucks or Walmart?

i couldn't get a job i could live off of after college, and at a fairly good college. oh and fyi, i have very good social skills and have a wide array of professional skills. i just had a useless degree.

for what it's worth i started a moderately successful business, and make as much as my friends who went to business schools, and have jobs..... but i tried to find a job for a year with no luck.

At least in my area, min wage is 9-10/hour. With full time employment that's what, 1200-1300 after taxes? That seems livable (albeit barely so).

My general point was that if you can't live on your own after college then it seems like a poor idea to go to graduate school just to escape the problem.

[flexityflex86]

Retaking in June is definitely the best option, you are right.

I completely disagree with the last part, though. I had a 3.7 at my state school in finance. There were no jobs available when I graduated unless I moved back home and worked for $30,000 a year, which was NOT enough to pay for all of my expenses and my credit card and student loans that had built up during my last semester of undergrad (scholarship paid for all tuition, but my parents did not pay anything my last summer or last semester and only some things the year before, and I didn't work). I could not even get interviews, much less job offers. The only two interviews I got, I was given the job, but one was a financial advising job contingent on me bringing in 50 clients off the bat, and the other was a bank auditing job that would not pay enough and had no chance of advancement.

If somebody can't survive out of college, the solution is to take on more debt and go to graduate school? Excuse me but that sounds atrocious.

Frequently they cannot survive, because their university underperformed them and not vice versa. Colleges are not very forthcoming about the uselessness of 95%+ of college majors.

Law is actually a trade that millions of people need, and are willing to pay top money for.

Take something like drama, which is a trade not too many need, and most won't pay shit for.

Is law a guarantee? No. But that doesn't mean it can't lead to $$$$ in a go getter where as the latter can't lead to jack for anybody.

The problem with law is that there are all these pretentious beta suburban shmucks with a sense of entitlement instead of gritty street smart assertive alphas off the streets. I think that from a decent law school there is every opportunity to make bank if you are willing to go out on the streets, get your nose a little bloody and grab it.

I am a 0L, but I take great issue with your assertion that if you can't support yourself out of UG, you're just a loser.

[Pricer]

Retaking in June is definitely the best option, you are right.

I completely disagree with the last part, though. I had a 3.7 at my state school in finance. There were no jobs available when I graduated unless I moved back home and worked for $30,000 a year, which was NOT enough to pay for all of my expenses and my credit card and student loans that had built up during my last semester of undergrad (scholarship paid for all tuition, but my parents did not pay anything my last summer or last semester and only some things the year before, and I didn't work). I could not even get interviews, much less job offers. The only two interviews I got, I was given the job, but one was a financial advising job contingent on me bringing in 50 clients off the bat, and the other was a bank auditing job that would not pay enough and had no chance of advancement.

If somebody can't survive out of college, the solution is to take on more debt and go to graduate school? Excuse me but that sounds atrocious.

where do you live that you could live off of Starbucks or Walmart?

i couldn't get a job i could live off of after college, and at a fairly good college. oh and fyi, i have very good social skills and have a wide array of professional skills. i just had a useless degree.

for what it's worth i started a moderately successful business, and make as much as my friends who went to business schools, and have jobs..... but i tried to find a job for a year with no luck.

At least in my area, min wage is 9-10/hour. With full time employment that's what, 1200-1300 after taxes? That seems livable (albeit barely so).

My general point was that if you can't live on your own after college then it seems like a poor idea to go to graduate school just to escape the problem.

I planned to go to law school. I'm not taking on more debt because I couldn't find a job. I am just saying finding a job to live on for one year immediately after undergrad is MUCH easier said than done. Not only can employers be more selective during the recession, most want commitments, and, as FlexityFlex pointed out, many graduates planning to go to law school have degrees in philosophy, political science, history, English, etc. These degrees are basically useless in the real world. I ended up working a paralegal job last semester and another this semester, but I am having to borrow some money from my father to pay for things right now. I am in this position because I decided to take a year off and retake rather than begin law school this year. It paid off for me, as I raised my score 7 points, but for some people, this is not a very appealing option.

[bk1]

I am a 0L, but I take great issue with your assertion that if you can't support yourself out of UG, you're just a loser.

I'm not saying a person like that is a loser, I'm saying that if you can't support yourself out of UG you should first find a way to do that before you go to grad school.

for some people, this is not a very appealing option.

It may not be appealing, but it is prudent.

I am just saying finding a job to live on for one year immediately after undergrad is MUCH easier said than done.

And my point is that if you can't buck up and do that then going to law school (where you will have to do the exact same thing just a few years later) is a bad idea.

[flexityflex86]

I am a 0L, but I take great issue with your assertion that if you can't support yourself out of UG, you're just a loser.

I'm not saying a person like that is a loser, I'm saying that if you can't support yourself out of UG you should first find a way to do that before you go to grad school.

what is your reasoning?

i personally have found a way to support myself quite well, so well that i can live an awesome life for a bachelor and help support my family.

prior to finding a niche, i drove a taxi, worked odd jobs and filed several pro se lawsuits to support myself. i did it, but it was not very fun, classy and i can never go back here. did it probably make me more of a man so i can survive law school? yes, but what is your reasoning if it is not, if ~ survival -> grad school is dumb?

[bk1]

I am a 0L, but I take great issue with your assertion that if you can't support yourself out of UG, you're just a loser.

I'm not saying a person like that is a loser, I'm saying that if you can't support yourself out of UG you should first find a way to do that before you go to grad school.

what is your reasoning?

Because you will be doing the exact same thing 3 years later with a law degree that will have about the same difficulty in finding employment as you would for undergrad (basing this on current roughly 20% unemployment for recent grads and the fact that 20% of even top regional law school grads are either unemployed or working part time). If someone can't do it out of undergrad, what makes them think they can do it coming out of law school when their odds are the same?

[Pricer]

I am just saying finding a job to live on for one year immediately after undergrad is MUCH easier said than done.

And my point is that if you can't buck up and do that then going to law school (where you will have to do the exact same thing just a few years later) is a bad idea.

I was finally able to find something that allows me to be almost self-sufficient, but it took 300+ applications and resume submissions, and actually, both paralegal jobs I got through connections. The first came from a firm where one of the top partners is a good friend of my mother's, and the second came from a friend who worked here for a couple of years part time and recommended me because he knew I was looking for something law related until law school began. I will agree that this has taught me somewhat of a lesson and will make me approach law school in a completely different way than I approached undergrad, but finding these jobs was not only a huge pain in the ass, they were both practically given to me once they became available because of a connection I had rather than my own merit.