Cornell vs. Georgetown Forum

[midwest17]

I think everyone has a ceiling. But some people also plateau then improve once they try a different strategy. For a 167/3.8, there is potentially six figures riding on figuring out how to game a few more points.

The big thing to me is that people who don't retake seem to suffer from "test fatigue." They don't like the stress and pressure of a timed exam, and all the time they have to invest in figuring out how to game the exam. But guess what: law school exams are like that too. You can't grind your way to good grades in law school. You have to figure out how to deconstruct and game the exams.


Finally, "foregone income potential" is boomer bullshit. You'll go to school and flame out of big law in a few years, and it doesn't matter whether you start that process this year or next year. The goal for a law graduate is hitting that magic "zero net worth" and putting a year into the LSAT is a more productive way to do it than anything else, especially if you're a K-JD.

The plateauing justification against a retake doesn't convince me. Even if you have good reason to believe you've more or less maxed out your potential, you could save 100k less by doing a little better than it. To use the OP for an example, OP's ceiling is 167 or 168, but if they perform slightly better than that for a 170+, their offer could go from 60k to 150k at Cornell, or perhaps to a Dillard at UVA. Maybe the test suits OP's strengths and they're on a hot streak during it. I mean - suppose there's a minor probability you score that 170+. I would choose that over a 100% probability that the debt level stays enormous.

If the highest OP got on a PT was 168, though, then that suggests that their "true score" isn't 167 and that they already got lucky and scored above the true score. The odds of pushing it up 2 more points without actual underlying improvement are pretty miniscule.

If OP actually did the prep claimed, then this is one of the better cases against retaking.

[rayiner]

I think everyone has a ceiling. But some people also plateau then improve once they try a different strategy. For a 167/3.8, there is potentially six figures riding on figuring out how to game a few more points.

The big thing to me is that people who don't retake seem to suffer from "test fatigue." They don't like the stress and pressure of a timed exam, and all the time they have to invest in figuring out how to game the exam. But guess what: law school exams are like that too. You can't grind your way to good grades in law school. You have to figure out how to deconstruct and game the exams.


Finally, "foregone income potential" is boomer bullshit. You'll go to school and flame out of big law in a few years, and it doesn't matter whether you start that process this year or next year. The goal for a law graduate is hitting that magic "zero net worth" and putting a year into the LSAT is a more productive way to do it than anything else, especially if you're a K-JD.

You're preaching to the choir. I just hate when people say "I got a 176 but you only got a 167 so you didn't try hard enough." Some people try extremely hard they just can't get much better scores. Though I will admit that I think the vast majority of people who claim they worked their butt off are lying, it's just hard for me to call out a specific person.

I don't think he's lying, but he wouldn't be the first person to see score increases just by taking a different approach instead of pouring more hours into the same approach. In any case, if you really think you've maxed out, then just lead with that: "I took the LSAT twice already, and put a ton of hours into studying, and worked up from a 154 to a 167, and I don't think I can do any better." That's FINE. If OP had put that in his first post I doubt anybody would've told him to retake again.

But don't come on here and give us some total and utter bullshit like "I'm happy with my options." That's a feel-good, boomer guidance counselor way of saying "I give up."

[FlanAl]

What if the only job OP can get is retail or food service and then his next two tests are both lower? Is there a risk he'd lose these scholarships? I'm asking because I don't know but I think this should be in his calculus.

[Otunga]

I think everyone has a ceiling. But some people also plateau then improve once they try a different strategy. For a 167/3.8, there is potentially six figures riding on figuring out how to game a few more points.

The big thing to me is that people who don't retake seem to suffer from "test fatigue." They don't like the stress and pressure of a timed exam, and all the time they have to invest in figuring out how to game the exam. But guess what: law school exams are like that too. You can't grind your way to good grades in law school. You have to figure out how to deconstruct and game the exams.


Finally, "foregone income potential" is boomer bullshit. You'll go to school and flame out of big law in a few years, and it doesn't matter whether you start that process this year or next year. The goal for a law graduate is hitting that magic "zero net worth" and putting a year into the LSAT is a more productive way to do it than anything else, especially if you're a K-JD.

The plateauing justification against a retake doesn't convince me. Even if you have good reason to believe you've more or less maxed out your potential, you could save 100k less by doing a little better than it. To use the OP for an example, OP's ceiling is 167 or 168, but if they perform slightly better than that for a 170+, their offer could go from 60k to 150k at Cornell, or perhaps to a Dillard at UVA. Maybe the test suits OP's strengths and they're on a hot streak during it. I mean - suppose there's a minor probability you score that 170+. I would choose that over a 100% probability that the debt level stays enormous.

If the highest OP got on a PT was 168, though, then that suggests that their "true score" isn't 167 and that they already got lucky and scored above the true score. The odds of pushing it up 2 more points without actual underlying improvement are pretty miniscule.

If OP actually did the prep claimed, then this is one of the better cases against retaking.

But why not go for it? I know that June would be better for the unicorn score than next school year, since obviously waiting to retake then causes OP to sit out automatically. But there is tremendous upside and little downside to scoring lower.

Anecdotally, I applied with two scores, with a retake 3 points lower than the original. I got scholarships for the most part matching the averages on LSN for applicants with my GPA and highest LSAT.

[midwest17]

There's very little chance that would hurt him at either of these schools.

[rayiner]

What if the only job OP can get is retail or food service and then his next two tests are both lower? Is there a risk he'd lose these scholarships? I'm asking because I don't know but I think this should be in his calculus.

He has a 3.8...

[midwest17]

Otunga: the chance of the upside is so small that it outweighs the size of the "possible" benefit, IMO. If he thinks he'll have better quality of life as a lawyer than as a bartender at Hooters, that could realistically make it worthwhile to not sit out.

Cornell at that price is a defensible choice. The retake efforts are better spent on other people (especially people without rich parents)

[Otunga]

Otunga: the chance of the upside is so small that it outweighs the size of the "possible" benefit, IMO. If he thinks he'll have better quality of life as a lawyer than as a bartender at Hooters, that could realistically make it worthwhile to not sit out.

Cornell at that price is a defensible choice. The retake efforts are better spent on other people (especially people without rich parents)

To me the benefit is so substantial that it's worth pursuing, particularly for a KJD applicant. I would say the quality of life consideration is more suited towards older applicants, who have much more opportunity cost and it really is degrading for them to work menial jobs, if that's what's on the table.

Although yeah, I agree that for OP, the retake case is less convincing than for the applicant who is debt-financing with the gov. But it's still strong.

[BigZuck]

I think everyone has a ceiling. But some people also plateau then improve once they try a different strategy. For a 167/3.8, there is potentially six figures riding on figuring out how to game a few more points.

The big thing to me is that people who don't retake seem to suffer from "test fatigue." They don't like the stress and pressure of a timed exam, and all the time they have to invest in figuring out how to game the exam. But guess what: law school exams are like that too. You can't grind your way to good grades in law school. You have to figure out how to deconstruct and game the exams.


Finally, "foregone income potential" is boomer bullshit. You'll go to school and flame out of big law in a few years, and it doesn't matter whether you start that process this year or next year. The goal for a law graduate is hitting that magic "zero net worth" and putting a year into the LSAT is a more productive way to do it than anything else, especially if you're a K-JD.

You're preaching to the choir. I just hate when people say "I got a 176 but you only got a 167 so you didn't try hard enough." Some people try extremely hard they just can't get much better scores. Though I will admit that I think the vast majority of people who claim they worked their butt off are lying, it's just hard for me to call out a specific person.

I don't particularly believe this particular poster when they say how hard they worked to study for the LSAT because this OP smacks of entitled K-JDer and that isn't typically a recipe for LSAT grinder (both because of the having other school commitments factor, and the "I'm happy with this score, my parents who paid for this LSAT tutor are happy with this score, and I have a safety net" factor). I also wonder about this particular tutor and whether some self-study would be better. Oh well.

Live your life OP, enjoy.