3.5/157 Forum

[KylawRen]

And for what it’s worth I have a family full of lawyers many whom had near perfect gpas and lsat scores. The most successful one had a 2.5 in undergrad and under 155 on the lsat. If you want to be a lawyer, do it. If not, don’t. Your scores will mean nothing a year from now.

If they're successful now, they likely went to law school a while ago. Things have changed, primarily the cost of law school and the oversaturation of the legal market. You can't extrapolate from individual past success what good options are now; the OP needs to look at the employment statistics for schools where their stats are competitive, and determine whether the kinds of jobs they can get out of their options are worth the cost.

I know that’s the mob mentality these days. May be somewhat more true than in the past. I know many recent grads with average undergrad scores who are now easily doing what they want in law. Not saying you’re completely wrong, but the new mob mentality regarding this matter is something I do not buy into to, and someone shouldn’t make their decision based off their gpa/lsat especially when they are well above average.

[Barack O'Drama]

And for what it’s worth I have a family full of lawyers many whom had near perfect gpas and lsat scores. The most successful one had a 2.5 in undergrad and under 155 on the lsat. If you want to be a lawyer, do it. If not, don’t. Your scores will mean nothing a year from now.

I see what you're saying but you realize how poorly reasoned this sounds, right?

First, anecdotes are meaningless when it comes to people who went to law school years ago.
Second, OP's LSAT score will mean everything a year from now because the score will ultimately be a major factor in where OP ends up.

Retake OP. I live in a major legal market and I have tons of acquaintances/friends who are in law school/lawyers. The people who attended schools that accept applicants with ~2.5/~155 stats are begging to work for free just to get a foot in the door. One person literally told me they are going to have to apply for food stamps if they don't find something soon. This is the reality some law school grads face in 2017. This is in NYC where there are hundreds of law firms; small and large, public interest jobs, non-profits, etc. They still can't find anything...

The ones who attended better schools are deciding between offers. It's literally like they're living on different planets.

Do everything you can to set yourself up for a good future, OP. Regardless if your parents are willing to foot some of the bill, you still want to have a good chance at actually finding employment as a lawyer. Retake and try your best to hit as high as you can.

Best of luck!

[Hikikomorist]

And for what it’s worth I have a family full of lawyers many whom had near perfect gpas and lsat scores. The most successful one had a 2.5 in undergrad and under 155 on the lsat. If you want to be a lawyer, do it. If not, don’t. Your scores will mean nothing a year from now.

I see what you're saying but you realize how poorly reasoned this sounds, right?

First, anecdotes are meaningless when it comes to people who went to law school years ago.
Second, OP's LSAT score will mean everything a year from now because the score will ultimately be a major factor in where OP ends up.

Retake OP. I live in a major legal market and I have tons of acquaintances/friends who are in law school/lawyers. The people who attended schools that accept applicants with ~2.5/~155 stats are begging to work for free just to get a foot in the door. One person literally told me they are going to have to apply for food stamps if they don't find something soon. This is the reality some law school grads face in 2017. This is in NYC where there are hundreds of law firms small and large, public interest jobs, non-profits, etc. They still can't find anything...

The ones who attended better schools are deciding between offers. It's literally like they're living in different planets.

Do everything you can to set yourself up for a good future, OP. Regardless if your parents are willing to foot some of the bill, you still want to have a good chance at actually finding employment as a lawyer. Retake and try your best to hit as high as you can.

Best of luck!

Yes, but s/he's trolling.

[Barack O'Drama]

And for what it’s worth I have a family full of lawyers many whom had near perfect gpas and lsat scores. The most successful one had a 2.5 in undergrad and under 155 on the lsat. If you want to be a lawyer, do it. If not, don’t. Your scores will mean nothing a year from now.

If they're successful now, they likely went to law school a while ago. Things have changed, primarily the cost of law school and the oversaturation of the legal market. You can't extrapolate from individual past success what good options are now; the OP needs to look at the employment statistics for schools where their stats are competitive, and determine whether the kinds of jobs they can get out of their options are worth the cost.

I know that’s the mob mentality these days. May be somewhat more true than in the past. I know many recent grads with average undergrad scores who are now easily doing what they want in law. Not saying you’re completely wrong, but the new mob mentality regarding this matter is something I do not buy into to, and someone shouldn’t make their decision based off their gpa/lsat especially when they are well above average.

It's the mob mentality because it's the honest to god truth. You can look at LST or 509 ABA employment numbers from the schools that take applicants with 2.5/157 numbers. Shit look at the numbers from schools that take 3.5/157 numbers... Many are going to give you a <50% chance at being employed as a lawyer. So it doesn't really matter what you "buy into". And 2.5/157 isn't well above average.

[Barack O'Drama]

And for what it’s worth I have a family full of lawyers many whom had near perfect gpas and lsat scores. The most successful one had a 2.5 in undergrad and under 155 on the lsat. If you want to be a lawyer, do it. If not, don’t. Your scores will mean nothing a year from now.

I see what you're saying but you realize how poorly reasoned this sounds, right?

First, anecdotes are meaningless when it comes to people who went to law school years ago.
Second, OP's LSAT score will mean everything a year from now because the score will ultimately be a major factor in where OP ends up.

Retake OP. I live in a major legal market and I have tons of acquaintances/friends who are in law school/lawyers. The people who attended schools that accept applicants with ~2.5/~155 stats are begging to work for free just to get a foot in the door. One person literally told me they are going to have to apply for food stamps if they don't find something soon. This is the reality some law school grads face in 2017. This is in NYC where there are hundreds of law firms small and large, public interest jobs, non-profits, etc. They still can't find anything...

The ones who attended better schools are deciding between offers. It's literally like they're living in different planets.

Do everything you can to set yourself up for a good future, OP. Regardless if your parents are willing to foot some of the bill, you still want to have a good chance at actually finding employment as a lawyer. Retake and try your best to hit as high as you can.

Best of luck!

Yes, but s/he's trolling.

Fuck! i always get got by the trolls.

Good looks, Hikiko.

[KylawRen]

Im not arguing, or trolling... just my opinion. By the way calling out someone with a outlying opinion is a form of the recent internet mob mentality bullying fad. But I get it, I know where I am. High numbers will help, but you will succeed in law school and beyond without them if you want to, in my opinion.

[MountainWest]

First, I believe you should retake the LSAT. My numbers are 3.7/161 and I got two full ride offers and multiple 80% off tuition or better options. No these are not T14 schools. However, they are ones that have decent employment stats and fit with what I want to do as a lawyer. Point being that if you could get to a 163 (maybe look at tutors) you could have a full ride at a regional school where you want to end up practicing.

With that being said, schools that are going to accept you are going to be in the 70-100 rankings. The University of Denver is one example. I only know them based on where I live (username). I think the point is that you need to think hard about where you want to live and what you want to do long term. If it is big law in NYC, then yes you need a 170+. However, if you want to be a Public Defender in Denver and 1/2 tuition is paid by mommy and daddy. Then, you could probably get a 1/2 scholarship at DU and attend this year. Remember outside of T14 you will most likely practice where you went to law school.

[Barack O'Drama]

Im not arguing, or trolling... just my opinion. By the way calling out someone with a outlying opinion is a form of the recent internet mob mentality bullying fad. But I get it, I know where I am. High numbers will help, but you will succeed in law school and beyond without them if you want to, in my opinion.

Trust me when I say that I can relate.
The last thing I trying to do is bully you if you're being serious. Like I said, I get what you're trying to say. The thing is I've learned that no matter how hard you work or how smart you are, trying to succeed when you attend a shitty law school can be nearly impossible. I guess I may be biased because I've seen a couple of close friends have their lives somewhat destoryed by applying with lower LSAT scores when I know they're smart and capable of more.

Also, you have to ask yourself: If the best you can or are willing to do on the LSAT is a ~70th%tile score, is law school the best choice for you? Maybe there are other options. Just something to consider.

That said, you're entitled to your opinion.

[mcmand]

Maybe don’t get advice on that on an Internet forum.

If that's the case, then why are you here?

[KylawRen]

Maybe don’t get advice on that on an Internet forum.

If that's the case, then why are you here?

I’m a fiend.

[KylawRen]

“Also, you have to ask yourself: If the best you can or are willing to do on the LSAT is a ~70th%tile score, is law school the best choice for you? Maybe there are other options. Just something to consider.”

I think that’s good advice. I’m just saying it’s not fair to gang up on op saying he/she shouldn’t go to law school based on the info provided here.

[Johann]

If you go to a shitty law school, might be worth pursuing tax with the accounting background at a big 4 (they hire lots of lawyers) or a tax llm and biglaw thereafter.

I absolutely would not pay for law school with money in your bank account until you know what kind of job you’ll have. You should research PAYE and other income based repayment plans because you might end up paying something like 50k over 10-20 years on a 250k loan debt before forgiveness.

Attending shitty law schools (those outside the top 35ish) is a personal decision based on risk tolerance. Make sure you review the employment numbers / salaries at law school transparency before making your personal decision.

Happy to chat / answer questions by pm.

[A. Nony Mouse]

And for what it’s worth I have a family full of lawyers many whom had near perfect gpas and lsat scores. The most successful one had a 2.5 in undergrad and under 155 on the lsat. If you want to be a lawyer, do it. If not, don’t. Your scores will mean nothing a year from now.

If they're successful now, they likely went to law school a while ago. Things have changed, primarily the cost of law school and the oversaturation of the legal market. You can't extrapolate from individual past success what good options are now; the OP needs to look at the employment statistics for schools where their stats are competitive, and determine whether the kinds of jobs they can get out of their options are worth the cost.

I know that’s the mob mentality these days. May be somewhat more true than in the past. I know many recent grads with average undergrad scores who are now easily doing what they want in law. Not saying you’re completely wrong, but the new mob mentality regarding this matter is something I do not buy into to, and someone shouldn’t make their decision based off their gpa/lsat especially when they are well above average.

People should make decisions based on their gpa/lsat, though, when those are what schools use to admit students, and the school a student attends does a great deal to determine what opportunities are available to them. Sure, people can be very good lawyers coming out of schools that would admit the OP. The problem is that law school is incredibly expensive, and lots of schools don't give their grads the kinds of employment opportunities that would provide a salary that will allow them to pay off the cost. The OP should be looking for schools that won't cost very much, and for jobs that those schools can provide. There is no point in taking out $300k in loans if the OP wants to be a PD or DA or do local wills/trusts; if the OP wants to get a job in biglaw that can pay off $300k in loans, they're not likely to get that job going to a school where they will get admitted with their stats.

Have you looked at the employment statistics available at Law School Transparency? You probably should.

[pancakes3]

risk isn't subjective, and there's a difference between tolerance and ignorance.

[Johann]

I’d work as an accountant for a year or 2 though. If you don’t like it, law is similar and may not be for you. Both are professional services and can suck. Plus the accounting job work experience may make you more desirable as a job candidate post law school.

[Johann]

risk isn't subjective, and there's a difference between tolerance and ignorance.

Studies show risk tolerance is subjective.

Consider the following 2 games:
1) you have a 90% chance of making $100 and 10% of chance making $0. You get to play the game once. The expected outcome is $90.
2) you have a 50% chance of making $2000 and a 50% chance of losing $1500. Your expected outcome is $250. You can play the game once.

Some people will choose to play game 1 despite it being the lower expected value game because they are risk averse and don’t want to subject themselves to possible losses.

Thus, risk tolerance is subjective.

[pancakes3]

risk isn't subjective, and there's a difference between tolerance and ignorance.

Studies show risk tolerance is subjective.

Consider the following 2 games:
1) you have a 90% chance of making $100 and 10% of chance making $0. You get to play the game once. The expected outcome is $90.
2) you have a 50% chance of making $2000 and a 50% chance of losing $1500. Your expected outcome is $250. You can play the game once.

Some people will choose to play game 1 despite it being the lower expected value game because they are risk averse and don’t want to subject themselves to possible losses.

Thus, risk tolerance is subjective.

i'm aware of loss aversion and other behavioral economics theories and it's not responsive to what i stated.

the risk itself isn't subjective. EV can be calculated and is the same across all players.

also, "tolerance" is different than "ignorance." loss aversion is certainly a real "irrationality" but players/actors should still strive for perfect information. there's a distinction between a player that knows and understands the EV discrepancy and still adheres to the loss-averse strategy and a player that's acting purely on instinct.

[rideagain]

And for what it’s worth I have a family full of lawyers many whom had near perfect gpas and lsat scores. The most successful one had a 2.5 in undergrad and under 155 on the lsat. If you want to be a lawyer, do it. If not, don’t. Your scores will mean nothing a year from now.

If they're successful now, they likely went to law school a while ago. Things have changed, primarily the cost of law school and the oversaturation of the legal market. You can't extrapolate from individual past success what good options are now; the OP needs to look at the employment statistics for schools where their stats are competitive, and determine whether the kinds of jobs they can get out of their options are worth the cost.

I know that’s the mob mentality these days. May be somewhat more true than in the past. I know many recent grads with average undergrad scores who are now easily doing what they want in law. Not saying you’re completely wrong, but the new mob mentality regarding this matter is something I do not buy into to, and someone shouldn’t make their decision based off their gpa/lsat especially when they are well above average.

"I will ignore objective reality in favor of anecdotal evidence"

[Johann]

risk isn't subjective, and there's a difference between tolerance and ignorance.

Studies show risk tolerance is subjective.

Consider the following 2 games:
1) you have a 90% chance of making $100 and 10% of chance making $0. You get to play the game once. The expected outcome is $90.
2) you have a 50% chance of making $2000 and a 50% chance of losing $1500. Your expected outcome is $250. You can play the game once.

Some people will choose to play game 1 despite it being the lower expected value game because they are risk averse and don’t want to subject themselves to possible losses.

Thus, risk tolerance is subjective.

i'm aware of loss aversion and other behavioral economics theories and it's not responsive to what i stated.

the risk itself isn't subjective. EV can be calculated and is the same across all players.

also, "tolerance" is different than "ignorance." loss aversion is certainly a real "irrationality" but players/actors should still strive for perfect information. there's a distinction between a player that knows and understands the EV discrepancy and still adheres to the loss-averse strategy and a player that's acting purely on instinct.

Okay. So we’re in agreement in a perfect information game with known outcomes there can be different risk tolerances that both lead to RATIONAL outcomes.

Now comes the real wrinkle. In real life games there are 1) more subjective variables (e.g. same salaries jobs are preferable to others based on a preference for that work, people can feel differently about the same amount of debt, certain cities may be preferable etc etc); 2) the games are independent and are controllable (ie games of skill rather than games of chance) because to a certain extent you control your grades and employment outcomes by networking and studying more. So yeah, once you throw in these subjective variables, for which no perfect information exists, different people have different risk profiles.

Someone might take out a 300k loan to play poker and it’d be a good investment for them and bad investment for others. Same with law. There are lots of people for which a Ttt education even at sticker is a GREAT investment with a huge ROI. I’m one of them. I know dozens of others.

[cavalier1138]

Just retake, I guess you have lived in US for at least several years to get the green card and your English is as fluent as native speaker. I am from China and even until now I have not stay in US or any English speaking country for a single day and I got 165 for LSAT. I believe you should do much better.

For your stats you can not get admission from any school with prestige even if you are willing to pay stiker.

I cannot sit for another year so retaking is not my option :/ But thank you for your advise!

Ok, but you can. And right now, biglaw is not going to be a viable option for you (really, not just because I feel like it). So either change your goals, or suck it up and retake.

[The_Lorax]

Just retake, I guess you have lived in US for at least several years to get the green card and your English is as fluent as native speaker. I am from China and even until now I have not stay in US or any English speaking country for a single day and I got 165 for LSAT. I believe you should do much better.

For your stats you can not get admission from any school with prestige even if you are willing to pay stiker.

I cannot sit for another year so retaking is not my option :/ But thank you for your advise!

Ok, but you can. And right now, biglaw is not going to be a viable option for you (really, not just because I feel like it). So either change your goals, or suck it up and retake.

This, if biglaw in a major market is the goal. I can't imagine schools that admit 3.5/157 get any more than the absolute top students biglaw positions.

Not to mention that taking time off and working before law school is increasingly normal.

[pancakes3]

risk isn't subjective, and there's a difference between tolerance and ignorance.

Studies show risk tolerance is subjective.

Consider the following 2 games:
1) you have a 90% chance of making $100 and 10% of chance making $0. You get to play the game once. The expected outcome is $90.
2) you have a 50% chance of making $2000 and a 50% chance of losing $1500. Your expected outcome is $250. You can play the game once.

Some people will choose to play game 1 despite it being the lower expected value game because they are risk averse and don’t want to subject themselves to possible losses.

Thus, risk tolerance is subjective.

i'm aware of loss aversion and other behavioral economics theories and it's not responsive to what i stated.

the risk itself isn't subjective. EV can be calculated and is the same across all players.

also, "tolerance" is different than "ignorance." loss aversion is certainly a real "irrationality" but players/actors should still strive for perfect information. there's a distinction between a player that knows and understands the EV discrepancy and still adheres to the loss-averse strategy and a player that's acting purely on instinct.

Okay. So we’re in agreement in a perfect information game with known outcomes there can be different risk tolerances that both lead to RATIONAL outcomes.

Now comes the real wrinkle. In real life games there are 1) more subjective variables (e.g. same salaries jobs are preferable to others based on a preference for that work, people can feel differently about the same amount of debt, certain cities may be preferable etc etc); 2) the games are independent and are controllable (ie games of skill rather than games of chance) because to a certain extent you control your grades and employment outcomes by networking and studying more. So yeah, once you throw in these subjective variables, for which no perfect information exists, different people have different risk profiles.

Someone might take out a 300k loan to play poker and it’d be a good investment for them and bad investment for others. Same with law. There are lots of people for which a Ttt education even at sticker is a GREAT investment with a huge ROI. I’m one of them. I know dozens of others.

"Risk is not subjective" - Your poker analogy fails bc the variance in poker skill between players changes the risk. When I say "risk is not subjective" in the context of whether a person is risk-tolerant or risk-averse, the risk stays the same. The percentages of winning/losing don't change based on one's perceived dangers of running a risk. My point in saying so is that someone can be "risk tolerant" but that doesn't change whether it's a risky decision or not.

Going back to your original example of the two games where in one game you can win or lose 0, with a low EV, and a game where you can win big or lose big, with a higher EV, that conflates "risk averse" with "loss averse" which BE experiments have proven to be distinct influences in decision-making.

But really, I'm not arguing against your point that TTT's are worth attending, or even want to get into a discussion of BE. I just wanted to make a point that "risk tolerance" is a weak argument in the context of choosing threads and there's a much bigger priority of making sure the chooser gets "perfect information" and is fully aware of what they're getting themselves into, what the consequences will be, and normalizing/de-stigmatizing the concept of retaking the LSAT (if you want to talk about irrationalities in the marketplace, jeeze).

bc at the end of the day, they'll make the decision of whether or not to take the leap, and their innate tolerance for risk will take over, and don't need your power of suggestion telling them they're risk tolerant.