Planned Transfer Forum

[Apple4321]

All 100 people in the room for the LSAT could get 180s, if they all got the questions right. All 100 students taking a law school exam cannot get As regardless of how well they answer. You control the outcome of the LSAT in a way that you don't for a law school exam.

What is the significance of the theoretical possibility of everyone getting 180s? If you average out all rooms, the outcome is the same as the LSAT percentiles. You're not only competing with people in the same room that you take your LSAT.

Let me be more clear with phrasing my question:

Imagine that the 100 people in the room were the only people you were being graded against for the LSAT and law school exam.

Oy, this is a really bad conflation and I wish you knew it. You're not being graded against anyone on the LSAT. The median LSAT in the country could hypothetically be a 180 if everyone studied hard and aced the test. We both know that's not going to happen, but regardless that's how the LSAT curve works. It's not directly corresponding a percentile rank with a given test score. 170 could be 100th percentile, 99th percentile, 98th percentile, or 50th percentile hypothetically. Maybe it'll never get there in reality because a sizable portion of the population will understudy/underperform *ahem*, but that doesn't change the fact that LSAC would report 50% of the population getting a 170+ and move on. Predictive curves and forced curves are two very different statistical models.

Law school exams just aren't predictive curves. They are forced, meaning even if you had a multiple choice test like the LSAT, the top score whether it's a 100% or 65% would be an A, a few below it would be an A-, so on until you get a neatly compiled curve of everyone's performance. Some law profs explicitly give easier tests that make the curve that much tighter, which results in law students who understand the material as well as their classmates but can't articulate it as well being below median.

So again, congrats on your haphazard plan of backdooring into a T10 law school working. But if you can't understand these sorts of things, and on top of that you're going to be willfully dense about it when people explain it, you're better off just giving up. Because people have spent 4 pages trying to explain to you rationally how this is a risky plan, but you don't want to hear it. Maybe that's reason enough to not try to explain why you think you know better.

I appreciate you taking the time to explain the difference in the models, but that's not where there's any confusion. I'm asserting what has actually happened, what's happening, and what is likely to happen. Are there any cases where the LSAC curve has been anywhere near what you all are saying?

[Apple4321]

Apple4321 = the most insufferable poster I've ever come across. If you're real life, I don't want to be where you are.

Real? Nah, I'm a Russian robot here to sabotage tomorrow's Hillary Clintons' chances of going to Yale to save the world from pantsuits.

But seriously, if you're not used to cocky a**holes like me, and if you think I'm bad, I doubt you have anything to worry about.

Insufferable turd is a more apt descriptor

I could definitely see how I'd be intimidating to someone who apparently lives on this website and likely plays Pokemon.

Lol

I'm better than you at every conceivable metric

This is a battle you won't win

The irony in you calling me insufferable is rich. If by "every conceivable metric" you're exclusively referring to Pokeland, then absolutely. However, anywhere positive, absolutely not. Though, I have to attribute it to your mom teaching me a few things while you were trolling in the basement.

[UVA2B]

All 100 people in the room for the LSAT could get 180s, if they all got the questions right. All 100 students taking a law school exam cannot get As regardless of how well they answer. You control the outcome of the LSAT in a way that you don't for a law school exam.

What is the significance of the theoretical possibility of everyone getting 180s? If you average out all rooms, the outcome is the same as the LSAT percentiles. You're not only competing with people in the same room that you take your LSAT.

Let me be more clear with phrasing my question:

Imagine that the 100 people in the room were the only people you were being graded against for the LSAT and law school exam.

Oy, this is a really bad conflation and I wish you knew it. You're not being graded against anyone on the LSAT. The median LSAT in the country could hypothetically be a 180 if everyone studied hard and aced the test. We both know that's not going to happen, but regardless that's how the LSAT curve works. It's not directly corresponding a percentile rank with a given test score. 170 could be 100th percentile, 99th percentile, 98th percentile, or 50th percentile hypothetically. Maybe it'll never get there in reality because a sizable portion of the population will understudy/underperform *ahem*, but that doesn't change the fact that LSAC would report 50% of the population getting a 170+ and move on. Predictive curves and forced curves are two very different statistical models.

Law school exams just aren't predictive curves. They are forced, meaning even if you had a multiple choice test like the LSAT, the top score whether it's a 100% or 65% would be an A, a few below it would be an A-, so on until you get a neatly compiled curve of everyone's performance. Some law profs explicitly give easier tests that make the curve that much tighter, which results in law students who understand the material as well as their classmates but can't articulate it as well being below median.

So again, congrats on your haphazard plan of backdooring into a T10 law school working. But if you can't understand these sorts of things, and on top of that you're going to be willfully dense about it when people explain it, you're better off just giving up. Because people have spent 4 pages trying to explain to you rationally how this is a risky plan, but you don't want to hear it. Maybe that's reason enough to not try to explain why you think you know better.

I appreciate you taking the time to explain the difference in the models, but that's not where there's any confusion. I'm asserting what has actually happened, what's happening, and what is likely to happen. Are there any cases where the LSAC curve has been anywhere near what you all are saying?

The problem isn't in the reality of the LSAT curve, it's in the way you apply LSAC's ability to predict its curve with any one person's performance on it. LSAC predicts pretty well how test takers will perform on a given exam because they've been doing this a long, long time, and they test new questions with every administration to know how many will likely miss given questions. But that doesn't even tangentially affect a given test taker's ability to do well on the exam. With the right preparation along with a minimum level of intelligence (which is pretty low as people who have trouble even getting into a mediocre state school for UG for a litany of reasons can rock the LSAT. If you have average college-level intelligence, you can probably get to a point where you're nailing the LSAT), the LSAT is learnable. LSAC isn't predicting how well you will do on the LSAT. They're predicting what the entire LSAT-taking population will do on a given exam. They expect underperformers because there have always been underperformers.

But the underlying problem is the predictive curve of the LSAT allows for the curve to shift, whereas the law school curve shifts with performance. You're essentially trying to reverse engineer why the curves are the same, and they really, really aren't at all the same. So respectfully, please stop treating them like they are.

[Apple4321]

All 100 people in the room for the LSAT could get 180s, if they all got the questions right. All 100 students taking a law school exam cannot get As regardless of how well they answer. You control the outcome of the LSAT in a way that you don't for a law school exam.

What is the significance of the theoretical possibility of everyone getting 180s? If you average out all rooms, the outcome is the same as the LSAT percentiles. You're not only competing with people in the same room that you take your LSAT.

Let me be more clear with phrasing my question:

Imagine that the 100 people in the room were the only people you were being graded against for the LSAT and law school exam.

Oy, this is a really bad conflation and I wish you knew it. You're not being graded against anyone on the LSAT. The median LSAT in the country could hypothetically be a 180 if everyone studied hard and aced the test. We both know that's not going to happen, but regardless that's how the LSAT curve works. It's not directly corresponding a percentile rank with a given test score. 170 could be 100th percentile, 99th percentile, 98th percentile, or 50th percentile hypothetically. Maybe it'll never get there in reality because a sizable portion of the population will understudy/underperform *ahem*, but that doesn't change the fact that LSAC would report 50% of the population getting a 170+ and move on. Predictive curves and forced curves are two very different statistical models.

Law school exams just aren't predictive curves. They are forced, meaning even if you had a multiple choice test like the LSAT, the top score whether it's a 100% or 65% would be an A, a few below it would be an A-, so on until you get a neatly compiled curve of everyone's performance. Some law profs explicitly give easier tests that make the curve that much tighter, which results in law students who understand the material as well as their classmates but can't articulate it as well being below median.

So again, congrats on your haphazard plan of backdooring into a T10 law school working. But if you can't understand these sorts of things, and on top of that you're going to be willfully dense about it when people explain it, you're better off just giving up. Because people have spent 4 pages trying to explain to you rationally how this is a risky plan, but you don't want to hear it. Maybe that's reason enough to not try to explain why you think you know better.

I appreciate you taking the time to explain the difference in the models, but that's not where there's any confusion. I'm asserting what has actually happened, what's happening, and what is likely to happen. Are there any cases where the LSAC curve has been anywhere near what you all are saying?

The problem isn't in the reality of the LSAT curve, it's in the way you apply LSAC's ability to predict its curve with any one person's performance on it. LSAC predicts pretty well how test takers will perform on a given exam because they've been doing this a long, long time, and they test new questions with every administration to know how many will likely miss given questions. But that doesn't even tangentially affect a given test taker's ability to do well on the exam. With the right preparation along with a minimum level of intelligence (which is pretty low as people who have trouble even getting into a mediocre state school for UG for a litany of reasons can rock the LSAT. If you have average college-level intelligence, you can probably get to a point where you're nailing the LSAT), the LSAT is learnable. LSAC isn't predicting how well you will do on the LSAT. They're predicting what the entire LSAT-taking population will do on a given exam. They expect underperformers because there have always been underperformers.

But the underlying problem is the predictive curve of the LSAT allows for the curve to shift, whereas the law school curve shifts with performance. You're essentially trying to reverse engineer why the curves are the same, and they really, really aren't at all the same. So respectfully, please stop treating them like they are.

The argument has not been about about the LSAT's ability to predict things for awhile. It's been about comparing and contrasting it with the difficulty of law school grading curves.

I don't think any of us are treating them like they're the same. Personally, I was saying the LSAT's curve is worse, which is by definition, not the same.

[cavalier1138]

The argument has not been about about the LSAT's ability to predict things for awhile. It's been about comparing and contrasting it with the difficulty of law school grading curves.

I don't think any of us are treating them like they're the same. Personally, I was saying the LSAT's curve is worse, which is by definition, not the same.

Actually, the argument has been about you completely misunderstanding how a forced curve is... you know... forced, while a projected curve does not change your score based on the performance of others. I'm not sure why you haven't gotten it yet, but your LSAT performance has nothing to do with how others perform on the test. Nothing. Not a thing. Zip. Zilch. It is a 100% objective metric based only on how many questions you answer correctly.

[Nebby]

I could definitely see how I'd be intimidating to someone who apparently lives on this website and likely plays Pokemon.

Lol

I'm better than you at every conceivable metric

This is a battle you won't win

The irony in you calling me insufferable is rich. If by "every conceivable metric" you're exclusively referring to Pokeland, then absolutely. However, anywhere positive, absolutely not. Though, I have to attribute it to your mom teaching me a few things while you were trolling in the basement.

Bro you couldn't even crack the T6.

[Apple4321]

The argument has not been about about the LSAT's ability to predict things for awhile. It's been about comparing and contrasting it with the difficulty of law school grading curves.

I don't think any of us are treating them like they're the same. Personally, I was saying the LSAT's curve is worse, which is by definition, not the same.

Actually, the argument has been about you completely misunderstanding how a forced curve is... you know... forced, while a projected curve does not change your score based on the performance of others. I'm not sure why you haven't gotten it yet, but your LSAT performance has nothing to do with how others perform on the test. Nothing. Not a thing. Zip. Zilch. It is a 100% objective metric based only on how many questions you answer correctly.

Would you agree it has something to do with other's past performance? Are you not still technically competing with others with respect to LSAT scores--not because of a scarcity of certain scores but because the influence the scores have?

[Apple4321]

I could definitely see how I'd be intimidating to someone who apparently lives on this website and likely plays Pokemon.

Lol

I'm better than you at every conceivable metric

This is a battle you won't win

The irony in you calling me insufferable is rich. If by "every conceivable metric" you're exclusively referring to Pokeland, then absolutely. However, anywhere positive, absolutely not. Though, I have to attribute it to your mom teaching me a few things while you were trolling in the basement.

Bro you couldn't even crack the T6.

Don't be so hard on your mom. I try not to rank them.

[A. Nony Mouse]

People (everyone) should cut out the dumb ad hominems.

Look, I get that basically you're saying you were more confident in your ability to succeed in the law school curve than in the LSAT scale. I think the thing everyone is trying to get at is that success on the LSAT involves far fewer factors outside of your control than law school exams do. You can study as long as you like, you can retake the test a bunch of times - those negate the concerns about your SO dumping you on the eve of exams or you getting sick or the like. You don't get a second shot at law school exams. And your score isn't determined by how smart everyone in the room with you is in the same way it is for a law school exam grade.

In the end, lots and lots of people think they'll do better in law school than on the LSAT. Most of those people won't. Those who do, that's great. If you want to take that risk, that's great. It's just that it's a much bigger risk than you're willing to allow - just because you guessed right doesn't mean anyone can count on or predict this happening. You are an anecdote, and people shouldn't make life choices based on anecdotes.

[Nebby]

I could definitely see how I'd be intimidating to someone who apparently lives on this website and likely plays Pokemon.

Lol

I'm better than you at every conceivable metric

This is a battle you won't win

The irony in you calling me insufferable is rich. If by "every conceivable metric" you're exclusively referring to Pokeland, then absolutely. However, anywhere positive, absolutely not. Though, I have to attribute it to your mom teaching me a few things while you were trolling in the basement.

Bro you couldn't even crack the T6.

Don't be so hard on your mom. I try not to rank them.

This is a terrible response. I'd expect nothing else from a mediocre law student

[cavalier1138]

The argument has not been about about the LSAT's ability to predict things for awhile. It's been about comparing and contrasting it with the difficulty of law school grading curves.

I don't think any of us are treating them like they're the same. Personally, I was saying the LSAT's curve is worse, which is by definition, not the same.

Actually, the argument has been about you completely misunderstanding how a forced curve is... you know... forced, while a projected curve does not change your score based on the performance of others. I'm not sure why you haven't gotten it yet, but your LSAT performance has nothing to do with how others perform on the test. Nothing. Not a thing. Zip. Zilch. It is a 100% objective metric based only on how many questions you answer correctly.

Would you agree it has something to do with other's past performance? Are you not still technically competing with others with respect to LSAT scores--not because of a scarcity of certain scores but because the influence the scores have?

You're competing with others. That's not the same as having others' performance literally impact your score.

If you and a classmate write substantially similar exams, it's entirely possible that one of you will still get a lower grade if the professor has hit their quota for a certain grade tier. That literally cannot happen on the LSAT.

[Apple4321]

People (everyone) should cut out the dumb ad hominems.

Look, I get that basically you're saying you were more confident in your ability to succeed in the law school curve than in the LSAT scale. I think the thing everyone is trying to get at is that success on the LSAT involves far fewer factors outside of your control than law school exams do. You can study as long as you like, you can retake the test a bunch of times - those negate the concerns about your SO dumping you on the eve of exams or you getting sick or the like. You don't get a second shot at law school exams. And your score isn't determined by how smart everyone in the room with you is in the same way it is for a law school exam grade.

In the end, lots and lots of people think they'll do better in law school than on the LSAT. Most of those people won't. Those who do, that's great. If you want to take that risk, that's great. It's just that it's a much bigger risk than you're willing to allow - just because you guessed right doesn't mean anyone can count on or predict this happening. You are an anecdote, and people shouldn't make life choices based on anecdotes.

I'm good with laying this to rest. I acknowledge I'm in the minority (or am the entire minority), but I'd just say a planned transfer can warrant weighing the factors.

To the best of my knowledge, Gunner, Nebby, and I are the only ones that have actually transferred. Of that group, there's a 100% success rate, but only 1/3 of us would recommend considering it. So let my respectful dissent fall into the TLS abyss.

[Gunner19]

People (everyone) should cut out the dumb ad hominems.

Look, I get that basically you're saying you were more confident in your ability to succeed in the law school curve than in the LSAT scale. I think the thing everyone is trying to get at is that success on the LSAT involves far fewer factors outside of your control than law school exams do. You can study as long as you like, you can retake the test a bunch of times - those negate the concerns about your SO dumping you on the eve of exams or you getting sick or the like. You don't get a second shot at law school exams. And your score isn't determined by how smart everyone in the room with you is in the same way it is for a law school exam grade.

In the end, lots and lots of people think they'll do better in law school than on the LSAT. Most of those people won't. Those who do, that's great. If you want to take that risk, that's great. It's just that it's a much bigger risk than you're willing to allow - just because you guessed right doesn't mean anyone can count on or predict this happening. You are an anecdote, and people shouldn't make life choices based on anecdotes.

I'm good with laying this to rest. I acknowledge I'm in the minority (or am the entire minority), but I'd just say a planned transfer can warrant weighing the factors.

To the best of my knowledge, Gunner, Nebby, and I are the only ones that have actually transferred. Of that group, there's a 100% success rate, but only 1/3 of us would recommend considering it. So let my respectful dissent fall into the TLS abyss.

Like I said, I agree that there are certain scenarios where it may make sense, but I would highly advise proceeding with caution as the deck is stacked heavily against you.

With regards to the lsat curve vs. law school curve, its pretty perplexing that you don’t follow. Hypothetically, 100 people could walk in a room, take the lsat, and all score 180. One persons performance does not impact anyone elses scores. 100 people could never walk into a law exam and all get A’s. The school literally does not allow it. Again, literally impossible for that to occur. You could get 98/100 points on a law exam, but if the rest of the class got 99/100, guess where that leaves you…

[Apple4321]

People (everyone) should cut out the dumb ad hominems.

Look, I get that basically you're saying you were more confident in your ability to succeed in the law school curve than in the LSAT scale. I think the thing everyone is trying to get at is that success on the LSAT involves far fewer factors outside of your control than law school exams do. You can study as long as you like, you can retake the test a bunch of times - those negate the concerns about your SO dumping you on the eve of exams or you getting sick or the like. You don't get a second shot at law school exams. And your score isn't determined by how smart everyone in the room with you is in the same way it is for a law school exam grade.

In the end, lots and lots of people think they'll do better in law school than on the LSAT. Most of those people won't. Those who do, that's great. If you want to take that risk, that's great. It's just that it's a much bigger risk than you're willing to allow - just because you guessed right doesn't mean anyone can count on or predict this happening. You are an anecdote, and people shouldn't make life choices based on anecdotes.

I'm good with laying this to rest. I acknowledge I'm in the minority (or am the entire minority), but I'd just say a planned transfer can warrant weighing the factors.

To the best of my knowledge, Gunner, Nebby, and I are the only ones that have actually transferred. Of that group, there's a 100% success rate, but only 1/3 of us would recommend considering it. So let my respectful dissent fall into the TLS abyss.

Like I said, I agree that there are certain scenarios where it may make sense, but I would highly advise proceeding with caution as the deck is stacked heavily against you.

With regards to the lsat curve vs. law school curve, its pretty perplexing that you don’t follow. Hypothetically, 100 people could walk in a room, take the lsat, and all score 180. One persons performance does not impact anyone elses scores. 100 people could never walk into a law exam and all get A’s. The school literally does not allow it. Again, literally impossible for that to occur. You could get 98/100 points on a law exam, but if the rest of the class got 99/100, guess where that leaves you…

There's absolutely no confusion on that. But your hypotheticals are as irrelevant as saying everyone, in theory, could get a 120. In that case, there's no forced curve to bring people up. The projection curve is double-edged.

[cavalier1138]

There's absolutely no confusion on that. But your hypotheticals are as irrelevant as saying everyone, in theory, could get a 120. In that case, there's no forced curve to bring people up. The projection curve is double-edged.

How about thinking about it this way?

A projected curve is not a curve. LSAT scores aren't curved; the scores just are. It's all very zen.

[blueapple]

People (everyone) should cut out the dumb ad hominems.

Look, I get that basically you're saying you were more confident in your ability to succeed in the law school curve than in the LSAT scale. I think the thing everyone is trying to get at is that success on the LSAT involves far fewer factors outside of your control than law school exams do. You can study as long as you like, you can retake the test a bunch of times - those negate the concerns about your SO dumping you on the eve of exams or you getting sick or the like. You don't get a second shot at law school exams. And your score isn't determined by how smart everyone in the room with you is in the same way it is for a law school exam grade.

In the end, lots and lots of people think they'll do better in law school than on the LSAT. Most of those people won't. Those who do, that's great. If you want to take that risk, that's great. It's just that it's a much bigger risk than you're willing to allow - just because you guessed right doesn't mean anyone can count on or predict this happening. You are an anecdote, and people shouldn't make life choices based on anecdotes.

I'm good with laying this to rest. I acknowledge I'm in the minority (or am the entire minority), but I'd just say a planned transfer can warrant weighing the factors.

To the best of my knowledge, Gunner, Nebby, and I are the only ones that have actually transferred. Of that group, there's a 100% success rate, but only 1/3 of us would recommend considering it. So let my respectful dissent fall into the TLS abyss.

Like I said, I agree that there are certain scenarios where it may make sense, but I would highly advise proceeding with caution as the deck is stacked heavily against you.

With regards to the lsat curve vs. law school curve, its pretty perplexing that you don’t follow. Hypothetically, 100 people could walk in a room, take the lsat, and all score 180. One persons performance does not impact anyone elses scores. 100 people could never walk into a law exam and all get A’s. The school literally does not allow it. Again, literally impossible for that to occur. You could get 98/100 points on a law exam, but if the rest of the class got 99/100, guess where that leaves you…

There's absolutely no confusion on that. But your hypotheticals are as irrelevant as saying everyone, in theory, could get a 120. In that case, there's no forced curve to bring people up. The projection curve is double-edged.

The point is that you have complete control over your own LSAT score, regardless of how everyone around you does. The curve does not matter for your score. The other people taking the exam have no effect on your score.

With a law school exam, there are many more factors outside of your control than within your control and the other people taking the exam have an incredible effect on your score.

[Apple4321]

There's absolutely no confusion on that. But your hypotheticals are as irrelevant as saying everyone, in theory, could get a 120. In that case, there's no forced curve to bring people up. The projection curve is double-edged.

How about thinking about it this way?

A projected curve is not a curve. LSAT scores aren't curved; the scores just are. It's all very zen.

That does not counter anything that has been said nor does it contribute any value.

[cavalier1138]

There's absolutely no confusion on that. But your hypotheticals are as irrelevant as saying everyone, in theory, could get a 120. In that case, there's no forced curve to bring people up. The projection curve is double-edged.

How about thinking about it this way?

A projected curve is not a curve. LSAT scores aren't curved; the scores just are. It's all very zen.

That does not counter anything that has been said nor does it contribute any value.

I give up. Congrats on booking law school classes and literally not understanding extremely basic logical principles. That is a feat.

[Apple4321]

There's absolutely no confusion on that. But your hypotheticals are as irrelevant as saying everyone, in theory, could get a 120. In that case, there's no forced curve to bring people up. The projection curve is double-edged.

How about thinking about it this way?

A projected curve is not a curve. LSAT scores aren't curved; the scores just are. It's all very zen.

That does not counter anything that has been said nor does it contribute any value.

I give up. Congrats on booking law school classes and literally not understanding extremely basic logical principles. That is a feat.

Congrats on learning to write without learning to read.

[Slippin' Jimmy]

Apple4321 = the most insufferable poster I've ever come across. If you're real life, I don't want to be where you are.

Real? Nah, I'm a Russian robot here to sabotage tomorrow's Hillary Clintons' chances of going to Yale to save the world from pantsuits.

But seriously, if you're not used to cocky a**holes like me, and if you think I'm bad, I doubt you have anything to worry about.

Insufferable turd is a more apt descriptor

I could definitely see how I'd be intimidating to someone who apparently lives on this website and likely plays Pokemon.

Lol

I'm better than you at every conceivable metric

This is a battle you won't win

The irony in you calling me insufferable is rich. If by "every conceivable metric" you're exclusively referring to Pokeland, then absolutely. However, anywhere positive, absolutely not. Though, I have to attribute it to your mom teaching me a few things while you were trolling in the basement.

Funny that this is coming from a person too lazy/stupid to get a decent LSAT score.

[Apple4321]

Apple4321 = the most insufferable poster I've ever come across. If you're real life, I don't want to be where you are.

Real? Nah, I'm a Russian robot here to sabotage tomorrow's Hillary Clintons' chances of going to Yale to save the world from pantsuits.

But seriously, if you're not used to cocky a**holes like me, and if you think I'm bad, I doubt you have anything to worry about.

Insufferable turd is a more apt descriptor

I could definitely see how I'd be intimidating to someone who apparently lives on this website and likely plays Pokemon.

Lol

I'm better than you at every conceivable metric

This is a battle you won't win

The irony in you calling me insufferable is rich. If by "every conceivable metric" you're exclusively referring to Pokeland, then absolutely. However, anywhere positive, absolutely not. Though, I have to attribute it to your mom teaching me a few things while you were trolling in the basement.

Funny that this is coming from a person too lazy/stupid to get a decent LSAT score.

Funny that this is most likely coming from a 0L that makes unfounded assumptions about someone's LSAT score when he or she very possibly did better and said nothing to indicate he or she didn't do well. You're presumed to be a 0L because of your confidence in making such a hideous assumption. You're precisely what people were referring to when they were talking about law school going wrong because, if you go off a hunch like that, the LSAT score you use to convince yourself you're a valuable human will be the only thing worth noting in your attempt of a legal career.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I mean, you're the one who admitted somewhere earlier on in this thread that you didn't want to retake, so the presumption is that you had room for improvement. (Not that I give a shit, my LSAT score sucked relative to everyone else here, but it's not a crazy assumption.)

Also stop with the personal insults, everyone. Like call a specific post stupid as much as you like but the next crack about too low LSATs or playing too much Pokémon or the like is getting a ban.

[cavalier1138]

I mean, you're the one who admitted somewhere earlier on in this thread that you didn't want to retake, so the presumption is that you had room for improvement. (Not that I give a shit, my LSAT score sucked relative to everyone else here, but it's not a crazy assumption.)

Also stop with the personal insults, everyone. Like call a specific post stupid as much as you like but the next crack about too low LSATs or playing too much Pokémon or the like is getting a ban.

What if we make fun of googly-eyed avatars?

[A. Nony Mouse]

No one could be such a monster.

[Apple4321]

I mean, you're the one who admitted somewhere earlier on in this thread that you didn't want to retake, so the presumption is that you had room for improvement. (Not that I give a shit, my LSAT score sucked relative to everyone else here, but it's not a crazy assumption.)

Also stop with the personal insults, everyone. Like call a specific post stupid as much as you like but the next crack about too low LSATs or playing too much Pokémon or the like is getting a ban.

There's a huge gap between "room for improvement", which is theoretically just <180 (insert Asian dad meme: "179 on LSAT? Disappoint[ed]"), and not getting a "decent" score, which was alleged.

Context for my LSAT retaking consideration: I did not receive a good scholarship to a t14 school. "Good" would be defined as anywhere around 1/3 of the tuition and fees or above. In theory, my LSAT score improving could have changed that. But that assumes I would actually improve, and it would have also required waiting a year--where the opportunity cost from lost income as an attorney outweighed the difference in any scholarship increase.