Stop Telling People to Retake Forum

[smaug]

I don't doubt they exist. I just think they're idiots.

[Ferrisjso]

To those who got way better offers after retaking LSAT, congrats. But you are the outlier I am afraid. There is one LSAT study that shows the mean LSAT scores were highest for second-time test takers(151.7), followed closely by first-time test takers (151.0) and third-time test takers (149.4). Huge difference anyone?
But I have to say, statistically speaking, most of those who scored below 160 here will score mostly below 160. That's the way LSAT test designed. 80% people has to be below 160 in general.

retake those statistics, bro

While the idea of a "forced curve" is clearly wrong, the test is designed so that a certain amount get that amount (even if it's possible for everyone to get 180 in theory in reality it just isn't). These stats make sense, on average people who retake the second time will see a slight improvement just by merit of taking it again and knowing what it's like and the pool of people taking the test a third time probably is weaker than the first two(people with LSAT score's in the 160's and up are less likely to retake as a whole, even if their TLS peers would). So yeah this makes sense does anyone have any stats to counter this? How is this surprising I'm under the impression everyone knows the average is around 150 or 151?

I was joking around

Oh, sorry I'm finding it mighty hard to detect sarcasm these days:(

[BlendedUnicorn]

How does one score 137 on the LSAT.

Were they a native English speaker?

Yes they are. They said they just winged it(which goes without saying).

Just an idiot then I guess.

One of the smartest people I've ever met. I was surprised. The point is the LSAT is not an IQ test, it does not say how smart someone is or isn't!

at 137, it may operate as a functional IQ test. That is a remarkably low score.

Well 92% of people do better so about just as many people score 137 or lower than score 165 or higher. Yet places like this are full of those 165+'s and I doubt a 137 or lower would dare to come on here. So all you 165+ people just think for every one of you there's someone who scored that low or even worse!

Listen man nobody's saying that low scorers are bad people or are dumb (well, maybe not), or that the system is a good or fair way of measuring people. Just that a: this is the game and b: this is how you play the game. JDM's absolutely right that LSAT sucks as a predictor of whether or not someone will be a good attorney but maximizing your LSAT is the easiest thing in the world to do to maximize your future prospects.

It really is that simple. Telling people not to tell people to retake when they have a bad LSAT is like telling someone not to bother learning how to skate if they want to play in the NHL.

[HonestAdvice]

How does one score 137 on the LSAT.

Were they a native English speaker?

Yes they are. They said they just winged it(which goes without saying).

Just an idiot then I guess.

One of the smartest people I've ever met. I was surprised. The point is the LSAT is not an IQ test, it does not say how smart someone is or isn't!

at 137, it may operate as a functional IQ test. That is a remarkably low score.

Well 92% of people do better so about just as many people score 137 or lower than score 165 or higher. Yet places like this are full of those 165+'s and I doubt a 137 or lower would dare to come on here. So all you 165+ people just think for every one of you there's someone who scored that low or even worse!

Listen man nobody's saying that low scorers are bad people or are dumb (well, maybe not), or that the system is a good or fair way of measuring people. Just that a: this is the game and b: this is how you play the game. JDM's absolutely right that LSAT sucks as a predictor of whether or not someone will be a good attorney but maximizing your LSAT is the easiest thing in the world to do to maximize your future prospects.

It really is that simple. Telling people not to tell people to retake when they have a bad LSAT is like telling someone not to bother learning how to skate if they want to play in the NHL.

Unless it's a language issue, somebody scoring 137 is dumb. These are the kind of people who buy timeshares.

[BlendedUnicorn]

Yeah but I thought that one anecdote aside we were talking more like 140-160 range here.

[Ferrisjso]

How does one score 137 on the LSAT.

Were they a native English speaker?

Yes they are. They said they just winged it(which goes without saying).

Just an idiot then I guess.

One of the smartest people I've ever met. I was surprised. The point is the LSAT is not an IQ test, it does not say how smart someone is or isn't!

at 137, it may operate as a functional IQ test. That is a remarkably low score.

Well 92% of people do better so about just as many people score 137 or lower than score 165 or higher. Yet places like this are full of those 165+'s and I doubt a 137 or lower would dare to come on here. So all you 165+ people just think for every one of you there's someone who scored that low or even worse!

A big part of this is schools will have their accreditation pulled if they take too many 137's. I don't have the #'s now, but what is it like 20% of these people ever pass the bar? Once you're there it's unethical to admit them just like how it was unethical to give a 5 mill mortgage to a janitor pre-2007.

Well obviously people with that score typically should retake or shouldn't go to law school(which is not relevant to this discussion because people with those numbers rarely actually post threads), but hey if they have a really good GPA(which I assume this kid did because he is currently in an ABA accredited school(that doesn't look likely to close) and again gave the impression of being super smart) some TTTT schools will bite. High GPA's might be bad for comparing people but they aren't worthless, a high GPA could increase confidence in eventual bar passage especially seeing the competition these people would be competing with in the applicant pool at a TTTT. The relevance of this argument is largely based on whether or not the ABA's new rule gets through though(which I hope it does)

[pancakes3]

The LSAT tests logic and reading comprehension. Facially, this is important. It also adds a pretty demanding time constraint. That is less important. Hth.

[MAPP]

Really, "retake" is TLS's way of saying "don't go to law school." So in a sense, we are too polite to say to someone that they can't fulfill their law school dreams. In some instances, there are people who post on here that should not go to law school.

That said, the incessant echoing of "retake" "retake" when someone is asking for legitimate advice whether to, for example, addend a lower T1 school with money vs sticker at a T14 is distracting and unproductive. Instead, they should be cautioned about the potential drawbacks of their decision and then, ideally, someone who has already taken one of the paths that is under consideration will offer their thoughts on said path.

[rcharter1978]

One of the smartest people I've ever met. I was surprised. The point is the LSAT is not an IQ test, it does not say how smart someone is or isn't!

at 137, it may operate as a functional IQ test. That is a remarkably low score.

Well 92% of people do better so about just as many people score 137 or lower than score 165 or higher. Yet places like this are full of those 165+'s and I doubt a 137 or lower would dare to come on here. So all you 165+ people just think for every one of you there's someone who scored that low or even worse!

A big part of this is schools will have their accreditation pulled if they take too many 137's. I don't have the #'s now, but what is it like 20% of these people ever pass the bar? Once you're there it's unethical to admit them just like how it was unethical to give a 5 mill mortgage to a janitor pre-2007.

Well obviously people with that score typically should retake or shouldn't go to law school(which is not relevant to this discussion because people with those numbers rarely actually post threads), but hey if they have a really good GPA(which I assume this kid did because he is currently in an ABA accredited school(that doesn't look likely to close) and again gave the impression of being super smart) some TTTT schools will bite. High GPA's might be bad for comparing people but they aren't worthless, a high GPA could increase confidence in eventual bar passage especially seeing the competition these people would be competing with in the applicant pool at a TTTT. The relevance of this argument is largely based on whether or not the ABA's new rule gets through though(which I hope it does)

Meh, I think with collegiate grade inflation its hard to tell if a high GPA really means anything.

In reality, the bar exam is probably more like the LSAT than anything else. Its a test that doesn't particularly measure intelligence, its an exam that lends itself to gaming and strategy. If you can't figure out standardized testing enough to get more than a 137 on the LSAT, you may not be able to figure out the strategy and gaming that you can use to pass the bar.

[Monday]

.

[pleasesendhelp]

TBH I think it's supportive of TLS to encourage a retake. Everyone here truly believes you can do better, and if you do worse, they're pretty damn nice about it. Plus, aside from the curt "retake lol", most are considerate and explain why. Not everyone may know that a lower score may hurt you, or just how much one point means. You're basically saying it's not worth anyone's time to try to be that outlier who improves, that effort is futile because they will never be the top 20%. What kind of nonsense is that? Sounds a helluva lot like elitism to tell a 150 that they'll never be a 160.

[MAPP]

Really, "retake" is TLS's way of saying "don't go to law school." So in a sense, we are too polite to say to someone that they can't fulfill their law school dreams. In some instances, there are people who post on here that should not go to law school.

What? No.

I can see why you would disagree with my first statement (don't read it so concretely), but my second statement is almost unobjectionable.

[Johann]

If people want to pull the lst data from Chicago TTTs I'll discuss my anecdotes against them anytime. You're not going to get rich. I've never claimed that. But for the people that really really want it, I still have yet to see a failure by the way TLS talks i.e. Never gets a job lives in basement/only does doc review forever. Upper middle class is 60k paired with another 60k income in case you didn't know.

And yeah i was a hustler while in law school and somewhat social so I def met and know at least that number throughout 3-5 years.

According to this: https://www.lstreports.com/schools/john ... l-chicago/

11.2% of 1Ls fail out of John Marshall
1/4 to 1/3 of those that do graduate every year are underemployed

and they don't provide salary data so read into that what you will.

I didn't think about immigration but yeah if you're bilingual and that's something you're passionate about it might be a viable path too. But that just cycles back to the larger point which is that the lower down the rankings you go the more you really need to know what you want to get out of law school to justify the risk.

Strongly agree with the last sentence. And yeah of course those stats are accurate. I'd estimate 30-50% of the people I graduated with were underemployed and barely employed even a year later. The next year saw a lot of decent moves though. At the end of 1 year my wife was making $15/hour part time for 2 different guys. After a year and some experience, she negotiated 25/hr from those guys and got full time work and found a side hustle that paid 50/hour for in court. Went from earning like sub 30k to 60k. The job I quit after a year (which was making 35k), I turned down 45k and got my friend the job who was doing doc review. After a few months in the job she leveraged up to get a job at the states attorneys making 55k (dog shit pay raises so she'll make that foreve) but with pslf and unlimited job security and a 35 hour work week. Also pension. Other friends doing the doc review cycle decided to go into compliance at a big bank and then like 5 of my friends followed suit to do compliance work for like 60k. Few years later and they're climbing to 100k. Overall a year out most were struggling. Lot of salaries literally doubled that 2nd year. 5 years later, not most, but a lot are over 6 figures. Most are over 75k. These are investments over a career which I think a lot of people forget. And these would be the failures according to tls standards. Got several friends who are midlaw and biglaw still killing it years later. Lot of the small law guys learned the ropes in shitlaw for 2 years and went solo. The solos are absolutely killing it. 30 hour work weeks. 6 figures. And now their big cases that they've been sitting in the pipe since they started are starting to materialize.

Yes it's tough. But if you don't fucking give up like tls wants you too, you can get clients. I had a couple clients within a year of graduating. Wife had multiple clients a couple years out.

[Johann]

Really, "retake" is TLS's way of saying "don't go to law school." So in a sense, we are too polite to say to someone that they can't fulfill their law school dreams. In some instances, there are people who post on here that should not go to law school.

What? No.

I can see why you would disagree with my first statement (don't read it so concretely), but my second statement is almost unobjectionable.

Of course people post on here that shouldn't go to law school. Many go to law school not to be a lawyer because they don't know what's Next and want to kick the can for 3 years. The T14 grad I work with should not have gone to law school because they don't like law. Again, lsat score is not the best correlate of who should go to law school. Lots and lots of T14 grads end up miserable in law.

[Ferrisjso]

TBH I think it's supportive of TLS to encourage a retake. Everyone here truly believes you can do better, and if you do worse, they're pretty damn nice about it. Plus, aside from the curt "retake lol", most are considerate and explain why. Not everyone may know that a lower score may hurt you, or just how much one point means. You're basically saying it's not worth anyone's time to try to be that outlier who improves, that effort is futile because they will never be the top 20%. What kind of nonsense is that? Sounds a helluva lot like elitism to tell a 150 that they'll never be a 160.

Then why doesn't this same logic apply to being in the top 15, 20% of one's class? There are cases where retake is both legitimate and/or the correct advice but there are countless threads with people in wonderful situations who are being told to take a year off to retake. Retaking should be advice one can give but it should not be the default. Also if one asks a specific question comparing schools they ought to answer that question.

The reason I've started using the term "T18" is because I've come to the impression the consensus on TLS is that only 18 schools are worth taking out debt for(and in many people think even less). You either get into a T14 with $ or go to UT,Vandy, UCLA or WUSTL for $$ or a regional(mostly in T1 for for free or close to it). There was a thread I was reading that basically was talking about USC as first among "trap schools". The result of this is that kids in perfectly fine situations are told to retake to shoot for these "acceptable" scenario's or the T14 with $. Retaking CAN be good advice and people in the 140's should retake, heck I'm fine with people telling me to retake(I have a 156 I've taken the test three times to max my potential and it just didn't work out and I'm not willing to wait a year or two for a fourth time) but when we're telling people in the 160's(and at least decent GPA's) to take a year off for the chance of something a little better then the great scenario they only have, I think that's a mistake and you've went a bridge to far. I'm telling people to wait a year and reapply/retake now though not because I think they need to get a better score but because it's to late in the admissions season to get serious money(there is some serious evidence of this in the acceptance threads I've been on) and if it isn't you would have done better next year with the same stats. That's worth taking a year off for(though I'm curious why these people took so long to apply) but the chance(not a high one) of a marginally better outcome? No I don't think that's worth it.

[UVA2B]

TBH I think it's supportive of TLS to encourage a retake. Everyone here truly believes you can do better, and if you do worse, they're pretty damn nice about it. Plus, aside from the curt "retake lol", most are considerate and explain why. Not everyone may know that a lower score may hurt you, or just how much one point means. You're basically saying it's not worth anyone's time to try to be that outlier who improves, that effort is futile because they will never be the top 20%. What kind of nonsense is that? Sounds a helluva lot like elitism to tell a 150 that they'll never be a 160.

Then why doesn't this same logic apply to being in the top 15, 20% of one's class? There are cases where retake is both legitimate and/or the correct advice but there are countless threads with people in wonderful situations who are being told to take a year off to retake. Retaking should be advice one can give but it should not be the default. Also if one asks a specific question comparing schools they ought to answer that question.

The reason I've started using the term "T18" is because I've come to the impression the consensus on TLS is that only 18 schools are worth taking out debt for(and in many people think even less). You either get into a T14 with $ or go to UT,Vandy, UCLA or WUSTL for $$ or a regional(mostly in T1 for for free or close to it). There was a thread I was reading that basically was talking about USC as first among "trap schools". The result of this is that kids in perfectly fine situations are told to retake to shoot for these "acceptable" scenario's or the T14 with $. Retaking CAN be good advice and people in the 140's should retake, heck I'm fine with people telling me to retake(I have a 156 I've taken the test three times to max my potential and it just didn't work out and I'm not willing to wait a year or two for a fourth time) but when we're telling people in the 160's(and at least decent GPA's) to take a year off for the chance of something a little better then the great scenario they only have, I think that's a mistake and you've went a bridge to far. I'm telling people to wait a year and reapply/retake now though not because I think they need to get a better score but because it's to late in the admissions season to get serious money(there is some serious evidence of this in the acceptance threads I've been on) and if it isn't you would have done better next year with the same stats. That's worth taking a year off for(though I'm curious why these people took so long to apply) but the chance(not a high one) of a marginally better outcome? No I don't think that's worth it.

Now you're not understanding the intricacies of a forced curve vs. a predictive curve. The LSAT you take has no bearing on the scores of others. Your prep, your study, and your intelligence alone determine your score on the LSAT. Not everyone can get a 180, and some may not be capable of a 170, but as the person's LSAT score gets closer to those thresholds, the more likely it is they can improve on that, and by extension improve their outcome drastically.

Law school grading is entirely different. You could get a "100%" on the exam and get the same mediocre grade as everyone else if everyone else gets that "100%" because the test was just easier. Law school exams aren't graded that easily, and they aren't as objective as this example, but that's the very reason why no one can predict how well they'll do in their class. That's why the incredibly wise advice on TLS for law students is to expect median grades wherever you go, regardless of USNWR rank. That's probably not entirely the case, but it's a much safer assumption than, "I'm at this school's 75% LSAT and GPA, I'm destined for at least top 25%!" It just doesn't follow.

[bmathers]

because it's to late in the admissions season to get serious money(there is some serious evidence of this in the acceptance threads I've been on) and if it isn't you would have done better next year with the same stats. That's worth taking a year off for(though I'm curious why these people took so long to apply) but the chance(not a high one) of a marginally better outcome? No I don't think that's worth it.

If we are not talking about the "T18", I'm not o sure this advice is true -- at least in my experiences. I received a larger scholarship from a strong regional LS last year in March than I did this year in October.

[Ferrisjso]

TBH I think it's supportive of TLS to encourage a retake. Everyone here truly believes you can do better, and if you do worse, they're pretty damn nice about it. Plus, aside from the curt "retake lol", most are considerate and explain why. Not everyone may know that a lower score may hurt you, or just how much one point means. You're basically saying it's not worth anyone's time to try to be that outlier who improves, that effort is futile because they will never be the top 20%. What kind of nonsense is that? Sounds a helluva lot like elitism to tell a 150 that they'll never be a 160.

Then why doesn't this same logic apply to being in the top 15, 20% of one's class? There are cases where retake is both legitimate and/or the correct advice but there are countless threads with people in wonderful situations who are being told to take a year off to retake. Retaking should be advice one can give but it should not be the default. Also if one asks a specific question comparing schools they ought to answer that question.

The reason I've started using the term "T18" is because I've come to the impression the consensus on TLS is that only 18 schools are worth taking out debt for(and in many people think even less). You either get into a T14 with $ or go to UT,Vandy, UCLA or WUSTL for $$ or a regional(mostly in T1 for for free or close to it). There was a thread I was reading that basically was talking about USC as first among "trap schools". The result of this is that kids in perfectly fine situations are told to retake to shoot for these "acceptable" scenario's or the T14 with $. Retaking CAN be good advice and people in the 140's should retake, heck I'm fine with people telling me to retake(I have a 156 I've taken the test three times to max my potential and it just didn't work out and I'm not willing to wait a year or two for a fourth time) but when we're telling people in the 160's(and at least decent GPA's) to take a year off for the chance of something a little better then the great scenario they only have, I think that's a mistake and you've went a bridge to far. I'm telling people to wait a year and reapply/retake now though not because I think they need to get a better score but because it's to late in the admissions season to get serious money(there is some serious evidence of this in the acceptance threads I've been on) and if it isn't you would have done better next year with the same stats. That's worth taking a year off for(though I'm curious why these people took so long to apply) but the chance(not a high one) of a marginally better outcome? No I don't think that's worth it.

Now you're not understanding the intricacies of a forced curve vs. a predictive curve. The LSAT you take has no bearing on the scores of others. Your prep, your study, and your intelligence alone determine your score on the LSAT. Not everyone can get a 180, and some may not be capable of a 170, but as the person's LSAT score gets closer to those thresholds, the more likely it is they can improve on that, and by extension improve their outcome drastically.

Law school grading is entirely different. You could get a "100%" on the exam and get the same mediocre grade as everyone else if everyone else gets that "100%" because the test was just easier. Law school exams aren't graded that easily, and they aren't as objective as this example, but that's the very reason why no one can predict how well they'll do in their class. That's why the incredibly wise advice on TLS for law students is to expect median grades wherever you go, regardless of USNWR rank. That's probably not entirely the case, but it's a much safer assumption than, "I'm at this school's 75% LSAT and GPA, I'm destined for at least top 25%!" It just doesn't follow.

In theory what you're saying about the forced and uforced curve is true(everyone can get a 180 on the LSAT and not everyone can get an A in LS) however in practice there is very little difference because the 50th percentile will be 150-152 and so forth so it has very little practical difference, even though what you're saying is true of course. The curve isn't forced but it might as well be because the same percentage of people are going to score above a certain point, same as a forced curve. Doing well in LS will still be easier for some than cracking 160,170 on the LSAT, although that's a two way street of course. I'm sure we can find examples of poor LSAT's who did great in law school and people who did great on the LSAT and ended up in the back of their class. The forced curve versus unforced curve argument while true, is immaterial here.

[Ferrisjso]

because it's to late in the admissions season to get serious money(there is some serious evidence of this in the acceptance threads I've been on) and if it isn't you would have done better next year with the same stats. That's worth taking a year off for(though I'm curious why these people took so long to apply) but the chance(not a high one) of a marginally better outcome? No I don't think that's worth it.

If we are not talking about the "T18", I'm not o sure this advice is true -- at least in my experiences. I received a larger scholarship from a strong regional LS last year in March than I did this year in October.

I'm sure there's exceptions(especially if the regional school has lower medians) but even then I find it hard to believe that the same numbers in October wouldn't yield better results than March. Is this because of a retake improvement because then your story makes a ton more sense?

[A. Nony Mouse]

If someone is going to sit out and reapply next year because it's too late to get money, why not study and retake as well??

[Ferrisjso]

If someone is going to sit out and reapply next year because it's too late to get money, why not study and retake as well??

I said they should do both but only because they'll probably get a much better outcome regardless of what happens and aren't merely rolling the dice again with no guarantee of success. If you're taking the year off anyway why not retake? This is why I'm going to stop telling people who haven't applied already to not stay home a year because this cycle for all intents and purposes seems to be done(reading some crazy stories of people above school's 75th's getting way less than 25th percentile grants). If someone wanted to go to law school in the fall of 2017 they should have applied by now.

[UVA2B]

TBH I think it's supportive of TLS to encourage a retake. Everyone here truly believes you can do better, and if you do worse, they're pretty damn nice about it. Plus, aside from the curt "retake lol", most are considerate and explain why. Not everyone may know that a lower score may hurt you, or just how much one point means. You're basically saying it's not worth anyone's time to try to be that outlier who improves, that effort is futile because they will never be the top 20%. What kind of nonsense is that? Sounds a helluva lot like elitism to tell a 150 that they'll never be a 160.

Then why doesn't this same logic apply to being in the top 15, 20% of one's class? There are cases where retake is both legitimate and/or the correct advice but there are countless threads with people in wonderful situations who are being told to take a year off to retake. Retaking should be advice one can give but it should not be the default. Also if one asks a specific question comparing schools they ought to answer that question.

The reason I've started using the term "T18" is because I've come to the impression the consensus on TLS is that only 18 schools are worth taking out debt for(and in many people think even less). You either get into a T14 with $ or go to UT,Vandy, UCLA or WUSTL for $$ or a regional(mostly in T1 for for free or close to it). There was a thread I was reading that basically was talking about USC as first among "trap schools". The result of this is that kids in perfectly fine situations are told to retake to shoot for these "acceptable" scenario's or the T14 with $. Retaking CAN be good advice and people in the 140's should retake, heck I'm fine with people telling me to retake(I have a 156 I've taken the test three times to max my potential and it just didn't work out and I'm not willing to wait a year or two for a fourth time) but when we're telling people in the 160's(and at least decent GPA's) to take a year off for the chance of something a little better then the great scenario they only have, I think that's a mistake and you've went a bridge to far. I'm telling people to wait a year and reapply/retake now though not because I think they need to get a better score but because it's to late in the admissions season to get serious money(there is some serious evidence of this in the acceptance threads I've been on) and if it isn't you would have done better next year with the same stats. That's worth taking a year off for(though I'm curious why these people took so long to apply) but the chance(not a high one) of a marginally better outcome? No I don't think that's worth it.

Now you're not understanding the intricacies of a forced curve vs. a predictive curve. The LSAT you take has no bearing on the scores of others. Your prep, your study, and your intelligence alone determine your score on the LSAT. Not everyone can get a 180, and some may not be capable of a 170, but as the person's LSAT score gets closer to those thresholds, the more likely it is they can improve on that, and by extension improve their outcome drastically.

Law school grading is entirely different. You could get a "100%" on the exam and get the same mediocre grade as everyone else if everyone else gets that "100%" because the test was just easier. Law school exams aren't graded that easily, and they aren't as objective as this example, but that's the very reason why no one can predict how well they'll do in their class. That's why the incredibly wise advice on TLS for law students is to expect median grades wherever you go, regardless of USNWR rank. That's probably not entirely the case, but it's a much safer assumption than, "I'm at this school's 75% LSAT and GPA, I'm destined for at least top 25%!" It just doesn't follow.

In theory what you're saying about the forced and uforced curve is true(everyone can get a 180 on the LSAT and not everyone can get an A in LS) however in practice there is very little difference because the 50th percentile will be 150-152 and so forth so it has very little practical difference, even though what you're saying is true of course. The curve isn't forced but it might as well be because the same percentage of people are going to score above a certain point, same as a forced curve. Doing well in LS will still be easier for some than cracking 160,170 on the LSAT, although that's a two way street of course. I'm sure we can find examples of poor LSAT's who did great in law school and people who did great on the LSAT and ended up in the back of their class. The forced curve versus unforced curve argument while true, is immaterial here.

So very wrong. It's not immaterial to say people continue to score poorly on the LSAT, causing the predictive curve based on the previous three administrations (I think this is the basis, but I'm spitballing a bit) to move very little. A predictive curve has zero predictive value of how you, as an individual test taker, can and will do on the test. With enough work, using the right materials, with at least a minimum threshold of ability to learn the test, can move you up way higher on the totem poll of the LSAT. Nothing about the forced curve of law school allows for the same sort of movement and upward mobility in the curve.

But sure, keep arguing that because there continue to be people scoring poorly is predictive of whether you can improve on the test.

I realize I'll never convince you otherwise, so that's where I'll leave it.

[Ferrisjso]

TBH I think it's supportive of TLS to encourage a retake. Everyone here truly believes you can do better, and if you do worse, they're pretty damn nice about it. Plus, aside from the curt "retake lol", most are considerate and explain why. Not everyone may know that a lower score may hurt you, or just how much one point means. You're basically saying it's not worth anyone's time to try to be that outlier who improves, that effort is futile because they will never be the top 20%. What kind of nonsense is that? Sounds a helluva lot like elitism to tell a 150 that they'll never be a 160.

Then why doesn't this same logic apply to being in the top 15, 20% of one's class? There are cases where retake is both legitimate and/or the correct advice but there are countless threads with people in wonderful situations who are being told to take a year off to retake. Retaking should be advice one can give but it should not be the default. Also if one asks a specific question comparing schools they ought to answer that question.

The reason I've started using the term "T18" is because I've come to the impression the consensus on TLS is that only 18 schools are worth taking out debt for(and in many people think even less). You either get into a T14 with $ or go to UT,Vandy, UCLA or WUSTL for $$ or a regional(mostly in T1 for for free or close to it). There was a thread I was reading that basically was talking about USC as first among "trap schools". The result of this is that kids in perfectly fine situations are told to retake to shoot for these "acceptable" scenario's or the T14 with $. Retaking CAN be good advice and people in the 140's should retake, heck I'm fine with people telling me to retake(I have a 156 I've taken the test three times to max my potential and it just didn't work out and I'm not willing to wait a year or two for a fourth time) but when we're telling people in the 160's(and at least decent GPA's) to take a year off for the chance of something a little better then the great scenario they only have, I think that's a mistake and you've went a bridge to far. I'm telling people to wait a year and reapply/retake now though not because I think they need to get a better score but because it's to late in the admissions season to get serious money(there is some serious evidence of this in the acceptance threads I've been on) and if it isn't you would have done better next year with the same stats. That's worth taking a year off for(though I'm curious why these people took so long to apply) but the chance(not a high one) of a marginally better outcome? No I don't think that's worth it.

Now you're not understanding the intricacies of a forced curve vs. a predictive curve. The LSAT you take has no bearing on the scores of others. Your prep, your study, and your intelligence alone determine your score on the LSAT. Not everyone can get a 180, and some may not be capable of a 170, but as the person's LSAT score gets closer to those thresholds, the more likely it is they can improve on that, and by extension improve their outcome drastically.

Law school grading is entirely different. You could get a "100%" on the exam and get the same mediocre grade as everyone else if everyone else gets that "100%" because the test was just easier. Law school exams aren't graded that easily, and they aren't as objective as this example, but that's the very reason why no one can predict how well they'll do in their class. That's why the incredibly wise advice on TLS for law students is to expect median grades wherever you go, regardless of USNWR rank. That's probably not entirely the case, but it's a much safer assumption than, "I'm at this school's 75% LSAT and GPA, I'm destined for at least top 25%!" It just doesn't follow.

In theory what you're saying about the forced and uforced curve is true(everyone can get a 180 on the LSAT and not everyone can get an A in LS) however in practice there is very little difference because the 50th percentile will be 150-152 and so forth so it has very little practical difference, even though what you're saying is true of course. The curve isn't forced but it might as well be because the same percentage of people are going to score above a certain point, same as a forced curve. Doing well in LS will still be easier for some than cracking 160,170 on the LSAT, although that's a two way street of course. I'm sure we can find examples of poor LSAT's who did great in law school and people who did great on the LSAT and ended up in the back of their class. The forced curve versus unforced curve argument while true, is immaterial here.

So very wrong. It's not immaterial to say people continue to score poorly on the LSAT, causing the predictive curve based on the previous three administrations (I think this is the basis, but I'm spitballing a bit) to move very little. A predictive curve has zero predictive value of how you, as an individual test taker, can and will do on the test. With enough work, using the right materials, with at least a minimum threshold of ability to learn the test, can move you up way higher on the totem poll of the LSAT. Nothing about the forced curve of law school allows for the same sort of movement and upward mobility in the curve.

But sure, keep arguing that because there continue to be people scoring poorly is predictive of whether you can improve on the test.

I realize I'll never convince you otherwise, so that's where I'll leave it.

Someone posted stats earlier showing small improvement for second time takers and small decline for third time test takers(all of this being within 2-3 points). Again what you're saying is possible in theory but is simply not true in practice.

[UVA2B]

TBH I think it's supportive of TLS to encourage a retake. Everyone here truly believes you can do better, and if you do worse, they're pretty damn nice about it. Plus, aside from the curt "retake lol", most are considerate and explain why. Not everyone may know that a lower score may hurt you, or just how much one point means. You're basically saying it's not worth anyone's time to try to be that outlier who improves, that effort is futile because they will never be the top 20%. What kind of nonsense is that? Sounds a helluva lot like elitism to tell a 150 that they'll never be a 160.

Then why doesn't this same logic apply to being in the top 15, 20% of one's class? There are cases where retake is both legitimate and/or the correct advice but there are countless threads with people in wonderful situations who are being told to take a year off to retake. Retaking should be advice one can give but it should not be the default. Also if one asks a specific question comparing schools they ought to answer that question.

The reason I've started using the term "T18" is because I've come to the impression the consensus on TLS is that only 18 schools are worth taking out debt for(and in many people think even less). You either get into a T14 with $ or go to UT,Vandy, UCLA or WUSTL for $$ or a regional(mostly in T1 for for free or close to it). There was a thread I was reading that basically was talking about USC as first among "trap schools". The result of this is that kids in perfectly fine situations are told to retake to shoot for these "acceptable" scenario's or the T14 with $. Retaking CAN be good advice and people in the 140's should retake, heck I'm fine with people telling me to retake(I have a 156 I've taken the test three times to max my potential and it just didn't work out and I'm not willing to wait a year or two for a fourth time) but when we're telling people in the 160's(and at least decent GPA's) to take a year off for the chance of something a little better then the great scenario they only have, I think that's a mistake and you've went a bridge to far. I'm telling people to wait a year and reapply/retake now though not because I think they need to get a better score but because it's to late in the admissions season to get serious money(there is some serious evidence of this in the acceptance threads I've been on) and if it isn't you would have done better next year with the same stats. That's worth taking a year off for(though I'm curious why these people took so long to apply) but the chance(not a high one) of a marginally better outcome? No I don't think that's worth it.

Now you're not understanding the intricacies of a forced curve vs. a predictive curve. The LSAT you take has no bearing on the scores of others. Your prep, your study, and your intelligence alone determine your score on the LSAT. Not everyone can get a 180, and some may not be capable of a 170, but as the person's LSAT score gets closer to those thresholds, the more likely it is they can improve on that, and by extension improve their outcome drastically.

Law school grading is entirely different. You could get a "100%" on the exam and get the same mediocre grade as everyone else if everyone else gets that "100%" because the test was just easier. Law school exams aren't graded that easily, and they aren't as objective as this example, but that's the very reason why no one can predict how well they'll do in their class. That's why the incredibly wise advice on TLS for law students is to expect median grades wherever you go, regardless of USNWR rank. That's probably not entirely the case, but it's a much safer assumption than, "I'm at this school's 75% LSAT and GPA, I'm destined for at least top 25%!" It just doesn't follow.

In theory what you're saying about the forced and uforced curve is true(everyone can get a 180 on the LSAT and not everyone can get an A in LS) however in practice there is very little difference because the 50th percentile will be 150-152 and so forth so it has very little practical difference, even though what you're saying is true of course. The curve isn't forced but it might as well be because the same percentage of people are going to score above a certain point, same as a forced curve. Doing well in LS will still be easier for some than cracking 160,170 on the LSAT, although that's a two way street of course. I'm sure we can find examples of poor LSAT's who did great in law school and people who did great on the LSAT and ended up in the back of their class. The forced curve versus unforced curve argument while true, is immaterial here.

So very wrong. It's not immaterial to say people continue to score poorly on the LSAT, causing the predictive curve based on the previous three administrations (I think this is the basis, but I'm spitballing a bit) to move very little. A predictive curve has zero predictive value of how you, as an individual test taker, can and will do on the test. With enough work, using the right materials, with at least a minimum threshold of ability to learn the test, can move you up way higher on the totem poll of the LSAT. Nothing about the forced curve of law school allows for the same sort of movement and upward mobility in the curve.

But sure, keep arguing that because there continue to be people scoring poorly is predictive of whether you can improve on the test.

I realize I'll never convince you otherwise, so that's where I'll leave it.

Someone posted stats earlier showing small improvement for second time takers and small decline for third time test takers(all of this being within 2-3 points). Again what you're saying is possible in theory but is simply not true in practice.

That data proves surprisingly little, because it does nothing to prove whether second time takers were any more well-prepared than the first time, so that std of dev. irregularity seems understandable. LSAC isn't collecting level of preparation.

Until you can show that there was more difference between first time and second time takers in how they prepared, all you've proven is people likely aren't adequately preparing for the test. Nothing revelatory to see there.

[Johann]

Yeah just because everyone can get a 180 and not everyone can get an A doesn't mean the curves are different. They play out practically the same every time: people in the top 5% get top 5%. 100 people sample size (lecture class size) is pretty legit and thousands of lsat takers is obviously bulletproof.