168 and 3.9 where can i go? Forum

[FlightoftheEarls]

It also matters astonishingly little where you went to undergrad!

fixed that for you

To be fair, he said that in the context of Chicago, which actually is the only school I saw that actually seems to give a shit about undergrad prestige. While that's pretty far down the list of soft factors, I do think it was one of the reasons why they were the only school to straight ding me, even though I was at their 75% for my LSAT. I do actually put some stock in a Chicago admissions committee member's statement for that very reason, but only at UC. No other school seemed to care.

[kosherboy2]

Cornell, Georgetown, Northwestern (with WE), Berkeley, Michigan
small shot at NYU, Virginia, Penn, and Duke
no shot at HYSCC

Alright, im a little confused here. Why is it that this person has a small shot at Duke, Penn, Virginia, when their GPA is def higher than middle 50 and their LSAT is in the middle 50.

I would agree with saying small shot at HYSCC but "no shot"?

[devilishangelrjp]

Retaking the LSAT might not be a great idea. I've heard that after 165, your chances of getting a better score are slim...

[oh_dear]

Retaking the LSAT might not be a great idea. I've heard that after 165, your chances of getting a better score are slim...

Actually, if you look at p. 29 on this official LSAC LSAT guide (http://www.lsac.org/pdfs/InformationBookweb.pdf) , you will see that in 2008, out of the 81 people that retook a 168, 52 did better, 4 did the same, and 25 did worse. If you retook a 167, 93 out of 131 did better, while 12 did the same and 26 did worse. The chances are of doing better than a 168 are about twice as large as doing worse. This isn't too terrible and chances are definitely not "slim". However, it's worth noting that it's slightly worse than the odds facing people who retook something like a 163 (333 did better than before, 44 the same, and 120 worse).

[im_blue]

Cornell, Georgetown, Northwestern (with WE), Berkeley, Michigan
small shot at NYU, Virginia, Penn, and Duke
no shot at HYSCC

Alright, im a little confused here. Why is it that this person has a small shot at Duke, Penn, Virginia, when their GPA is def higher than middle 50 and their LSAT is in the middle 50.

I would agree with saying small shot at HYSCC but "no shot"?

The medians are Duke 169, Virginia/Penn 170, and NYU 171, but these schools aren't especially reverse-splitter friendly. Why would a 168 have more than a small shot?

There might be a small shot at HYSCC early in the cycle, but at this point I'm going to go with "no shot."

[vanwinkle]

The medians are Duke 169, Virginia/Penn 170, and NYU 171, but these schools aren't especially reverse-splitter friendly. Why would a 168 have more than a small shot?

I'm going to jump in here and say that I think OP actually has a fairly large shot at Virginia if he/she EDs right now. UVA is showing friendliness toward ED reverse-splitters to help support their 3.85 median, and since they extended the ED deadline OP still has a chance at them.

This late in the cycle I think that's the only strong shot at a T10 acceptance with those numbers, except maybe Berkeley, which seems to favor high GPAs over high LSATs just a little more than the rest of the T14.

[FlightoftheEarls]

Retaking the LSAT might not be a great idea. I've heard that after 165, your chances of getting a better score are slim...

Actually, if you look at p. 29 on this official LSAC LSAT guide (http://www.lsac.org/pdfs/InformationBookweb.pdf) , you will see that in 2008, out of the 81 people that retook a 168, 52 did better, 4 did the same, and 25 did worse. If you retook a 167, 93 out of 131 did better, while 12 did the same and 26 did worse. The chances are of doing better than a 168 are about twice as large as doing worse. This isn't too terrible and chances are definitely not "slim". However, it's worth noting that it's slightly worse than the odds facing people who retook something like a 163 (333 did better than before, 44 the same, and 120 worse).

Guys, these odds have absolutely nothing to do with any individual person's likelihood of improving the score on any given test, but say everything about the type of person who is willing to retake a 168. The majority of people who think to retake a score like this are those who are confident (and probably with good reason and much practice) that they can and should break into the 170s. It's not like anybody who lands a 168 and decides on a retake is statistically facing a 64% chance of improving just because they're retaking a 168.

[im_blue]

The medians are Duke 169, Virginia/Penn 170, and NYU 171, but these schools aren't especially reverse-splitter friendly. Why would a 168 have more than a small shot?

I'm going to jump in here and say that I think OP actually has a fairly large shot at Virginia if he/she EDs right now. UVA is showing friendliness toward ED reverse-splitters to help support their 3.85 median, and since they extended the ED deadline OP still has a chance at them.

This late in the cycle I think that's the only strong shot at a T10 acceptance with those numbers, except maybe Berkeley, which seems to favor high GPAs over high LSATs just a little more than the rest of the T14.

Agreed, although Michigan would also be a good T10 target for a 3.9/168.

[oh_dear]

Retaking the LSAT might not be a great idea. I've heard that after 165, your chances of getting a better score are slim...

Actually, if you look at p. 29 on this official LSAC LSAT guide (http://www.lsac.org/pdfs/InformationBookweb.pdf) , you will see that in 2008, out of the 81 people that retook a 168, 52 did better, 4 did the same, and 25 did worse. If you retook a 167, 93 out of 131 did better, while 12 did the same and 26 did worse. The chances are of doing better than a 168 are about twice as large as doing worse. This isn't too terrible and chances are definitely not "slim". However, it's worth noting that it's slightly worse than the odds facing people who retook something like a 163 (333 did better than before, 44 the same, and 120 worse).

Guys, these odds have absolutely nothing to do with any individual person's likelihood of improving the score on any given test, but say everything about the type of person who is willing to retake a 168. The majority of people who think to retake a score like this are those who are confident (and probably with good reason and much practice) that they can and should break into the 170s. It's not like anybody who lands a 168 and decides on a retake is statistically facing a 64% chance of improving just because they're retaking a 168.

Yep. I know this. And I never said that. I was just pointing out that chances of improving are not generally "slim" and that the person that I was responding to was basing his/her advice on incorrect information.

[Huluba23]

Quick confession.

In addition to my 168 I also have a 158 score on my resume with a pretty awesome excuse as to why I scored so low. Does this in any way affect my chances?

[oh_dear]

Look, the people here who get into NYU or Stanford with a 168 and a 3.9 did so because of softs that overrode the low LSAT. There's almost no chance of getting into either unless you have a perfect application otherwise. That being said, I don't think that your low LSAT score will hurt you in any way, though, since there is a huge improvement and a good explanation.

[quetzalcoatl]

Quick confession.

In addition to my 168 I also have a 158 score on my resume with a pretty awesome excuse as to why I scored so low. Does this in any way affect my chances?

From what I have heard, If you write an addendum for a low lsat and you have a score change greater than 6 points most schools will only consider your high score (that is if you have a good excuse). I have very similar numbers (3.9/170) and have already been accepted to Duke and Texas. My softs are decent (2 degrees, 1 is a double major Finance/Industrial Eco the other a Philo major with theoretical eco minor, international WE and 2 additional full time internships, some special departmental work, etc.) I think I will get Berkeley and maybe Penn. Chicago and Columbia are reaches. Stanford is a distant dream.

If you have a strong PS you will probably have a shot at Berkeley.