Which Splitter would you rather be? Forum

[Dany]

BTW, no adcom (even from HYS) would ever say that someone with a 158-163 "couldn't handle the LSAT". That person handled the LSAT just fine, beating out what...77-90% of all test takers?

If you have a 4.0 and a 158, you absolutely couldn't handle the LSAT. It would be different if it weren't a learnable test, but if you can put in 4 years of straight As in college and can't get 165+ on the LSAT, you either couldn't handle it or didn't study hard enough.

There are very rare exceptions, but if I'm a Harvard adcomm and I see a 158/4.0, my first thought is: This person worked for four years for a great GPA and couldn't work for four months to get a better LSAT score?

But what if you saw that and then a 175+ re-take? I understand that a 158 to 176+ jump isn't likely, but low-160's to high-170's is definitely not uncommon. The point about being able to re-take and proving yourself to be capable of a higher score, while not being able to raise your GPA, is a valid one.

Completely missed my point there, bud. If you'll look earlier in the thread, you'll notice I said that I would ONLY want to be a reverse splitter if retake was an option.

I was responding solely to PDaddy's statement that an HYS adcomm would never say that a 158-163 "couldn't handle the LSAT." If in fact that applicant had a 4.0, and APPLIED with a 158 (so clearly retake is not an option, since in the scenario the adcomm is looking at the score), then they couldn't handle the LSAT.

My post had nothing to do with retaking, or even which splitter I'd rather be. I was just responding to one point that PDaddy made.

[rundoxierun]

But what if you saw that and then a 175+ re-take? I understand that a 158 to 176+ jump isn't likely, but low-160's to high-170's is definitely not uncommon. The point about being able to re-take and proving yourself to be capable of a higher score, while not being able to raise your GPA, is a valid one.

Actually, low 160s to high 170s is very uncommon.. the crap you read on TLS =/= real life.

[CapHillLove]

.

[johnnyutah]

BTW, no adcom (even from HYS) would ever say that someone with a 158-163 "couldn't handle the LSAT". That person handled the LSAT just fine, beating out what...77-90% of all test takers?

If you have a 4.0 and a 158, you absolutely couldn't handle the LSAT. It would be different if it weren't a learnable test, but if you can put in 4 years of straight As in college and can't get 165+ on the LSAT, you either couldn't handle it or didn't study hard enough.

I always figured GPA and LSAT measured utterly different things - GPA being work ethic and LSAT being test-taking ability. I don't get why it's surprising that someone would do well in one area and not another.

[rundoxierun]

But what if you saw that and then a 175+ re-take? I understand that a 158 to 176+ jump isn't likely, but low-160's to high-170's is definitely not uncommon. The point about being able to re-take and proving yourself to be capable of a higher score, while not being able to raise your GPA, is a valid one.

Actually, low 160s to high 170s is very uncommon.. the crap you read on TLS =/= real life.

That's probably true. TLS isn't a fair way to judge this. Do you know for sure that this doesn't happen often though? Like are there stats? It's hard for me to get a sense of what actually happens to people who aren't so obsessed with this process that they need to post about it in online forums constantly.

I would also imagine that some people assume that a re-take isn't going to help, so they don't bother. I thought taking the LSAT twice was something that would kill an application entirely before I found TLS. It seems like schools are becoming more an more willing to forgive low scores and take the high score as the best indicator.

Yes there is data.. look on the LSAC site in the resources section.. last years data shows that 261 retook a 164 and only 52 scored 170-180(~20%) with an average of 166.2 and std dev. of 4.5. That means that not many of those ppl hit high 170s(175+), using std dev as an estimator about 13 of the people who retook a 164 scored above 175. The farther you go down the scale the more uncommon it gets. 497 retook a 163 with only 76 scoring 170-180(~15%) an an average of 165.3. 538 retook a 162 with only 59 scoring 170-180(~11%) and an average of 164.5. Again, with standard deviations all in the 4.2-4.5 range its clear that very few are hitting the high 170s.

[Dany]

BTW, no adcom (even from HYS) would ever say that someone with a 158-163 "couldn't handle the LSAT". That person handled the LSAT just fine, beating out what...77-90% of all test takers?

If you have a 4.0 and a 158, you absolutely couldn't handle the LSAT. It would be different if it weren't a learnable test, but if you can put in 4 years of straight As in college and can't get 165+ on the LSAT, you either couldn't handle it or didn't study hard enough.

I always figured GPA and LSAT measured utterly different things - GPA being work ethic and LSAT being test-taking ability. I don't get why it's surprising that someone would do well in one area and not another.

While I agree with you if we're talking about all standardized tests in general, I think the LSAT is a whole different ballgame because it is so learnable, and a person with strong enough study skills to end UG with a 4.0 can almost always study enough to score higher than a 158. The exceptions would be: a 4.0 in a joke major (or even one that's more non-traditional; I could definitely see a scenario in which someone was a 4.0 art/design student but struggled with the LSAT); a learning disability which made timed standardized tests difficult; or other unusual situations.

Anyway, I just believe that a 4.0 in a common major (common as in a large portion of law school applicants with that major) means that a person has the study and dedication skills required to get a high LSAT score. Can everyone with a 4.0 score 175+? Of course not. But I definitely think that with proper preparation, most people with a 4.0 could score much better than a 158.

[capitalacq]

For many, it isn't good enough for HYS, but it's nothing to sneeze at either, especially if you have a 3.8+ GPA. It's even more true if you had a tough-as-nails major and really good softs. Below 150 is a different story. We on TLS are so used to meeting up with the 170+ers that our perceptions of "good" LSAT scores get skewed. A 170 puts you in the top 2% of all test takers, which is only possible for...2% of test takers. What are everybody else, trash? Be careful.

pretty much.