Stop Telling People to Retake Forum

[star fox]

If it's just one cycle it's still almost always a no brainer.

Depends on the numbers and options(telling people in the 160's and decent GPA's to wait a year just seems nonsensical to me) but I think we can all agree for no cycles missed it's almost always a no brainer. I think the whole typical retake conversation should be more based on "do you believe you can improve" than "you've got to retake because if you do better you'll have better options".

If you have less than a 175 or so, you're making a suboptimal decision and can likely save more in debt by retaking than you will gain in starting your career as an attorney one year earlier.

The higher your LSAT score is the lower your chances of improvement are. I have no idea why anyone with a 170 would retake(assuming they're not one of those people with GPA's in the 2's) unless they had a really bad day and still scored that. Heck once someone hits the mid 160's(I remember before taking the LSAT for take one, 163 was the score that would have convinced me not to retake) this whole conversation just seems super fringe. These people beat around 9 out of 10 people taking the test they will have good, no great options with $ if they apply smartly. What you're basically saying is if you're not better than 98-99% of people taking the test you should give it another go. Someone with a 174 and a decent GPA can be admitted ANYWHERE IN THE US and receive money from virtually every law school in the US, but yeah they should retake.

Moving from a median LSAT percentile for an entering class to a 75th percentile is often a matter of a point or two. That could be the difference between paying sticker price and a full ride.

[Future Ex-Engineer]

It's great if someone scores better than 90% of other test takers. That still may not get them where they want to be, though, depending on their goals and qualifications. Like, okay, congrats, you did better than 90% of applicants, but if you have top 7% goals and/or you have a terrible GPA (for whatever reason) better than 90% may not get you there. I'm sorry that being in the top 10% doesn't guarantee what you want it to guarantee, but in this context, it doesn't.

(The year off thing still kills me. That's like the blink of an eye.)

I strongly, strongly disagree on the blink of an eye thing. I guess if I blink my eye about 60 more times I'm going to die! Also my last post referenced that those with the terrible GPA's are exceptions. And the poster I was responding to thought people with less than 175 should retake which takes it from top 8-10% to up to 1-2%.

How old are you?

21. Average person lives around 80(average male lives a tiny but shorter).

And here we have it folks. Please no one take advice from a KJD who just turned legal

[star fox]

It's great if someone scores better than 90% of other test takers. That still may not get them where they want to be, though, depending on their goals and qualifications. Like, okay, congrats, you did better than 90% of applicants, but if you have top 7% goals and/or you have a terrible GPA (for whatever reason) better than 90% may not get you there. I'm sorry that being in the top 10% doesn't guarantee what you want it to guarantee, but in this context, it doesn't.

(The year off thing still kills me. That's like the blink of an eye.)

I strongly, strongly disagree on the blink of an eye thing. I guess if I blink my eye about 60 more times I'm going to die! Also my last post referenced that those with the terrible GPA's are exceptions. And the poster I was responding to thought people with less than 175 should retake which takes it from top 8-10% to up to 1-2%.

How old are you?

21. Average person lives around 80(average male lives a tiny but shorter).

At some point there's a shit or get off the pot aspect where if you decide you want to be a lawyer, go be a lawyer already, but when you're that young waiting a year is a no brainer if you got a great shot at improving your future outlook and lowering your debt load

[BlendedUnicorn]

Holy shit we've been arguing with a 21 year old this entire time

Doing something else with your early twenties will be the best decision you ever make. Law school will still be waiting a few years down the road.

Source: started law school at 28. It's fine.

[Ferrisjso]

The vast majority of law students should absolutely not "just learn coding bro." They do not have the natural aptitude that will make them proficient Coders. People need to learn and recognize where their strengths are. If you aren't naturally very comfortable in Excel, you should absolutely not be gunning to be an i-Banking analyst for instance.

But shouldn't everyone go into Stem Fields though bro, don't they pay more? Lmao yeah the whole, "there's a better field out there" mentality drives me nuts, why would people be on a law forum if they didn't believe law was the field or something similar wasn't for them? Not everyone can or should be in STEM.

[BlendedUnicorn]

I mean even if the plan is to go solo or whatever working before law school will give you a chance to meet people and have a wider net to draw from when you're looking for clients down the road.

[Ferrisjso]

Holy shit we've been arguing with a 21 year old this entire time

Doing something else with your early twenties will be the best decision you ever make. Law school will still be waiting a few years down the road.

Source: started law school at 28. It's fine.

Yes let the ageism begin! You already knew I was a 0L, how old did you think I was? My age doesn't discredit anything I've said.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Holy shit we've been arguing with a 21 year old this entire time

Doing something else with your early twenties will be the best decision you ever make. Law school will still be waiting a few years down the road.

Source: started law school at 28. It's fine.

Yes let the ageism begin! You already knew I was a 0L, how old did you think I was? My age doesn't discredit anything I've said.

Lots of us are 0Ls in our 30s, dude. And I know this is incredibly obnoxious but I'm going to say it anyway: when you get older you'll realize you were wrong to think a year is an insurmountably long time.

[stego]

I mean I'm sure it is more difficult to bump your score a few points as you get closer to the tail of the curve but it's also true that it becomes exponentially more valuable to do so.

Agree with this. Looking at the most recent 509's for the T14, a 1-point difference separated median from 75th percentile at Penn, Duke, UVA (169-170); Michigan (168-169); Georgetown, and Cornell (167-168).
The difference between 25th and median was greater than the difference between median and 75th at every T14 school except for Harvard (170-172-175).
The difference between median and 75th was 2 points at every other T14.

[cavalier1138]

It's great if someone scores better than 90% of other test takers. That still may not get them where they want to be, though, depending on their goals and qualifications. Like, okay, congrats, you did better than 90% of applicants, but if you have top 7% goals and/or you have a terrible GPA (for whatever reason) better than 90% may not get you there. I'm sorry that being in the top 10% doesn't guarantee what you want it to guarantee, but in this context, it doesn't.

(The year off thing still kills me. That's like the blink of an eye.)

I strongly, strongly disagree on the blink of an eye thing. I guess if I blink my eye about 60 more times I'm going to die! Also my last post referenced that those with the terrible GPA's are exceptions. And the poster I was responding to thought people with less than 175 should retake which takes it from top 8-10% to up to 1-2%.

How old are you?

21. Average person lives around 80(average male lives a tiny but shorter).

Of course you're 21.

A year is nothing. But it sure feels like a lot at 21.

[Ferrisjso]

It's great if someone scores better than 90% of other test takers. That still may not get them where they want to be, though, depending on their goals and qualifications. Like, okay, congrats, you did better than 90% of applicants, but if you have top 7% goals and/or you have a terrible GPA (for whatever reason) better than 90% may not get you there. I'm sorry that being in the top 10% doesn't guarantee what you want it to guarantee, but in this context, it doesn't.

(The year off thing still kills me. That's like the blink of an eye.)

I strongly, strongly disagree on the blink of an eye thing. I guess if I blink my eye about 60 more times I'm going to die! Also my last post referenced that those with the terrible GPA's are exceptions. And the poster I was responding to thought people with less than 175 should retake which takes it from top 8-10% to up to 1-2%.

How old are you?

21. Average person lives around 80(average male lives a tiny but shorter).

Of course you're 21.

A year is nothing. But it sure feels like a lot at 21.

Again you knew I was a K-JD OL how old did you expect me to be? Don't really understand why people are acting like this is a surprise.

[Ferrisjso]

If it's just one cycle it's still almost always a no brainer.

Depends on the numbers and options(telling people in the 160's and decent GPA's to wait a year just seems nonsensical to me) but I think we can all agree for no cycles missed it's almost always a no brainer. I think the whole typical retake conversation should be more based on "do you believe you can improve" than "you've got to retake because if you do better you'll have better options".

If you have less than a 175 or so, you're making a suboptimal decision and can likely save more in debt by retaking than you will gain in starting your career as an attorney one year earlier.

The higher your LSAT score is the lower your chances of improvement are. I have no idea why anyone with a 170 would retake(assuming they're not one of those people with GPA's in the 2's) unless they had a really bad day and still scored that. Heck once someone hits the mid 160's(I remember before taking the LSAT for take one, 163 was the score that would have convinced me not to retake) this whole conversation just seems super fringe. These people beat around 9 out of 10 people taking the test they will have good, no great options with $ if they apply smartly. What you're basically saying is if you're not better than 98-99% of people taking the test you should give it another go. Someone with a 174 and a decent GPA can be admitted ANYWHERE IN THE US and receive money from virtually every law school in the US, but yeah they should retake.

Moving from a median LSAT percentile for an entering class to a 75th percentile is often a matter of a point or two. That could be the difference between paying sticker price and a full ride.

Not disputing the first point but the second? I can't imagine median's having to pay sticker at most places.

[A. Nony Mouse]

1) most 0Ls are older than you. Stop insisting we should have assumed you were 21.
2) medians pay sticker plenty.

[chicagoburger]

1) most 0Ls are older than you. Stop insisting we should have assumed you were 21.
2) medians pay sticker plenty.

Guys back to my point, the study over period of 6 years shows that Retakers have less than 1 pt advantage in mean LSAT than first time takers.
I was speaking to the phenomenon of massive "Retake" advices on TLS, not on a case-by-case perspective.
Retake doesn't really do much better judging from means. When you flood the forum with "Retake", you should expect the outcome converging towards that insignificant change in mean.

[jjcorvino]

It's great if someone scores better than 90% of other test takers. That still may not get them where they want to be, though, depending on their goals and qualifications. Like, okay, congrats, you did better than 90% of applicants, but if you have top 7% goals and/or you have a terrible GPA (for whatever reason) better than 90% may not get you there. I'm sorry that being in the top 10% doesn't guarantee what you want it to guarantee, but in this context, it doesn't.

(The year off thing still kills me. That's like the blink of an eye.)

I strongly, strongly disagree on the blink of an eye thing. I guess if I blink my eye about 60 more times I'm going to die! Also my last post referenced that those with the terrible GPA's are exceptions. And the poster I was responding to thought people with less than 175 should retake which takes it from top 8-10% to up to 1-2%.

How old are you?

21. Average person lives around 80(average male lives a tiny but shorter).

Of course you're 21.

A year is nothing. But it sure feels like a lot at 21.

Again you knew I was a K-JD OL how old did you expect me to be? Don't really understand why people are acting like this is a surprise.

The median age for law students at the top schools is 24. You are young compared to other applicants. That is not a bad thing, it just means that as a KJD you probably have different perspectives than people who have lived in the real world and have careers. I am still young, but I have been out of school for 3 years (will be 4 by the time I start school). I think when you are KJD you are kinda stuck in the "what's next" mindset. First was high school, then college apps, then college, them lsat prep, now law school. For a lot of people that have been working, we realize that a year or two or three to work to improve both your resume and your school prospects (and make some money) is not a big deal. It is not even really "taking off" it is just living life. Law school will always be there and it is a big decision, I would advise almost anyway to not jump right into it.

[guynourmin]

1) most 0Ls are older than you. Stop insisting we should have assumed you were 21.
2) medians pay sticker plenty.

Guys back to my point, the study over period of 6 years shows that Retakers have less than 1 pt advantage in mean LSAT than first time takers.
I was speaking to the phenomenon of massive "Retake" advices on TLS, not on a case-by-case perspective.
Retake doesn't really do much better judging from means. When you flood the forum with "Retake", you should expect the outcome converging towards that insignificant change in mean.

Okay, so I'm going to do this poorly, but imagine 3people take the last. Scores are 150, 160, and 170. That's a 160 average. The 170 doesn't retake, the 150 increases to 158 the 160 increases to 164. That's a 161 average for retakes. Only a 1 point increase. What a waste, right?

[chicagoburger]

I mean I'm sure it is more difficult to bump your score a few points as you get closer to the tail of the curve but it's also true that it becomes exponentially more valuable to do so.

Agree with this. Looking at the most recent 509's for the T14, a 1-point difference separated median from 75th percentile at Penn, Duke, UVA (169-170); Michigan (168-169); Georgetown, and Cornell (167-168).
The difference between 25th and median was greater than the difference between median and 75th at every T14 school except for Harvard (170-172-175).
The difference between median and 75th was 2 points at every other T14.

One study showed that when you are above 165, it's a coin flip of going up or down on retake.
I would also add, which many TLSers don't get, that a good LSAT translate to different scores to different students. Some want to do regional, a mid 150's will be perfectly fine. Some want to be the next Scalia, then you need to get 170+.

[UVA2B]

1) most 0Ls are older than you. Stop insisting we should have assumed you were 21.
2) medians pay sticker plenty.

Guys back to my point, the study over period of 6 years shows that Retakers have less than 1 pt advantage in mean LSAT than first time takers.
I was speaking to the phenomenon of massive "Retake" advices on TLS, not on a case-by-case perspective.
Retake doesn't really do much better judging from means. When you flood the forum with "Retake", you should expect the outcome converging towards that insignificant change in mean.

Again, the "retake" advice shouldn't be taken in a vacuum. No one suggests you should just wait a couple months and expect something better to happen the second time around. The "retake" advice is given with the idea that the person seeking advice follows up to find the IMMENSE wealth of knowledge and experience in studying for the LSAT on THIS VERY SITE with the intention of improving their score. The reason so many people have found success around these fora is because they have learned from their surroundings and adapted their study methods to better prepare for game day.

Citing statistics that do nothing to further your argument isn't helpful when you ignore the important fact that YOUR STATISTICS DON'T ACCOUNT FOR LEVEL OF PREPARATION.

Look, you've clearly successfully convinced yourself that you can't do any better on the LSAT, and that's unfortunate. You've backed up your claim based on senseless data that doesn't actually prove the point you want to make.

I won't try any further to convince you to retake the LSAT, but just realize you're not making these arguments based on reason and logic. You're making these arguments based on confirmation. You are arguing that you did your best the first time around, and that not everyone is destined to score in the top X% of this test. Considering everything you've already exposed yourself to on this site (the LSAT forum should be EVERY prospective law student's best friend before matriculation), go ahead and tell yourself you're making the right choice. The data you're using to justify this decision only tells you that people may or may not take the test prepared, and as a result, the average outcome only slightly improves. But sure, you can never do better.

If you want to matriculate next year, I wish you luck. I hope you can turn your admissions into gainful and satisfying employment. Truly, I do. But please, I implore you, stop conflating an average of first and second time test takers with an inability to improve on the LSAT. It's just not true, and I hope one day you come to realize that.

[jjcorvino]

I mean I'm sure it is more difficult to bump your score a few points as you get closer to the tail of the curve but it's also true that it becomes exponentially more valuable to do so.

Agree with this. Looking at the most recent 509's for the T14, a 1-point difference separated median from 75th percentile at Penn, Duke, UVA (169-170); Michigan (168-169); Georgetown, and Cornell (167-168).
The difference between 25th and median was greater than the difference between median and 75th at every T14 school except for Harvard (170-172-175).
The difference between median and 75th was 2 points at every other T14.

One study showed that when you are above 165, it's a coin flip of going up or down on retake.
I would also add, which many TLSers don't get, that a good LSAT translate to different scores to different students. Some want to do regional, a mid 150's will be perfectly fine. Some want to be the next Scalia, then you need to get 170+.

Even if you want to go to a regional, 150s means you are going to be paying for school, so for many people it is not perfectly fine. If you go to a regional you better have close to a full ride, because the salary you are likely making is not going to pay off $250k.

[jjcorvino]

1) most 0Ls are older than you. Stop insisting we should have assumed you were 21.
2) medians pay sticker plenty.

Guys back to my point, the study over period of 6 years shows that Retakers have less than 1 pt advantage in mean LSAT than first time takers.
I was speaking to the phenomenon of massive "Retake" advices on TLS, not on a case-by-case perspective.
Retake doesn't really do much better judging from means. When you flood the forum with "Retake", you should expect the outcome converging towards that insignificant change in mean.

Okay, so I'm going to do this poorly, but imagine 3people take the last. Scores are 150, 160, and 170. That's a 160 average. The 170 doesn't retake, the 150 increases to 158 the 160 increases to 164. That's a 161 average for retakes. Only a 1 point increase. What a waste, right?

Don't bother, they have demonstrated they have no idea why those statistics of means don't matter. The only useful study in this conversation would be to know the average or mean score increase from their previois score (not mean of all). Even then it wouldn't be a good indicator because it would not be taking into account study habits.

[Paul Campos]

The beauty of a snapshot study is you know exactly who your non responders are because they are tracked by an ID. only 2% of people didn't respond 13 years later in the 3rd wave from the initial wave. It's not meaningful.

The response rate for the first wave of the study was 71%. For the third wave it was 35%.

[pancakes3]

this thread should kill itself

[Johann]

My mistake you are right re the response rates. Still shows 9% solos and the salary data I posted earlier about. Busy day today but tomorrow I'll post some stats that I'm more thorough with.

[cavalier1138]

I mean I'm sure it is more difficult to bump your score a few points as you get closer to the tail of the curve but it's also true that it becomes exponentially more valuable to do so.

Agree with this. Looking at the most recent 509's for the T14, a 1-point difference separated median from 75th percentile at Penn, Duke, UVA (169-170); Michigan (168-169); Georgetown, and Cornell (167-168).
The difference between 25th and median was greater than the difference between median and 75th at every T14 school except for Harvard (170-172-175).
The difference between median and 75th was 2 points at every other T14.

One study showed that when you are above 165, it's a coin flip of going up or down on retake.
I would also add, which many TLSers don't get, that a good LSAT translate to different scores to different students. Some want to do regional, a mid 150's will be perfectly fine. Some want to be the next Scalia, then you need to get 170+.

You mean this study?

That study actually says that you always have a much better than 50% chance at improving your score. I'm not sure where you're having difficulty interpreting that data.

[TheSpanishMain]

1) most 0Ls are older than you. Stop insisting we should have assumed you were 21.
2) medians pay sticker plenty.

Guys back to my point, the study over period of 6 years shows that Retakers have less than 1 pt advantage in mean LSAT than first time takers.
I was speaking to the phenomenon of massive "Retake" advices on TLS, not on a case-by-case perspective.
Retake doesn't really do much better judging from means. When you flood the forum with "Retake", you should expect the outcome converging towards that insignificant change in mean.

I still don't understand how, even if this is true, it means people should just roll with whatever they drew the first time around. Like, if you have a 153 LSAT, and you're not capable of improvement, then you just don't go to law school.* There's not a bomb strapped to your chest that will detonate if you don't become a law student. If you can't make it a good investment, then you don't go. Doesn't mean you're doomed to work as the fry guy at McDonalds for the rest of your life: there are plenty of other paths to a decent career.

Some want to do regional, a mid 150's will be perfectly fine. Some want to be the next Scalia, then you need to get 170+.

Assuming money isn't important, sure. "Doing regional" is totally fine, provided that you're not taking out massive loans to do it and your goals align with the typical outcome from regional schools. Mid-150s is not going to yield significant scholarship money anywhere worth going.

* Outside of a tiny number of scenarios. i.e Your family has a thriving firm and you just need a JD from anywhere to step into your guaranteed job.