Stop Telling People to Retake Forum

[somedeadman]

The kind of gunning needed for the LSAT and the kind of gunning needed for law school exams are different kinds of gunning. It's a pretty decent predictor but it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

Can you explain that more? Curious 0L

The LSAT you need to learn the basic rules and then drill repeatedly. For law school, you want to learn the doctrine like the back of your hand (read E&Es throughout the semester) and then start outlining early so you will have time to take like 5 practice exams per class and "learn how to take an exam."

Also law school exams are written and graded by profs who can vary in what they want to see. That's not true of the LSAT.

Cool, thanks for the intel

[haus]

Lol this thread is 13 pages.

For what it is worth, the "What #2 Pencil Should I use?" Thread is at 49 pages.

[Future Ex-Engineer]

Lol this thread is 13 pages.

For what it is worth, the "What #2 Pencil Should I use?" Thread is at 49 pages.

But let's be real - there is no way I was breaking 160 without black tricons, and I never would have found them without that thread

[HonestAdvice]

The kind of gunning needed for the LSAT and the kind of gunning needed for law school exams are different kinds of gunning. It's a pretty decent predictor but it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

It's not gunning. It's about the ability to forego immediate rewards for future rewards. The Stanford child studies measured this by offering kids one candy now or two candies tomorrow.

People are drawn to the certainty of starting law school, and tend to be insecure about their social standing - waiting tables and studying the lsat can be humbling, and most people won't see it as "they're smart to plan ahead". They'll assume they couldn't get in to the flagship.

The one candy today vs two tomorrow thing tends to play itself out more than once. Equivocating it with working hard is an immature way of looking at it. It's the ability to set a goal, and choosing what helps you reach the goal over what's best now. In the Stanford study, the goal was maximizing candy consumption. In this, it's a rewarding career. Na meaningful career isn't equivocal with big law, but there are schools that make any outcome likelier.

It's not only that the people who get into a better school by retaking are likelier to reach their goal by going to a better school. It's also that they tried, which makes it likelier they'll make subsequent decisions oriented towards their goal. It's like the person who keeps their New Years resolution for one week - they may backtrack but are less likely to do so than the person who didn't keep it the first week.

[Mr_Chukes]

The kind of gunning needed for the LSAT and the kind of gunning needed for law school exams are different kinds of gunning. It's a pretty decent predictor but it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

Can you explain that more? Curious 0L

The LSAT you need to learn the basic rules and then drill repeatedly. For law school, you want to learn the doctrine like the back of your hand (read E&Es throughout the semester) and then start outlining early so you will have time to take like 5 practice exams per class and "learn how to take an exam."

Yup I talked to John Yoo and he said the LSAT isn't a great indicator of success. He said he has seen some people who didn't score too well come into law school and do excellent. That undergrad and LSAT don't paint the whole picture.

[Mikey]

Thread so good I had to read it again

[HonestAdvice]

The kind of gunning needed for the LSAT and the kind of gunning needed for law school exams are different kinds of gunning. It's a pretty decent predictor but it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

Can you explain that more? Curious 0L

The LSAT you need to learn the basic rules and then drill repeatedly. For law school, you want to learn the doctrine like the back of your hand (read E&Es throughout the semester) and then start outlining early so you will have time to take like 5 practice exams per class and "learn how to take an exam."

Yup I talked to John Yoo and he said the LSAT isn't a great indicator of success. He said he has seen some people who didn't score too well come into law school and do excellent. That undergrad and LSAT don't paint the whole picture.

This could just as easily support the opposite conclusion. If the LSAT isn't reliable then you should retake if you underperformed, because 2 or 3 questions could double your odds of getting the outcome you want.

I would also argue that it's easier to do well in law school without studying. If you get the big picture and are quick witted but not a great writer then going to class and studying may only affect your studying by .3. There are very few people who could take the LSAT cold, and get into a t-14 school but a lot of people at t-14 schools who could take exams cold, and finish above median. There are also people who will do poorly no matter how much they study.

[Mr_Chukes]

The kind of gunning needed for the LSAT and the kind of gunning needed for law school exams are different kinds of gunning. It's a pretty decent predictor but it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

Can you explain that more? Curious 0L

The LSAT you need to learn the basic rules and then drill repeatedly. For law school, you want to learn the doctrine like the back of your hand (read E&Es throughout the semester) and then start outlining early so you will have time to take like 5 practice exams per class and "learn how to take an exam."

Yup I talked to John Yoo and he said the LSAT isn't a great indicator of success. He said he has seen some people who didn't score too well come into law school and do excellent. That undergrad and LSAT don't paint the whole picture.

This could just as easily support the opposite conclusion. If the LSAT isn't reliable then you should retake if you underperformed, because 2 or 3 questions could double your odds of getting the outcome you want.

I would also argue that it's easier to do well in law school without studying. If you get the big picture and are quick witted but not a great writer then going to class and studying may only affect your studying by .3. There are very few people who could take the LSAT cold, and get into a t-14 school but a lot of people at t-14 schools who could take exams cold, and finish above median. There are also people who will do poorly no matter how much they study.

Once in law school the LSAT is irrelevant. The Dean of Stanford took the bar cold and failed lol.

[cavalier1138]

The kind of gunning needed for the LSAT and the kind of gunning needed for law school exams are different kinds of gunning. It's a pretty decent predictor but it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

Can you explain that more? Curious 0L

The LSAT you need to learn the basic rules and then drill repeatedly. For law school, you want to learn the doctrine like the back of your hand (read E&Es throughout the semester) and then start outlining early so you will have time to take like 5 practice exams per class and "learn how to take an exam."

Yup I talked to John Yoo and he said the LSAT isn't a great indicator of success. He said he has seen some people who didn't score too well come into law school and do excellent. That undergrad and LSAT don't paint the whole picture.

This could just as easily support the opposite conclusion. If the LSAT isn't reliable then you should retake if you underperformed, because 2 or 3 questions could double your odds of getting the outcome you want.

I would also argue that it's easier to do well in law school without studying. If you get the big picture and are quick witted but not a great writer then going to class and studying may only affect your studying by .3. There are very few people who could take the LSAT cold, and get into a t-14 school but a lot of people at t-14 schools who could take exams cold, and finish above median. There are also people who will do poorly no matter how much they study.

Once in law school the LSAT is irrelevant. The Dean of Stanford took the bar cold and failed lol.

And I'm sure that some certified idiot took the LSAT cold and got a 180. That doesn't really negate the fact that the data show LSAT and undergrad GPA combined are a fairly reliable indicator of law school performance. It also doesn't even remotely respond to the other poster's point that if the LSAT isn't an indicator of law school performance, then you have even more reasons to retake.

[Mr_Chukes]

The kind of gunning needed for the LSAT and the kind of gunning needed for law school exams are different kinds of gunning. It's a pretty decent predictor but it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

Can you explain that more? Curious 0L

The LSAT you need to learn the basic rules and then drill repeatedly. For law school, you want to learn the doctrine like the back of your hand (read E&Es throughout the semester) and then start outlining early so you will have time to take like 5 practice exams per class and "learn how to take an exam."

Yup I talked to John Yoo and he said the LSAT isn't a great indicator of success. He said he has seen some people who didn't score too well come into law school and do excellent. That undergrad and LSAT don't paint the whole picture.

This could just as easily support the opposite conclusion. If the LSAT isn't reliable then you should retake if you underperformed, because 2 or 3 questions could double your odds of getting the outcome you want.

I would also argue that it's easier to do well in law school without studying. If you get the big picture and are quick witted but not a great writer then going to class and studying may only affect your studying by .3. There are very few people who could take the LSAT cold, and get into a t-14 school but a lot of people at t-14 schools who could take exams cold, and finish above median. There are also people who will do poorly no matter how much they study.

Once in law school the LSAT is irrelevant. The Dean of Stanford took the bar cold and failed lol.

And I'm sure that some certified idiot took the LSAT cold and got a 180. That doesn't really negate the fact that the data show LSAT and undergrad GPA combined are a fairly reliable indicator of law school performance. It also doesn't even remotely respond to the other poster's point that if the LSAT isn't an indicator of law school performance, then you have even more reasons to retake.

The LSAT is not the end all be all. Plus many people had to work full time myself included when taking the LSAT. While some did not. Law School everyone is full invested into class. Also your studies said a mix of LSAT and UGPA. You are giving too much credit to the LSAT. Law exams are completely different. Spot exams.

[somedeadman]

Lol, Mr_Chukes isn't even addressing Cavillear and HonestAdvice's argument

[cavalier1138]

The LSAT is not the end all be all. Plus many people had to work full time myself included when taking the LSAT. While some did not. Law School everyone is full invested into class. Also your studies said a mix of LSAT and UGPA. You are giving too much credit to the LSAT. Law exams are completely different. Spot exams.

You are responding to arguments that I'm sure someone else has made at some point in time, but you are not responding to any of the posts here.

Incidentally, I was working two jobs when I took the LSAT. Cry me a river. If you can't handle the pressure of studying for a single, learnable test while also working, I guarantee that keeping up with law school will crush you. So I guess that's one way that the LSAT is a good gauge of your performance in school.

[Mr_Chukes]

The LSAT is not the end all be all. Plus many people had to work full time myself included when taking the LSAT. While some did not. Law School everyone is full invested into class. Also your studies said a mix of LSAT and UGPA. You are giving too much credit to the LSAT. Law exams are completely different. Spot exams.

You are responding to arguments that I'm sure someone else has made at some point in time, but you are not responding to any of the posts here.

Incidentally, I was working two jobs when I took the LSAT. Cry me a river. If you can't handle the pressure of studying for a single, learnable test while also working, I guarantee that keeping up with law school will crush you. So I guess that's one way that the LSAT is a good gauge of your performance in school.

I'm just saying for some people the LSAT doesn't equal their performance.Not all people are the same and not all jobs are the same. Even if you have two jobs you can be doing a job that doesn't take too much thinking power. It's a learnable test and more often than not you are able to go up the next test time, I am just saying your LSAT doesn't alone mean you will succeed or fail. There are other factors that influence your results. Like you were saying some are better writers so might do really well on exams because they are able to express that on. While the LSAT is different.

[cavalier1138]

The LSAT is not the end all be all. Plus many people had to work full time myself included when taking the LSAT. While some did not. Law School everyone is full invested into class. Also your studies said a mix of LSAT and UGPA. You are giving too much credit to the LSAT. Law exams are completely different. Spot exams.

You are responding to arguments that I'm sure someone else has made at some point in time, but you are not responding to any of the posts here.

Incidentally, I was working two jobs when I took the LSAT. Cry me a river. If you can't handle the pressure of studying for a single, learnable test while also working, I guarantee that keeping up with law school will crush you. So I guess that's one way that the LSAT is a good gauge of your performance in school.

I'm just saying for some people the LSAT doesn't equal their performance.Not all people are the same and not all jobs are the same. Even if you have two jobs you can be doing a job that doesn't take too much thinking power. It's a learnable test and more often than not you are able to go up the next test time, I am just saying your LSAT doesn't alone mean you will succeed or fail. There are other factors that influence your results. Like you were saying some are better writers so might do really well on exams because they are able to express that on. While the LSAT is different.

So... learning how to identify an argument and respond to that argument is a really important skill in life, not just in law school. No one has claimed that LSAT perfectly equates to performance. No one. Not one person. You're literally ignoring the points being brought up about retaking in order to pursue a totally inane crusade against no one.

[Mr_Chukes]

The LSAT is not the end all be all. Plus many people had to work full time myself included when taking the LSAT. While some did not. Law School everyone is full invested into class. Also your studies said a mix of LSAT and UGPA. You are giving too much credit to the LSAT. Law exams are completely different. Spot exams.

You are responding to arguments that I'm sure someone else has made at some point in time, but you are not responding to any of the posts here.

Incidentally, I was working two jobs when I took the LSAT. Cry me a river. If you can't handle the pressure of studying for a single, learnable test while also working, I guarantee that keeping up with law school will crush you. So I guess that's one way that the LSAT is a good gauge of your performance in school.

I'm just saying for some people the LSAT doesn't equal their performance.Not all people are the same and not all jobs are the same. Even if you have two jobs you can be doing a job that doesn't take too much thinking power. It's a learnable test and more often than not you are able to go up the next test time, I am just saying your LSAT doesn't alone mean you will succeed or fail. There are other factors that influence your results. Like you were saying some are better writers so might do really well on exams because they are able to express that on. While the LSAT is different.

So... learning how to identify an argument and respond to that argument is a really important skill in life, not just in law school. No one has claimed that LSAT perfectly equates to performance. No one. Not one person. You're literally ignoring the points being brought up about retaking in order to pursue a totally inane crusade against no one.

I was never arguing over retaking the LSAT lol. I was just stating what Yoo told me about the LSAT and performance in law school. I never said you shouldn't.

[Thomas Hagan, ESQ.]

The LSAT is not the end all be all. Plus many people had to work full time myself included when taking the LSAT. While some did not. Law School everyone is full invested into class. Also your studies said a mix of LSAT and UGPA. You are giving too much credit to the LSAT. Law exams are completely different. Spot exams.

You are responding to arguments that I'm sure someone else has made at some point in time, but you are not responding to any of the posts here.

Incidentally, I was working two jobs when I took the LSAT. Cry me a river. If you can't handle the pressure of studying for a single, learnable test while also working, I guarantee that keeping up with law school will crush you. So I guess that's one way that the LSAT is a good gauge of your performance in school.

I'm just saying for some people the LSAT doesn't equal their performance.Not all people are the same and not all jobs are the same. Even if you have two jobs you can be doing a job that doesn't take too much thinking power. It's a learnable test and more often than not you are able to go up the next test time, I am just saying your LSAT doesn't alone mean you will succeed or fail. There are other factors that influence your results. Like you were saying some are better writers so might do really well on exams because they are able to express that on. While the LSAT is different.

I'm going to have to agree with cavalier on this one. Tons of people work grueling full-time jobs and study for the exam. That's really not an excuse because if working and studying is so hard, then take more time to prepare rather than sit for the exam. It's not a perfect indicator of someone's ability to succeed in law school and beyond, but it definitely tests your will.

The legal profession is much more grueling and I'll bet that it will be a lot more time-consuming and challenging than working+studying. If people can't handle an entrance exam, then I doubt they're fit for the work of lawyers.

[Mr_Chukes]

Lol, Mr_Chukes isn't even addressing Cavillear and HonestAdvice's argument

Idk how they thought I was aruging over retaking the test. I just stepped in and stated how what one user said aligned with what Yoo told me lol.

[Moneytrees]

Re-take is absolutely the right advice for the vast majority of people. I was totally against re-taking when I was 21; I had basically resigned myself to my 163 and figured that was the best I could do. TLS eventually changed my mind, I re-took the LSAT twice (3 times total), and even though I didn't improve as much as I would have liked, I ended up getting a sizeable scholarship to a T20. Eventually landed an SA position in my target market.

An improvement of even 1 or 2 points on the LSAT can be life-changing.

[Ferrisjso]

Heres my solution to reduce the retake harassment on here.

Lets just limit retake advice to the what are my chances" thread. People present their numbers and options and people judge accordingly. There is no reason for people to present their numbers in the "choosing a law school" thread as presenting ones numbers just gives people an excuse not to answer the question. If people stop giving their numbers when theyre not needed, people will be more likely to answer the question and lay off the rude retake/reapply bullying which often isnt even neccessary. After a while we can hopefully get more of a diverse population thats less dominated by T14(T13) kids who have very different goals(and thus metrics for success) than the vast majority of law school applicants.

Lets make a friendlier forum where everyone is welcome and people can get advice from people in different situations not just the objectively elite!

[guynourmin]

Lets make a friendlier forum where everyone is welcome and people can get advice from people in different situations not just the objectively elite!

reddit.com/r/lawschooladmissions

[20170322]

.

[star fox]

Heres my solution to reduce the retake harassment on here.

Lets just limit retake advice to the what are my chances" thread. People present their numbers and options and people judge accordingly. There is no reason for people to present their numbers in the "choosing a law school" thread as presenting ones numbers just gives people an excuse not to answer the question. If people stop giving their numbers when theyre not needed, people will be more likely to answer the question and lay off the rude retake/reapply bullying which often isnt even neccessary. After a while we can hopefully get more of a diverse population thats less dominated by T14(T13) kids who have very different goals(and thus metrics for success) than the vast majority of law school applicants.

Lets make a friendlier forum where everyone is welcome and people can get advice from people in different situations not just the objectively elite!

And they say millennials aren't soft.

If you make a "Choosing a Law School" post, there's the option to choose to not go or defer. No reason to pretend that isn't an option. It's not like people are going around PM'ing people in the Class Of... threads to tell them what to do with their lives.

[Baby Gaga]

Heres my solution to reduce the retake harassment on here.

Lets just limit retake advice to the what are my chances" thread. People present their numbers and options and people judge accordingly. There is no reason for people to present their numbers in the "choosing a law school" thread as presenting ones numbers just gives people an excuse not to answer the question. If people stop giving their numbers when theyre not needed, people will be more likely to answer the question and lay off the rude retake/reapply bullying which often isnt even neccessary. After a while we can hopefully get more of a diverse population thats less dominated by T14(T13) kids who have very different goals(and thus metrics for success) than the vast majority of law school applicants.

Lets make a friendlier forum where everyone is welcome and people can get advice from people in different situations not just the objectively elite!

If you want this, just make a "mediocre law schools" or "shitty law schools" forum. This forum is called top law schools-- clearly we're gonna talk about top law schools.

lol at "retake harassment". I assume there's a mediocre-law-schools.com, I never checked.

[MKC]

Heres my solution to reduce the retake harassment on here.

Lets just limit retake advice to the what are my chances" thread. People present their numbers and options and people judge accordingly. There is no reason for people to present their numbers in the "choosing a law school" thread as presenting ones numbers just gives people an excuse not to answer the question. If people stop giving their numbers when theyre not needed, people will be more likely to answer the question and lay off the rude retake/reapply bullying which often isnt even neccessary. After a while we can hopefully get more of a diverse population thats less dominated by T14(T13) kids who have very different goals(and thus metrics for success) than the vast majority of law school applicants.

Lets make a friendlier forum where everyone is welcome and people can get advice from people in different situations not just the objectively elite!

If you want this, just make a "mediocre law schools" or "shitty law schools" forum. This forum is called top law schools-- clearly we're gonna talk about top law schools.

www.best-law-schools-i-could-get-into-without-retaking.com

[Baby Gaga]

Heres my solution to reduce the retake harassment on here.

Lets just limit retake advice to the what are my chances" thread. People present their numbers and options and people judge accordingly. There is no reason for people to present their numbers in the "choosing a law school" thread as presenting ones numbers just gives people an excuse not to answer the question. If people stop giving their numbers when theyre not needed, people will be more likely to answer the question and lay off the rude retake/reapply bullying which often isnt even neccessary. After a while we can hopefully get more of a diverse population thats less dominated by T14(T13) kids who have very different goals(and thus metrics for success) than the vast majority of law school applicants.

Lets make a friendlier forum where everyone is welcome and people can get advice from people in different situations not just the objectively elite!

If you want this, just make a "mediocre law schools" or "shitty law schools" forum. This forum is called top law schools-- clearly we're gonna talk about top law schools.

[url=http://T14%20Paradise.blogspot.com/]www.best-law-schools-i-could-get-into-w ... taking.com[/url]

I think your link is broken Mark. I really want to check out this kindler gentler forum