Stop Telling People to Retake Forum

[anyriotgirl]

I didn't have to retake cause I'm not a water brain. I can't even really read and I got -2 on RC. What kind of mongloid can't get 170 on the first try.

Don't retake, quit.

I don't know man. Some people just can't do standardized tests. I'm one of them

1L is a series of standardized tests

[Nebby]

I didn't have to retake cause I'm not a water brain. I can't even really read and I got -2 on RC. What kind of mongloid can't get 170 on the first try.

Don't retake, quit.

I don't know man. Some people just can't do standardized tests. I'm one of them

1L is a series of standardized tests

That's not true at all

[anyriotgirl]

I didn't have to retake cause I'm not a water brain. I can't even really read and I got -2 on RC. What kind of mongloid can't get 170 on the first try.

Don't retake, quit.

I don't know man. Some people just can't do standardized tests. I'm one of them

1L is a series of standardized tests

That's not true at all

how would you characterize law exams?

[bk1]

Calling standard law school issue spotting exams "standardized tests" is insanely reductive.

The real question is what did DF get on his diagnostic. If sub-170, I think he has to admit to lemon status.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I didn't have to retake cause I'm not a water brain. I can't even really read and I got -2 on RC. What kind of mongloid can't get 170 on the first try.

Don't retake, quit.

But some of us can spell.

[confused_0L]

Suggesting someone retake the LSAT can always be good advice. I did exactly that. I applied last cycle with a 160/3.9 and everyone on TLS lost their minds saying, "are you crazy?! You're wasting that GPA." So I took TLS's advice, sat out a year, worked, traveled and brought my score up to a 166. I worked my ass off for that score and I'm proud of it. The caliber of schools I applied to jumped from subpar T1 schools to most of the lower T14 (or T13?).

The problem with the whole RETAKE philosophy is that it's essentially never-ending. People still say, "dude! A 166/3.9?!? Do you know what kind of $ you could get with an extra 2-3 points?" They are right. My admissions chances would go up and I would have a better shot at money. But what happens if I sit out another year and hit a 170... Are people then going to say, "come on, 3 more points and you'll be in HYS territory!"

Essentially, TLS will advocate for a retake until someone is into the 173+ range. Is that helpful? Of course it can be, but some (most) people just aren't willing to dump an essentially unlimited amount of time to move their score into that range. After a certain number of retakes, you just have to assess your options, decide if you can make the finances work, and shoot for good job prospects.

[cavalier1138]

After a certain number of retakes, you just have to assess your options, decide if you can make the finances work, and shoot for good job prospects.

I agree with you to a certain extent. There are going to be people who top out at 165, 166, etc. That's unavoidable.

But the issue is then that people don't change their ambitions. A lot of these posters remain biglaw-or-bust, or high-level-federal-agency-or-bust, or impossibly-prestigious-PI-fellowship or bust. They then convince themselves that they will, in fact, be in the top of their class, and they seem pretty disappointed when they realize that a lot of other students decided to do better than them.

The bigger issue is when people "top out" in the 150s and convince themselves that 1) they can't do better and 2) they will beat the employment statistics at [insert school where you have a 1/3 chance of not being a lawyer after graduating here]. They're usually still incurring quite a bit of debt, because their numbers aren't good enough for a full ride. But they have decided to turn a blind eye to their salary prospects after school, which results in them getting very touchy when asked how they're planning on paying down their loans.

If you really peak at a certain point, then great. Go with that score. But make sure you're being realistic about what your school choices mean for your career and your finances. And for a lot of people, that equates to being realistic about whether law school is the right choice for you at this point in time.

[zot1]

After a certain number of retakes, you just have to assess your options, decide if you can make the finances work, and shoot for good job prospects.

I agree with you to a certain extent. There are going to be people who top out at 165, 166, etc. That's unavoidable.

But the issue is then that people don't change their ambitions. A lot of these posters remain biglaw-or-bust, or high-level-federal-agency-or-bust, or impossibly-prestigious-PI-fellowship or bust. They then convince themselves that they will, in fact, be in the top of their class, and they seem pretty disappointed when they realize that a lot of other students decided to do better than them.

The bigger issue is when people "top out" in the 150s and convince themselves that 1) they can't do better and 2) they will beat the employment statistics at [insert school where you have a 1/3 chance of not being a lawyer after graduating here]. They're usually still incurring quite a bit of debt, because their numbers aren't good enough for a full ride. But they have decided to turn a blind eye to their salary prospects after school, which results in them getting very touchy when asked how they're planning on paying down their loans.

If you really peak at a certain point, then great. Go with that score. But make sure you're being realistic about what your school choices mean for your career and your finances. And for a lot of people, that equates to being realistic about whether law school is the right choice for you at this point in time.

I agree with this and I think this is part of what people don't realize. Although I am somewhat in the retake camp, I only do that when the goals simply don't match reality.

If someone says, I got a bad lsat but got into TTT with a full ride and I want to work at my uncle's law firm... I would always say, sweet, have fun!

But when people say I got a bad lsat but got into Nova Southern Law with 14k/year and I want to do biglaw or work for the SEC, my immediate reaction is retake. Although Nova might be the extreme, I would likely feel the same way for any school where less than 20% of the class gets big law or government because less than 20% is just awful odds.

Now, if I get someone who says I want to be an attorney and nothing else will stop me. Then these folks will likely be fine because they'll enjoy almost any outcome as long as they're practicing. But like Encore says, when you get prestige or bust people, you sort of wonder what makes them think they will get prestige from the People's College of Law....

[Desert Fox]

I didn't have to retake cause I'm not a water brain. I can't even really read and I got -2 on RC. What kind of mongloid can't get 170 on the first try.

Don't retake, quit.

But some of us can spell.

Like I Said I'm not even literate and I got a 176. What's everyone else's excuse.

[BlendedUnicorn]

Suggesting someone retake the LSAT can always be good advice. I did exactly that. I applied last cycle with a 160/3.9 and everyone on TLS lost their minds saying, "are you crazy?! You're wasting that GPA." So I took TLS's advice, sat out a year, worked, traveled and brought my score up to a 166. I worked my ass off for that score and I'm proud of it. The caliber of schools I applied to jumped from subpar T1 schools to most of the lower T14 (or T13?).

The problem with the whole RETAKE philosophy is that it's essentially never-ending. People still say, "dude! A 166/3.9?!? Do you know what kind of $ you could get with an extra 2-3 points?" They are right. My admissions chances would go up and I would have a better shot at money. But what happens if I sit out another year and hit a 170... Are people then going to say, "come on, 3 more points and you'll be in HYS territory!"

Essentially, TLS will advocate for a retake until someone is into the 173+ range. Is that helpful? Of course it can be, but some (most) people just aren't willing to dump an essentially unlimited amount of time to move their score into that range. After a certain number of retakes, you just have to assess your options, decide if you can make the finances work, and shoot for good job prospects.

In your case getting a 170 would be good enough because a full ride to a duke/Cornell/northwestern is a great outcome and not worth retaking when the only things you could get from a retake are either marginally better (full ride ccn) or objectively worse (paying money at HYS).

There's nothing marginal about the difference between paying money and not paying money though.

[confused_0L]

Suggesting someone retake the LSAT can always be good advice. I did exactly that. I applied last cycle with a 160/3.9 and everyone on TLS lost their minds saying, "are you crazy?! You're wasting that GPA." So I took TLS's advice, sat out a year, worked, traveled and brought my score up to a 166. I worked my ass off for that score and I'm proud of it. The caliber of schools I applied to jumped from subpar T1 schools to most of the lower T14 (or T13?).

The problem with the whole RETAKE philosophy is that it's essentially never-ending. People still say, "dude! A 166/3.9?!? Do you know what kind of $ you could get with an extra 2-3 points?" They are right. My admissions chances would go up and I would have a better shot at money. But what happens if I sit out another year and hit a 170... Are people then going to say, "come on, 3 more points and you'll be in HYS territory!"

Essentially, TLS will advocate for a retake until someone is into the 173+ range. Is that helpful? Of course it can be, but some (most) people just aren't willing to dump an essentially unlimited amount of time to move their score into that range. After a certain number of retakes, you just have to assess your options, decide if you can make the finances work, and shoot for good job prospects.

In your case getting a 170 would be good enough because a full ride to a duke/Cornell/northwestern is a great outcome and not worth retaking when the only things you could get from a retake are either marginally better (full ride ccn) or objectively worse (paying money at HYS).

There's nothing marginal about the difference between paying money and not paying money though.

You're right. But the retake mantra assumes that there is ALWAYS a better option. You point out that a full ride to Columbia is only marginally better than a full ride to Cornell - which I would argue is not true at all. A full-ride to Cornell is a fabulous option for most applicants, but you're still just a few points away from being a Ruby/Hamilton candidate. Why would anyone ever accept Cornell $$$$ when they're just 4-5 LSAT points away from a full-ride at CCN? I mean, it's just 1 year of your time for even better job prospects. This is what "RETAKE" preaches.

Also, attending HYS at sticker is not objectively worse than other options. There is an entire debate on this site about precisely that question.

At the end of the day, you are correct - increasing your LSAT score will almost always pay off for applicants. But it also feeds into this idea that you should never be satisfied with your score until you reach the absolute highest level.

[Clemenceau]

Suggesting someone retake the LSAT can always be good advice. I did exactly that. I applied last cycle with a 160/3.9 and everyone on TLS lost their minds saying, "are you crazy?! You're wasting that GPA." So I took TLS's advice, sat out a year, worked, traveled and brought my score up to a 166. I worked my ass off for that score and I'm proud of it. The caliber of schools I applied to jumped from subpar T1 schools to most of the lower T14 (or T13?).

The problem with the whole RETAKE philosophy is that it's essentially never-ending. People still say, "dude! A 166/3.9?!? Do you know what kind of $ you could get with an extra 2-3 points?" They are right. My admissions chances would go up and I would have a better shot at money. But what happens if I sit out another year and hit a 170... Are people then going to say, "come on, 3 more points and you'll be in HYS territory!"

Essentially, TLS will advocate for a retake until someone is into the 173+ range. Is that helpful? Of course it can be, but some (most) people just aren't willing to dump an essentially unlimited amount of time to move their score into that range. After a certain number of retakes, you just have to assess your options, decide if you can make the finances work, and shoot for good job prospects.

In your case getting a 170 would be good enough because a full ride to a duke/Cornell/northwestern is a great outcome and not worth retaking when the only things you could get from a retake are either marginally better (full ride ccn) or objectively worse (paying money at HYS).

There's nothing marginal about the difference between paying money and not paying money though.

You're right. But the retake mantra assumes that there is ALWAYS a better option. You point out that a full ride to Columbia is only marginally better than a full ride to Cornell - which I would argue is not true at all. A full-ride to Cornell is a fabulous option for most applicants, but you're still just a few points away from being a Ruby/Hamilton candidate. Why would anyone ever accept Cornell $$$$ when they're just 4-5 LSAT points away from a full-ride at CCN? I mean, it's just 1 year of your time for even better job prospects. This is what "RETAKE" preaches.

Also, attending HYS at sticker is not objectively worse than other options. There is an entire debate on this site about precisely that question.

At the end of the day, you are correct - increasing your LSAT score will almost always pay off for applicants. But it also feeds into this idea that you should never be satisfied with your score until you reach the absolute highest level.

I don't think you have a very firm grasp on what the "retake mantra" generally looks like around here. Almost no one tells a poster with a 3.9/170 that they have to go retake for a ruby.

[BlendedUnicorn]

I mean I guess if someone came in saying they were appellate clerk or bust and they were sitting at 3.9/170 and had just taken the LSAT cold I would tell them to retake (while also questioning whether that was a good goal to have). But outside of unicorn goals, I don't think the differences between a full ride at a t-6 and a full ride at a t14 would be worth it- the majority of people at both schools will end up doing the same thing anyway.

Conversely, if someone was dead-set on becoming a public defender or a state prosecutor and they had a 3.9/165 and a full ride at a respected school in their target market, I would tell them to go for it (and to load up on loans anyway b/c PSLF is a thing).

Basically the advice is always calibrated to encouraging people to maximize their chances of achieving their goals at minimal cost. Because there is a real cost involved in retaking, there are occasions (like when someone has a full ride at Duke but might be able to squeeze a full ride out of Columbia with a few more points on the LSAT and they want to do biglaw) where the equation will favor not retaking.

[confused_0L]

I mean I guess if someone came in saying they were appellate clerk or bust and they were sitting at 3.9/170 and had just taken the LSAT cold I would tell them to retake (while also questioning whether that was a good goal to have). But outside of unicorn goals, I don't think the differences between a full ride at a t-6 and a full ride at a t14 would be worth it- the majority of people at both schools will end up doing the same thing anyway.

Conversely, if someone was dead-set on becoming a public defender or a state prosecutor and they had a 3.9/165 and a full ride at a respected school in their target market, I would tell them to go for it (and to load up on loans anyway b/c PSLF is a thing).

Basically the advice is always calibrated to encouraging people to maximize their chances of achieving their goals at minimal cost. Because there is a real cost involved in retaking, there are occasions (like when someone has a full ride at Duke but might be able to squeeze a full ride out of Columbia with a few more points on the LSAT and they want to do biglaw) where the equation will favor not retaking.

You hit the nail on the head with this one. I have no problem with people screaming, "retake." Hell, I took that advice. The question is that how that advice plays into a poster's career goals. Of course, it's always going to be annoying when someones says they're biglaw or bust with a 158. On the opposite side of the spectrum, there are also instances when a 170 isn't good enough for someone's desired outcome. Retaking is good. The only problem is that the prize is always one step ahead of your score. Score a 168 - damn, should've been a 170. Scored a 170 - damn, should've been a 173.

As another user pointed out, once someone tops out their score, it's about matching your numbers with your desired career trajectory. Not always worrying about why you couldn't get your score 2-3 points higher.

[mjb447]

Suggesting someone retake the LSAT can always be good advice. I did exactly that. I applied last cycle with a 160/3.9 and everyone on TLS lost their minds saying, "are you crazy?! You're wasting that GPA." So I took TLS's advice, sat out a year, worked, traveled and brought my score up to a 166. I worked my ass off for that score and I'm proud of it. The caliber of schools I applied to jumped from subpar T1 schools to most of the lower T14 (or T13?).

The problem with the whole RETAKE philosophy is that it's essentially never-ending. People still say, "dude! A 166/3.9?!? Do you know what kind of $ you could get with an extra 2-3 points?" They are right. My admissions chances would go up and I would have a better shot at money. But what happens if I sit out another year and hit a 170... Are people then going to say, "come on, 3 more points and you'll be in HYS territory!"

Essentially, TLS will advocate for a retake until someone is into the 173+ range. Is that helpful? Of course it can be, but some (most) people just aren't willing to dump an essentially unlimited amount of time to move their score into that range. After a certain number of retakes, you just have to assess your options, decide if you can make the finances work, and shoot for good job prospects.

In your case getting a 170 would be good enough because a full ride to a duke/Cornell/northwestern is a great outcome and not worth retaking when the only things you could get from a retake are either marginally better (full ride ccn) or objectively worse (paying money at HYS).

There's nothing marginal about the difference between paying money and not paying money though.

You're right. But the retake mantra assumes that there is ALWAYS a better option. You point out that a full ride to Columbia is only marginally better than a full ride to Cornell - which I would argue is not true at all. A full-ride to Cornell is a fabulous option for most applicants, but you're still just a few points away from being a Ruby/Hamilton candidate. Why would anyone ever accept Cornell $$$$ when they're just 4-5 LSAT points away from a full-ride at CCN? I mean, it's just 1 year of your time for even better job prospects. This is what "RETAKE" preaches.

Also, attending HYS at sticker is not objectively worse than other options. There is an entire debate on this site about precisely that question.

At the end of the day, you are correct - increasing your LSAT score will almost always pay off for applicants. But it also feeds into this idea that you should never be satisfied with your score until you reach the absolute highest level.

I don't think you have a very firm grasp on what the "retake mantra" generally looks like around here. Almost no one tells a poster with a 3.9/170 that they have to go retake for a ruby.

Yeah - obviously there's a spectrum of responses (TLS is not of one mind on just about anything) but this seems like kind of a strawman.

[MKC]

I didn't have to retake cause I'm not a water brain. I can't even really read and I got -2 on RC. What kind of mongloid can't get 170 on the first try.

Don't retake, quit.

But some of us can spell.

Like I Said I'm not even literate and I got a 176. What's everyone else's excuse.

This is mind-boggling to me, but not as mind-boggling as your illiterate ass actually being able to write law school exams well enough to get decent grades.

[star fox]

I didn't have to retake cause I'm not a water brain. I can't even really read and I got -2 on RC. What kind of mongloid can't get 170 on the first try.

Don't retake, quit.

But some of us can spell.

Like I Said I'm not even literate and I got a 176. What's everyone else's excuse.

This is mind-boggling to me, but not as mind-boggling as your illiterate ass actually being able to write law school exams well enough to get decent grades.

Law Profs don't care about spelling/grammar at all

[zhenders]

I didn't have to retake cause I'm not a water brain. I can't even really read and I got -2 on RC. What kind of mongloid can't get 170 on the first try.

Don't retake, quit.

But some of us can spell.

Like I Said I'm not even literate and I got a 176. What's everyone else's excuse.

This is mind-boggling to me, but not as mind-boggling as your illiterate ass actually being able to write law school exams well enough to get decent grades.

Law Profs don't care about spelling/grammar at all

It's true. Half of the model answers for our past exams don't contain any real sentences.

Also this thread people who get grumpy about being told to retake, especially in the context of how they are told to do so on this forum, are almost certainly too immature to be signing up to go to law school in the first place. If you can't see the logic in paying yourself $1000/hour or more (200 hours to go from no full ride to full ride, as just one example, even putting aside going from no employment to gainful employment) to do a bit of extra studying, that's on you.

[Desert Fox]

I didn't have to retake cause I'm not a water brain. I can't even really read and I got -2 on RC. What kind of mongloid can't get 170 on the first try.

Don't retake, quit.

But some of us can spell.

Like I Said I'm not even literate and I got a 176. What's everyone else's excuse.

This is mind-boggling to me, but not as mind-boggling as your illiterate ass actually being able to write law school exams well enough to get decent grades.

I suspect it was so bad I got an ESL boost.

[jbagelboy]

Suggesting someone retake the LSAT can always be good advice. I did exactly that. I applied last cycle with a 160/3.9 and everyone on TLS lost their minds saying, "are you crazy?! You're wasting that GPA." So I took TLS's advice, sat out a year, worked, traveled and brought my score up to a 166. I worked my ass off for that score and I'm proud of it. The caliber of schools I applied to jumped from subpar T1 schools to most of the lower T14 (or T13?).

The problem with the whole RETAKE philosophy is that it's essentially never-ending. People still say, "dude! A 166/3.9?!? Do you know what kind of $ you could get with an extra 2-3 points?" They are right. My admissions chances would go up and I would have a better shot at money. But what happens if I sit out another year and hit a 170... Are people then going to say, "come on, 3 more points and you'll be in HYS territory!"

Essentially, TLS will advocate for a retake until someone is into the 173+ range. Is that helpful? Of course it can be, but some (most) people just aren't willing to dump an essentially unlimited amount of time to move their score into that range. After a certain number of retakes, you just have to assess your options, decide if you can make the finances work, and shoot for good job prospects.

In your case getting a 170 would be good enough because a full ride to a duke/Cornell/northwestern is a great outcome and not worth retaking when the only things you could get from a retake are either marginally better (full ride ccn) or objectively worse (paying money at HYS).

There's nothing marginal about the difference between paying money and not paying money though.

You're right. But the retake mantra assumes that there is ALWAYS a better option. You point out that a full ride to Columbia is only marginally better than a full ride to Cornell - which I would argue is not true at all. A full-ride to Cornell is a fabulous option for most applicants, but you're still just a few points away from being a Ruby/Hamilton candidate. Why would anyone ever accept Cornell $$$$ when they're just 4-5 LSAT points away from a full-ride at CCN? I mean, it's just 1 year of your time for even better job prospects. This is what "RETAKE" preaches.

Also, attending HYS at sticker is not objectively worse than other options. There is an entire debate on this site about precisely that question.

At the end of the day, you are correct - increasing your LSAT score will almost always pay off for applicants. But it also feeds into this idea that you should never be satisfied with your score until you reach the absolute highest level.

I think you make a good point about the chorus of retake directed towards those who have already invested significant resources into retaking their first or second scores.

If you retake to a 166, for example, that's where I think TLS will split depending on how your cycle goes. If you apply and get a decent scholarship to a lower T14 or a full ride to the strong regional of your choice, few will truly urge a retake (they will suggest it as an alternative, but not force it). If your options are a scholarship to Fordham and sticker at Cornell, people will tell you to retake and reapply because you deserve better choices and you've shown the potential to achieve them, and most critically, your downside is so huge.

Not everyone has to go to 173+. And you rarely, if ever, hear experienced posters telling people to retake 170+ scores. Mid-160s is different, I admit. As you state, it must be tied to goals. If you are 166/3.9 and you want your career to go a certain way, the added flexibility of a larger scholarship or a different school can be worthwhile. If you've been sitting around taking the LSAT for two years and can't spend a third in your dead-end job, I get it. It's really mostly about debt avoidance. The best options are full tuition scholarships to top schools. That doesn't mean everyone has to have them. But everyone has to avoid debt as reasonably practicable--that usually means retaking the LSAT, sometimes it means foregoing law school altogether.

[stego]

Retaking kept me from attending a TTTT, unfortunately it has yet to lead to any T14 acceptances despite getting a 171 on my last take and a 167 on my earliest take

I still think it's solid advice for most people, I'm just a lemon

[bk1]

I didn't have to retake cause I'm not a water brain. I can't even really read and I got -2 on RC. What kind of mongloid can't get 170 on the first try.

Don't retake, quit.

But some of us can spell.

Like I Said I'm not even literate and I got a 176. What's everyone else's excuse.

Still refusing to produce that long form diagnostic I see.