California Splitters Forum

[epgenius]

Nope, just once. I was thinking of retaking in December last year but got my October score late because my LSAC fee waiver app was delayed -- didn't want to risk getting a lower score with only 2 1/2 weeks to study again. One and done and I'm at USC with good money and, believe it or not, my job prospects are fine.

They delay your score if you apply for the LSAC waiver?

Yeah, it was horrible. Had I had more than 2 1/2 weeks to study, I would have retaken but I didn't feel prepared enough by mid-late November. I've done all right for not having retaken, I feel like OP shouldn't be made to feel like he/she is fucked with his/her score. Retaking could definitely improve his/her chances but if the circumstances are such that they don't feel it worth it, it's not like they don't have a chance at all the schools listed -- he/she could even get some decent money at USC; I did.

[BigZuck]

Perhaps it's just a matter of faith.

(Is actually willful ignorance, misplaced confidence, and an outlook built around affirming his own risky decision to take the easy route by encouraging others to do the same)

I didn't take the easy route you fucking prick, so hold your tongue. Congrats on your 174, may it bring you all the joy that you can tell people it brings you. I've never said that OP shouldn't retake if he/she should feel so inclined, I've said they do have good enough numbers to probably get into all of the schools they listed. That's it, get the fuck over yourself.

Simply getting into those schools is not good enough.

I don't understand why you're so hostile, nor why you are so insecure. You're grasping at strawmen my bro. Everyone here is trying to help the OP maximize their chances at a good outcome. You trying to get them to drink the Kool Aid along with you is certainly not helping.

[epgenius]

Perhaps it's just a matter of faith.

(Is actually willful ignorance, misplaced confidence, and an outlook built around affirming his own risky decision to take the easy route by encouraging others to do the same)

I didn't take the easy route you fucking prick, so hold your tongue. Congrats on your 174, may it bring you all the joy that you can tell people it brings you. I've never said that OP shouldn't retake if he/she should feel so inclined, I've said they do have good enough numbers to probably get into all of the schools they listed. That's it, get the fuck over yourself.

Simply getting into those schools is not good enough.

I don't understand why you're so hostile, nor why you are so insecure. You're grasping at strawmen my bro. Everyone here is trying to help the OP maximize their chances at a good outcome. You trying to get them to drink the Kool Aid along with you is certainly not helping.

Are you kidding me? I think he/she knows that they may improve their chances taking it again but they explicitly said they don't want to take it again. And they explicitly said they want to go to a So Cal school and, last time I checked, there are no t14s in So Cal. I was hostile to you because you insulted me, forgive me for being offended. It's not insecurity, believe it or not, I am very happy with where I'm at... I just don't stand for being derided. Are you unhappy with the sub-t14 you're at? All I've said is that, given OP wants to be in So Cal and has said he/she doesn't want to retake, it is possible for them to get into all of the schools listed. It is even arguably likely, perhaps with decent money. Sue me for saying so.

[Clearly]

I hope tls never changes. That whole retake shtick saved my life...

[epgenius]

I hope tls never changes. That whole retake shtick saved my life...

We can tell lol. It's a great option for those who can do it, but it's not the only option, and it has its own uncertainties as well.

[BigZuck]

So if someone goes to a T14 they are an elitist, if they go to a "sub-T14" they're a prole?

I had my choice of T14s and non-T14s, I decided to slum it at a non-T14. I'm cool with it. That's also entirely irrelevant.

Not wanting to retake is fine. YOLO. It's an objectively bad decision a lot of the time though. We don't have to give out bad advice just because we are presented with false dichotomies.

[epgenius]

So if someone goes to a T14 they are an elitist, if they go to a "sub-T14" they're a prole?

I had my choice of T14s and non-T14s, I decided to slum it at a non-T14. I'm cool with it. That's also entirely irrelevant.

Not wanting to retake is fine. YOLO. It's an objectively bad decision a lot of the time though. We don't have to give out bad advice just because we are presented with false dichotomies.

No, people who go to T14s are fine, as are people who go sub-T14... I don't consider myself a prole, nor you for that matter, simply because we go to sub-T14 schools. People who deride others for the route they've taken are elitist proles. I'm just saying with the emphasis you and others place on T14s vs. everywhere else, you'd think you would've chosen to go to one. I didn't have the luxury of being able to take the February LSAT last year and neither may OP. I've answered OP's original question, yes, his scores are likely good enough to get into those schools though, obviously, if he wants to cement that, he can do so by retaking. However, he said he doesn't want to retake, if he truly doesn't want to or can't, he has the right to know that it's not like he's destined to be a fry cook with a 3.2/168. The odds are in his favor with those numbers... maybe not rock solid, but certainly in his favor.

[KingJamesLBJ]

Nope, just once. I was thinking of retaking in December last year but got my October score late because my LSAC fee waiver app was delayed -- didn't want to risk getting a lower score with only 2 1/2 weeks to study again. One and done and I'm at USC with good money and, believe it or not, my job prospects are fine.

They delay your score if you apply for the LSAC waiver?

Yeah, it was horrible. Had I had more than 2 1/2 weeks to study, I would have retaken but I didn't feel prepared enough by mid-late November. I've done all right for not having retaken, I feel like OP shouldn't be made to feel like he/she is fucked with his/her score. Retaking could definitely improve his/her chances but if the circumstances are such that they don't feel it worth it, it's not like they don't have a chance at all the schools listed -- he/she could even get some decent money at USC; I did.

W0W. Im trying to figure out how that makes any sense. What does a fee waiver have to with getting your score.. Sorry for the minor hijack people

[epgenius]

Nope, just once. I was thinking of retaking in December last year but got my October score late because my LSAC fee waiver app was delayed -- didn't want to risk getting a lower score with only 2 1/2 weeks to study again. One and done and I'm at USC with good money and, believe it or not, my job prospects are fine.

They delay your score if you apply for the LSAC waiver?

Yeah, it was horrible. Had I had more than 2 1/2 weeks to study, I would have retaken but I didn't feel prepared enough by mid-late November. I've done all right for not having retaken, I feel like OP shouldn't be made to feel like he/she is fucked with his/her score. Retaking could definitely improve his/her chances but if the circumstances are such that they don't feel it worth it, it's not like they don't have a chance at all the schools listed -- he/she could even get some decent money at USC; I did.

W0W. Im trying to figure out how that makes any sense. What does a fee waiver have to with getting your score.. Sorry for the minor hijack people

It didn't make any sense to me either. I complained vehemently to LSAC and sought an explanation -- it easily debilitated by opportunity to retake. The only way I could get my score was to cancel my waiver application entirely. After I got my score, I had to go through another month of waiting for my waiver to be approved until I could apply to my schools because I couldn't afford the application fees. So, basically, LSAC screwed me out of retaking and probably hurt my chances at all my schools by delaying my entire application process by over a month. Needless to say, I'm not a huge fan of LSAC.

[ManoftheHour]

I'm not going to have $250k to pay back and I didn't get a 168. And, with how USC was scrambling for people throughout June and July last year, giving money to EVERYBODY, (yes, including splitters with 3.2 averages -- in fact, many got much better money than I and I'm not complaining), I truly don't believe OP would be facing sticker price.

Then that's totally fine if he is not paying sticker price. But I believe the original statement I was replying to read:

Not sure why UVA or NU would be worth sticker but UCLA would not, or even USC, considering the desire to live and practice in Southern California.

I was simply countering that argument. I'm not saying NEVER go to UCLA/USC over UVA/NU. I never once said that yet you were refuting an argument that I did not make. It'd make sense if he got some money. As I said, I'D personally go to UCLA/USC for 120k.

[BigZuck]

So if someone goes to a T14 they are an elitist, if they go to a "sub-T14" they're a prole?

I had my choice of T14s and non-T14s, I decided to slum it at a non-T14. I'm cool with it. That's also entirely irrelevant.

Not wanting to retake is fine. YOLO. It's an objectively bad decision a lot of the time though. We don't have to give out bad advice just because we are presented with false dichotomies.

No, people who go to T14s are fine, as are people who go sub-T14... I don't consider myself a prole, nor you for that matter, simply because we go to sub-T14 schools. People who deride others for the route they've taken are elitist proles. I'm just saying with the emphasis you and others place on T14s vs. everywhere else, you'd think you would've chosen to go to one. I didn't have the luxury of being able to take the February LSAT last year and neither may OP. I've answered OP's original question, yes, his scores are likely good enough to get into those schools though, obviously, if he wants to cement that, he can do so by retaking. However, he said he doesn't want to retake, if he truly doesn't want to or can't, he has the right to know that it's not like he's destined to be a fry cook with a 3.2/168. The odds are in his favor with those numbers... maybe not rock solid, but certainly in his favor.

No such thing as can't retake. Literally. No. Such. Thing.

T14s give people the best shot at paying off big debt. A shot that is much, much, greater than going to even the next tier of schools (Vandy, UCLA, USC, UT). If you're a splitter and if you want big law then a T14 is usually your only option because even going to the next tier of schools you shouldn't go unless you have a substantial scholarship and most of the time those can be tough to get if you're a splitter. Hell, just wanting big law means a T14 is pretty much your only option.

What I said to the OP was predicated on the notion that I didn't think a 3.2/168 would get enough to make UCLA/USC worthwhile. I could be mistaken, I didn't follow their cycles too closely last summer when I had already crossed them off my list. I was pretty much around both schools 75ths and they both offered me about 120K which I thought was just on the border of not worth it. Maybe they did go buck wild for splitters and if they do so again, then I think the OP choosing to attend would be totally defensible if he can keep his debt under 100K. As I said though, I'm suspicious that that might not be possible.

If its not, then the T14 is his only real option. The other CA schools are almost uniformly terrible and I don't think they are worth going to for the most part, even if free. There is still the opportunity cost of losing three years of your life that you'll never get back in the not too unlikely scenario that you totally strike out.

Anyway, your argument is built upon the backs of so many strawmen. No one said its HYS or bust, nor T14s or bust. Solid regionals are fine as long as they are cheap. There are only two solid regionals in CA-USC and UCLA. If a splitter can get them for cheapsies, then by all means that's a good option. But as I said like 5 times, I'm skeptical that that's a realistic possibility.

[epgenius]

I'm not going to have $250k to pay back and I didn't get a 168. And, with how USC was scrambling for people throughout June and July last year, giving money to EVERYBODY, (yes, including splitters with 3.2 averages -- in fact, many got much better money than I and I'm not complaining), I truly don't believe OP would be facing sticker price.

Then that's totally fine if he is not paying sticker price. But I believe the original statement I was replying to read:

Not sure why UVA or NU would be worth sticker but UCLA would not, or even USC, considering the desire to live and practice in Southern California.

I was simply countering that argument. I'm not saying NEVER go to UCLA/USC over UVA/NU. It'd make sense if he got some money. As I said, I'D personally go to UCLA/USC for 120k.

Sorry, I think I got my feed wires crossed or something... If you have that kind of debt, and want to go into biglaw, you definitely have a much better shot at NU or UVA. Though, with the sheer amount of UCLA/USC alumni in downtown LA, I think it's more forgiving than you'd think... I always thought the "Trojan network" was a bit of a gimmick but they are incredibly serious about giving you a leg up in LA for simply going to SC. Another factor, that I don't think has been talked about, is that the majority of students at SC want to go into entertainment law. A big portion of our class doesn't necessarily go the straight biglaw route, looking for work as agents or in-house at the studios/production companies. That definitely skews the biglaw impact of USC in downtown.

[epgenius]

So if someone goes to a T14 they are an elitist, if they go to a "sub-T14" they're a prole?

I had my choice of T14s and non-T14s, I decided to slum it at a non-T14. I'm cool with it. That's also entirely irrelevant.

Not wanting to retake is fine. YOLO. It's an objectively bad decision a lot of the time though. We don't have to give out bad advice just because we are presented with false dichotomies.

No, people who go to T14s are fine, as are people who go sub-T14... I don't consider myself a prole, nor you for that matter, simply because we go to sub-T14 schools. People who deride others for the route they've taken are elitist proles. I'm just saying with the emphasis you and others place on T14s vs. everywhere else, you'd think you would've chosen to go to one. I didn't have the luxury of being able to take the February LSAT last year and neither may OP. I've answered OP's original question, yes, his scores are likely good enough to get into those schools though, obviously, if he wants to cement that, he can do so by retaking. However, he said he doesn't want to retake, if he truly doesn't want to or can't, he has the right to know that it's not like he's destined to be a fry cook with a 3.2/168. The odds are in his favor with those numbers... maybe not rock solid, but certainly in his favor.

No such thing as can't retake. Literally. No. Such. Thing.

T14s give people the best shot at paying off big debt. A shot that is much, much, greater than going to even the next tier of schools (Vandy, UCLA, USC, UT). If you're a splitter and if you want big law then a T14 is usually your only option because even going to the next tier of schools you shouldn't go unless you have a substantial scholarship and most of the time those can be tough to get if you're a splitter. Hell, just wanting big law means a T14 is pretty much your only option.

What I said to the OP was predicated on the notion that I didn't think a 3.2/168 would get enough to make UCLA/USC worthwhile. I could be mistaken, I didn't follow their cycles too closely last summer when I had already crossed them off my list. I was pretty much around both schools 75ths and they both offered me about 120K which I thought was just on the border of not worth it. Maybe they did go buck wild for splitters and if they do so again, then I think the OP choosing to attend would be totally defensible if he can keep his debt under 100K. As I said though, I'm suspicious that that might not be possible.

If its not, then the T14 is his only real option. The other CA schools are almost uniformly terrible and I don't think they are worth going to for the most part, even if free. There is still the opportunity cost of losing three years of your life that you'll never get back in the not too unlikely scenario that you totally strike out.

Anyway, your argument is built upon the backs of so many strawmen. No one said its HYS or bust, nor T14s or bust. Solid regionals are fine as long as they are cheap. There are only two solid regionals in CA-USC and UCLA. If a splitter can get them for cheapsies, then by all means that's a good option. But as I said like 5 times, I'm skeptical that that's a realistic possibility.

I'll stop you right there. I could not take the February LSAT last year. Believe it or not, some people can't afford to take a couple months off, multiple times a year, to study for the LSAT. I worked full time and faced losing my apartment/not being able to eat if I had taken the time necessary off to put all my effort towards studying like I did the first time around. If you're privileged enough to be able to go without a paycheck for long enough to ensure a better score, all power to you but it's not an option for everyone. And no, given I did well and am at a great school with a good scholarship, I don't regret forgoing being homeless to try for a higher score.

Having gone through the process at USC and UCLA, I know for a fact that OP would have gotten in last year, and I seriously doubt that it'll be much different this cycle. Last June, SC was giving 3.1-3.3/167s $120k as quickly as they could, and UCLA wasn't too far behind that. I know how difficult it can be to not be completely satisfied with your score but also to not have the ability to support yourself if you quit your job to study -- all for the non-guaranteeable chance of getting a higher score. People have unique situations and, given OP has explicitly expressed a desire not to retake, possibly for circumstances like mine last year, it is worth mentioning that he/she does have a good shot at coming out well at SC. I certainly hope OP does go to USC (with money)... it's a fantastic school, and I don't mind sharing outlines.

[BigZuck]

Another false dichotomy. It's not either a) homelessness and LSAT studying or b) gainful employment and no LSAT studying

I suspected maybe dumb earlier but now I'm saying full on troll. Nobody is that dumb.

[CookieDough]

I'll stop you right there. I could not take the February LSAT last year. Believe it or not, some people can't afford to take a couple months off, multiple times a year, to study for the LSAT. I worked full time and faced losing my apartment/not being able to eat if I had taken the time necessary off to put all my effort towards studying like I did the first time around. If you're privileged enough to be able to go without a paycheck for long enough to ensure a better score, all power to you but it's not an option for everyone. And no, given I did well and am at a great school with a good scholarship, I don't regret forgoing being homeless to try for a higher score.

Having gone through the process at USC and UCLA, I know for a fact that OP would have gotten in last year, and I seriously doubt that it'll be much different this cycle. Last June, SC was giving 3.1-3.3/167s $120k as quickly as they could, and UCLA wasn't too far behind that. I know how difficult it can be to not be completely satisfied with your score but also to not have the ability to support yourself if you quit your job to study -- all for the non-guaranteeable chance of getting a higher score. People have unique situations and, given OP has explicitly expressed a desire not to retake, possibly for circumstances like mine last year, it is worth mentioning that he/she does have a good shot at coming out well at SC. I certainly hope OP does go to USC (with money)... it's a fantastic school, and I don't mind sharing outlines.

Ok a few things. One, you could have retaken had you sat out a cycle. You can always retake. You chose not to, and that's fine, but it was a possibility. Second, why does taking the LSAT mean not working and becoming homeless? There are plenty of people who work full time (and more) while studying, or work full time, raise kids and study. I agree that for some people the T-14 or bust mentality doesn't work, or can't work (if you cannot move due to family obligations for instance) but for every single person contemplating law school there needs to be an honest risk-reward analysis. T-14 simply gives you the best shot at a job, and retaking gives you a better chance at T-14.

ETA: scooped on homeless vs. LSAT

[midwest17]

But guys, don't you see? All you have to do is be at the top of your class.

[epgenius]

Another false dichotomy. It's not either a) homelessness and LSAT studying or b) gainful employment and no LSAT studying

I suspected maybe dumb earlier but now I'm saying full on troll. Nobody is that dumb.

Well, believe what you want. Not everyone has the things in this world that made retaking such an option for you, "BigZuck". I hope Austin is as good to you as LA will be to me.

[Clearly]

Another false dichotomy. It's not either a) homelessness and LSAT studying or b) gainful employment and no LSAT studying

I suspected maybe dumb earlier but now I'm saying full on troll. Nobody is that dumb.

Well, believe what you want. Not everyone has the things in this world that made retaking such an option for you, "BigZuck". I hope Austin is as good to you as LA will be to me.

You really deep down believe you couldn't study for a multiple choice test, while continuing to put a roof over your head?

[epgenius]

I'll stop you right there. I could not take the February LSAT last year. Believe it or not, some people can't afford to take a couple months off, multiple times a year, to study for the LSAT. I worked full time and faced losing my apartment/not being able to eat if I had taken the time necessary off to put all my effort towards studying like I did the first time around. If you're privileged enough to be able to go without a paycheck for long enough to ensure a better score, all power to you but it's not an option for everyone. And no, given I did well and am at a great school with a good scholarship, I don't regret forgoing being homeless to try for a higher score.

Having gone through the process at USC and UCLA, I know for a fact that OP would have gotten in last year, and I seriously doubt that it'll be much different this cycle. Last June, SC was giving 3.1-3.3/167s $120k as quickly as they could, and UCLA wasn't too far behind that. I know how difficult it can be to not be completely satisfied with your score but also to not have the ability to support yourself if you quit your job to study -- all for the non-guaranteeable chance of getting a higher score. People have unique situations and, given OP has explicitly expressed a desire not to retake, possibly for circumstances like mine last year, it is worth mentioning that he/she does have a good shot at coming out well at SC. I certainly hope OP does go to USC (with money)... it's a fantastic school, and I don't mind sharing outlines.

Ok a few things. One, you could have retaken had you sat out a cycle. You can always retake. You chose not to, and that's fine, but it was a possibility. Second, why does taking the LSAT mean not working and becoming homeless? There are plenty of people who work full time (and more) while studying, or work full time, raise kids and study. I agree that for some people the T-14 or bust mentality doesn't work, or can't work (if you cannot move due to family obligations for instance) but for every single person contemplating law school there needs to be an honest risk-reward analysis. T-14 simply gives you the best shot at a job, and retaking gives you a better chance at T-14.

ETA: scooped on homeless vs. LSAT

Don't presume what my life is like and I won't presume what yours is like. Suffice it to say I did consider it, but there were too many things working against me... time, money, likelihood of improvement, etc. I was proud of my score and don't think my getting a job is, or ever has been, solely contingent upon my going to a T14. There are a shitload of other factors that make me a far better candidate for many jobs than my numbers would lead one to believe, and I have been utilizing those factors. If the majority of TLS posters would quell their incessant broken recordness for just long enough to respond to what people are actually asking, all the while ceasing to presume what everyone's situation is, maybe applicants would get a broader spectrum of options and advice to take into consideration. Retaking is a damn good option if you want to/are in a position to improve your score, but it is by no means the only vehicle through which a good law school/job can be had.

[epgenius]

Another false dichotomy. It's not either a) homelessness and LSAT studying or b) gainful employment and no LSAT studying

I suspected maybe dumb earlier but now I'm saying full on troll. Nobody is that dumb.

Well, believe what you want. Not everyone has the things in this world that made retaking such an option for you, "BigZuck". I hope Austin is as good to you as LA will be to me.

You really deep down believe you couldn't study for a multiple choice test, while continuing to put a roof over your head?

No, I couldn't. If I could have, I would have. I've done well so far for the lot I was given... I feel OP should know he/she can do well too.

[BigZuck]

Another false dichotomy. It's not either a) homelessness and LSAT studying or b) gainful employment and no LSAT studying

I suspected maybe dumb earlier but now I'm saying full on troll. Nobody is that dumb.

Well, believe what you want. Not everyone has the things in this world that made retaking such an option for you, "BigZuck". I hope Austin is as good to you as LA will be to me.

I was 100% supporting myself and working and paying for my own apartment while studying for both my retakes. And I put law school off for a cycle. The OP could easily do the same. Tons of people do.

Also, I don't really get the point of the E-stalker schtick, but whatevs.

[KingJamesLBJ]

Nope, just once. I was thinking of retaking in December last year but got my October score late because my LSAC fee waiver app was delayed -- didn't want to risk getting a lower score with only 2 1/2 weeks to study again. One and done and I'm at USC with good money and, believe it or not, my job prospects are fine.[/quote]


It didn't make any sense to me either. I complained vehemently to LSAC and sought an explanation -- it easily debilitated by opportunity to retake. The only way I could get my score was to cancel my waiver application entirely. After I got my score, I had to go through another month of waiting for my waiver to be approved until I could apply to my schools because I couldn't afford the application fees. So, basically, LSAC screwed me out of retaking and probably hurt my chances at all my schools by delaying my entire application process by over a month. Needless to say, I'm not a huge fan of LSAC.[/quote][/quote][/quote]


welp, i guess i should stay clear of applying since im waiting for dec scores. Thanks for the insight

[epgenius]

Another false dichotomy. It's not either a) homelessness and LSAT studying or b) gainful employment and no LSAT studying

I suspected maybe dumb earlier but now I'm saying full on troll. Nobody is that dumb.

Well, believe what you want. Not everyone has the things in this world that made retaking such an option for you, "BigZuck". I hope Austin is as good to you as LA will be to me.

I was 100% supporting myself and working and paying for my own apartment while studying for both my retakes. And I put law school off for a cycle. The OP could easily do the same. Tons of people do.

Also, I don't really get the point of the E-stalker schtick, but whatevs.

You know where I go, I know where you go. That's the extent of it... I'd rather not inadvertently piss off a classmate or potential classmate so I thought it pertinent to at least confirm you didn't go to school with me. Apologies.

[North]

I was 100% supporting myself and working and paying for my own apartment while studying for both my retakes. And I put law school off for a cycle. The OP could easily do the same. Tons of people do.

Same. I have zero sympathy for this guy's shtick.

[epgenius]

Nope, just once. I was thinking of retaking in December last year but got my October score late because my LSAC fee waiver app was delayed -- didn't want to risk getting a lower score with only 2 1/2 weeks to study again. One and done and I'm at USC with good money and, believe it or not, my job prospects are fine.

It didn't make any sense to me either. I complained vehemently to LSAC and sought an explanation -- it easily debilitated by opportunity to retake. The only way I could get my score was to cancel my waiver application entirely. After I got my score, I had to go through another month of waiting for my waiver to be approved until I could apply to my schools because I couldn't afford the application fees. So, basically, LSAC screwed me out of retaking and probably hurt my chances at all my schools by delaying my entire application process by over a month. Needless to say, I'm not a huge fan of LSAC.[/quote][/quote][/quote]


welp, i guess i should stay clear of applying since im waiting for dec scores. Thanks for the insight[/quote]

I'd check to make sure that's still their policy. It wouldn't make sense to delay apps without confirming. I didn't find anyone else who got fucked like I did so hopefully, (though not for me), it was a one-off. In any case, fingers-crossed for good news on your score! You nail a giant one and all the schools might waive your fees anyway so you can avoid the debacle entirely