Just got my LSAT 140 and 3.08 what can i do? Forum

[Honeysuckle]

I agree that this is more than just "my diagnostic was low" (as in my case). I'm not equating my situation with his. He didn't do his homework. It was an atrocious idea for the OP take the actual LSAT in Feb after hardly a month of "studying", especially considering his mediocre performances on PTs, which gave him an idea of what ballpark to expect to be in. He understands that he effed up...badly. But it shouldn't forever destroy his chances to attend a decent law school, and it's rude for people to tell him that he should forget about his dream. Like I said schools normally take the higher score now, and if he works diligently, he can make some amazing gains. The LSAT is not a "you either have it or you don't" sort of exam.

[letsdoit1982]

For everyone who is saying OP does not possess the intellect to be a good lawyer based on his LSAT should step back and think what they're saying. Unless you're scoring in the 170s, you really have no room to talk. Someone with a 175 could easily say that someone who scores a 165 is much more likely than them to make stupid mistakes and should therefor not be allowed to be a lawyer.

[mb88]

For everyone who is saying OP does not possess the intellect to be a good lawyer based on his LSAT should step back and think what they're saying. Unless you're scoring in the 170s, you really have no room to talk. Someone with a 175 could easily say that someone who scores a 165 is much more likely than them to make stupid mistakes and should therefor not be allowed to be a lawyer.

Don't get yourself all worked up. Nobody said he wasn't smart enough to be a lawyer based on his LSAT (he could be Stephen Hawking for all I know). What was said was that, based on his four LSATs, he's not very good at reading comprehension. To work in the law you need to be at least above average in that area.

Also, nobody is going to say that 165 LSATers aren't cut out to be lawyers. They're obviously above average at reading comp and logical reasoning. Just because some of us think that consistently scoring far below average should exclude you from legal work doesn't mean that we think that everybody who scored below us is a neanderthal dragging their knuckles. Personally, I think that anybody who scores at least in the mid 150s has the potential to score in the 170s, given enough rigorous study. The LSAT is just that learnable. The problem is that there is eventually a point in which you just don't possess the reading skills required to advance any further without lifestyle change (reading every day for years, which is how you develop those skills to begin with). I think that consistently scoring in the 140s, even with light study, crosses that line.

[letsdoit1982]

For everyone who is saying OP does not possess the intellect to be a good lawyer based on his LSAT should step back and think what they're saying. Unless you're scoring in the 170s, you really have no room to talk. Someone with a 175 could easily say that someone who scores a 165 is much more likely than them to make stupid mistakes and should therefor not be allowed to be a lawyer.

Don't get yourself all worked up. Nobody said he wasn't smart enough to be a lawyer based on his LSAT (he could be Stephen Hawking for all I know). What was said was that, based on his four LSATs, he's not very good at reading comprehension. To work in the law you need to be at least above average in that area.

Also, nobody is going to say that 165 LSATers aren't cut out to be lawyers. They're obviously above average at reading comp and logical reasoning. Just because some of us think that consistently scoring far below average should exclude you from legal work doesn't mean that we think that everybody who scored below us is a neanderthal dragging their knuckles. Personally, I think that anybody who scores at least in the mid 150s has the potential to score in the 170s, given enough rigorous study. The LSAT is just that learnable. The problem is that there is eventually a point in which you just don't possess the reading skills required to advance any further without lifestyle change (reading every day for years, which is how you develop those skills to begin with). I think that consistently scoring in the 140s, even with light study, crosses that line.

Look back in the thread. People specifically said that OP is likely to accidentally screw over his clients.

[tikiman6]

your diagnostic was a 139, you took 2 more tests before the actual LSAT and only studied for a month. This test is not one of your college finals... I would have guessed you would have scored in the 135-145 range. Study for at LEAST 3 months diligently and take at LEAST 15 practice tests, and pray to god that you break a 155. I don't mean to sound like an ass but it seems like there is a large disconnect between what your doing and what you should do to prepare to get into law school.

No you shouldn't apply this cycle. write an addendum for that 140 and say that you have narcolepsy and you fell asleep for a section.

Y'all study for a month for your finals?

[mb88]

For everyone who is saying OP does not possess the intellect to be a good lawyer based on his LSAT should step back and think what they're saying. Unless you're scoring in the 170s, you really have no room to talk. Someone with a 175 could easily say that someone who scores a 165 is much more likely than them to make stupid mistakes and should therefor not be allowed to be a lawyer.

Don't get yourself all worked up. Nobody said he wasn't smart enough to be a lawyer based on his LSAT (he could be Stephen Hawking for all I know). What was said was that, based on his four LSATs, he's not very good at reading comprehension. To work in the law you need to be at least above average in that area.

Also, nobody is going to say that 165 LSATers aren't cut out to be lawyers. They're obviously above average at reading comp and logical reasoning. Just because some of us think that consistently scoring far below average should exclude you from legal work doesn't mean that we think that everybody who scored below us is a neanderthal dragging their knuckles. Personally, I think that anybody who scores at least in the mid 150s has the potential to score in the 170s, given enough rigorous study. The LSAT is just that learnable. The problem is that there is eventually a point in which you just don't possess the reading skills required to advance any further without lifestyle change (reading every day for years, which is how you develop those skills to begin with). I think that consistently scoring in the 140s, even with light study, crosses that line.

Look back in the thread. People specifically said that OP is likely to accidentally screw over his clients.

I don't need to look back in the thread for that, because I'm the one who said it (though not quite in the words you used here).

You're making the mistake of equating "intelligence" with "reading comp ability". I've never spoken to the OP's intelligence. He could be incredibly smart and still damage his future clients through poor reading comprehension. All I've claimed in this thread was that:

A) The OP's four LSATs in the 140s (even a 139) indicate that he doesn't possess strong reading/logical skills.

B) Strong reading/logical skills are necessary to adequately practice the law.

[narkizopoint]

You're making the mistake of equating "intelligence" with "reading comp ability". I've never spoken to the OP's intelligence. He could be incredibly smart and still damage his future clients through poor reading comprehension. All I've claimed in this thread was that:

A) The OP's four LSATs in the 140s (even a 139) indicate that he doesn't possess strong reading/logical skills.

B) Strong reading/logical skills are necessary to adequately practice the law.

A subjectively ambiguous term, someone might pick up and run with that in an argument...

[mb88]

You're making the mistake of equating "intelligence" with "reading comp ability". I've never spoken to the OP's intelligence. He could be incredibly smart and still damage his future clients through poor reading comprehension. All I've claimed in this thread was that:

A) The OP's four LSATs in the 140s (even a 139) indicate that he doesn't possess strong reading/logical skills.

B) Strong reading/logical skills are necessary to adequately practice the law.

A subjectively ambiguous term, someone might pick up and run with that in an argument...

You're welcome to try and argue that strong reading/logical skills are not required to adequately practice the law.

[JDO]

I just recieved my LSAT scores and am pretty upset... My choices were LSU( Obviously not happening), Loyola, no (Not happening either, and Southern ( Dont think so but could be a possibility)...

Yea, apply to Southern and Florida Coastal. But have a good reason for your low score on the LSAT. It will not hurt you in anyway if you apply to the 4th tier schools this year and to better schools later in November...

Do you think if I scored like a 163 I would still have to write a reason for doing so poorly on the first one.

Yes, you will need to explain. People have listed various addenda on the forum... a quick search should show you how.

[kswiss]

Just a thought...

Considering your inability to perform on stressful tests (so far), consider the amount that you are willing to pay and the possibility of not passing the bar even after graduation. I'm not trying to pigeonhole you, but the LSAT is a very learnable test.

Think of the actual cost of law school + the opportunity cost of not working for 3 years. If you are paying full sticker, its probably going to be upwards of 200k, and there is the very real possibility that you will get out and have to work as a grocery bagger.

Who am I to tell someone what not to do with their life. But don't take rag to riches stories and bank on you being one of them. They are the outliers, not the norm. That said, if you wait a year and study your ass off, you could possibly raise your score above 160. Then the discussion changes.

If your ceiling is 150, you might seriously consider something that is more suitable to your skill set. No one is saying that the OP is stupid, just that law might not be the ideal profession.

If you would like to know a decent study-plan (at least it worked for me) for the LSAT, I wrote a blog post about how i prepared here.

http://doctorklon.wordpress.com/2009/12 ... -the-lsat/

I got a 170.

[rayiner]

Look back in the thread. People specifically said that OP is likely to accidentally screw over his clients.

A 140 is more likely than not, statistically speaking, to fail the bar exam. So he won't even have the opportunity to screw over his clients.

[kswiss]

Back to topic a little, go here for Southern stats:

http://southern.lawschoolnumbers.com/ap ... =3&type=jd

that is every single acceptance on LSN from last cycle. Looks like that for non URM you are going to need 150+ with your GPA. Small sample though.

[kswiss]

Also, according to the "Cooley Admissions Index" OP couldn't even qualify for admission there at this point. They require a minimum 143 LSAT or a much higher GPA to go with a lower score.

Its a touch funny. GPA X 15 + LSAT. If you are above the index #: admit. I wish all schools were that easy.

[JustDude]

Justdude! if im retarded, than let us all know: what great law school did u get into, with what great LSAT score? AND why do you want to go to law school? Do you know you'll be a great lawyer cause you've done it before? Do you know what type of law you want to practice, and if so WHY?!

To answer your questions:

Dont wanna brag aboot (damn canada) my LSAT score. I am a good test taker naturally. I will ust tell you that my first diagnostic taken under real timed conditions was 168. And i went from there.

I dont wanna be a lawyer. I guess I just needed an acceptance into top program to make myself feel better. Getting into school is for some reason much more exciting then going to school. So I deferred for unspecified time.

I dont think I will be a great lawyer, since I am not sure I will be a lawyer. I dont wanna practice law. I wanna have fun and dance. Working is an annoyance. Work is for people that dont know how to fish. I hope I answered your questions. Need more - ask.

[william wallace]

BigPoppa,

Listen man. You gotta study. PM me if you want to know what I mean by "study." I'm talking about 4 hours a day of uninterrupted study for about 2-3 months. No, I did not stutter. That's what it takes for people to score well on this test. There are some who can study less than that and still score above a 165 or 170. However, the majority of people achieve success on the LSAT by..........working really really really hard for it. So that is a good thing. That means that you can be one of those people. It's very hard to spend that much time studying, but you can do it. Focus.

Second of all, don't listen to these people that are telling you that you should just give up because you scored a 140.Those people have been succeeding for a long time and sometimes they forget exactly what they had to do to develop their abilities. There are a lot of very very gifted people on this board and that can sometimes create sort of an elitist attitude. Once again, most of them have worked hard their whole lives to be where they are. So, unless you work as hard as they do, you will have no idea of your true potential. You have to make sacrifices now.

Maybe if you tell us more about your situation we can help you more. No matter what others say, the purpose of this forum is for us to all help each other out. You are one that we are going to help out. It can be a beautiful thing when we all do this. That said, if someone is cynical, they aren't serving the purpose of this board, and their comment shouldn't even be read or considered. If someone is realistic, that is different. By realistic I mean telling you what you will have to do to be successful and get into the best law school possible. The UVA guy with the picture on his horse is probably a very successful person. I don't know if he can see the situation properly in order to help you. He is probably better at helping those in similar situations to his current/former situation So I would take his comments as cynical.

A lot of this whole thing is BS anyways, you can do whatever you want IF you try hard. Time to start trying hard.

[william wallace]

Justdude! if im retarded, than let us all know: what great law school did u get into, with what great LSAT score? AND why do you want to go to law school? Do you know you'll be a great lawyer cause you've done it before? Do you know what type of law you want to practice, and if so WHY?!

To answer your questions:

Dont wanna brag aboot (damn canada) my LSAT score. I am a good test taker naturally. I will ust tell you that my first diagnostic taken under real timed conditions was 168. And i went from there.

I dont wanna be a lawyer. I guess I just needed an acceptance into top program to make myself feel better. Getting into school is for some reason much more exciting then going to school. So I deferred for unspecified time.

I dont think I will be a great lawyer, since I am not sure I will be a lawyer. I dont wanna practice law. I wanna have fun and dance. Working is an annoyance. Work is for people that dont know how to fish. I hope I answered your questions. Need more - ask.

hahahah yes, getting in is much better. It's not the having, it's the getting.

[JustDude]

hahahah yes, getting in is much better. It's not the having, it's the getting.

I am glad I met a person that thinks alike. I am thinking of studyoing MCAT. Hehehehee. Med Schools can be fun too.

[JCougar]

Do you think if I scored like a 163 I would still have to write a reason for doing so poorly on the first one.

Be realistic. 163/3.08 wont get you anywhere decent.

You will be far better of in some other industry. At least you won have debt.

This is ridiculous. Only on TLS would you hear something like this.

[kswiss]

Work is for people that dont know how to fish.

My thoughts exactly.

[nycparalegal]

hahahah yes, getting in is much better. It's not the having, it's the getting.

I am glad I met a person that thinks alike. I am thinking of studyoing MCAT. Hehehehee. Med Schools can be fun too.

You have 7,000 posts, but you don't go to law school?

[william wallace]

I want to take all the standardized tests - No, I didn't stutter. I am being serious. That doesn't mean I will actually do it because it's expensive. However, I think they are fun! And I'm not a good test-taker. It's a fun challenge. And if you do really well on one to apply just to get in. It's not the having, it's the getting. At least we are out of denial and on the way to acceptance that we have around an 80% chance of not liking our jobs and living unfulfilled lives. I am really okay at getting a job. We'll see about the having and keeping.

[Grizz]

hahahah yes, getting in is much better. It's not the having, it's the getting.

I am glad I met a person that thinks alike. I am thinking of studyoing MCAT. Hehehehee. Med Schools can be fun too.

You have 7,000 posts, but you don't go to law school?

Posting on TLS is more fun than getting a JD.

[Mattalones]

...Personally, I think that anybody who scores at least in the mid 150s has the potential to score in the 170s, given enough rigorous study. The LSAT is just that learnable. The problem is that there is eventually a point in which you just don't possess the reading skills required to advance any further without lifestyle change (reading every day for years, which is how you develop those skills to begin with)...

I totally agree with this!

[START TESTIMONIAL] I followed just what you described. Without reading much, even a large amount of studying left me with one a 160, give or take 5 points on from PT to PT (however that was after starting with my first diag at a 131 ... I thought it just was too much reading, put my pencil down, and gave up, staring off into the distance just a couple minutes into each section). What I found extremely odd was that, after some practice though, I found no single item on the LSAT hard (with the exception of the rare, crazy LG). In fact, I though that the material was pretty easy, which made me super-pissed when I would get a 155. What held me back was the reading; I just never did it because it was too hard (turns out it was b/c of a case of viral meningitis I had that temporarily inhibited translation of symbols and letters into conceptual meaning, which turns out to be pretty important for reading). The point at which I realized reading skills were at the heart of the issue was upon reflecting about the fact that I would be completely exhausted from all of the reading required to take a PT (to the point where I would just have to take a long nap afterwards).

After discussing this with someone, he recommended that I just put down the LSAT materials and make a point to read every day. I took his advise and did this over the course of a couple years. I had been haphazardly keeping a log of my reading speed and, without explicitly ever setting a goal, I compared my rushed reading speed of two years ago to my current relaxed reading speed, and it has more than doubled! So, I tried the LSAT after a two year study break and scored a 171 on that PT (without needing to take a nap afterwards ). It's crazy that something as simple as basic reading issues can be such a huge factor. [END TESTIMONIAL]

[snake-eater]

.