Splitters Hoping for T6/T14-Highest LSAT Score You'd Retake? Forum

[nyyankees]

my cutoff was 170, but I think I would have retaken a 172.

I really need a cutoff before I see my score but can't decide...

It depends on your GPA and the best school that will realistically accept you in spite of it.

3.25

I know many people hold this belief, but I do think that I have unique, game-changing softs. Will also have 2 years post-college work experience.

you are out at YHS, and almost certainly out at CCN. Duke and Berkeley wont happen either. So now youre best case scenario is MVP or CNG. With a 3.25 and an early app a 172 should get you in but i wouldnt feel particularly confident with anything less than a 173. I voted for 172

[AngryAvocado]

my cutoff was 170, but I think I would have retaken a 172.

I really need a cutoff before I see my score but can't decide...

It depends on your GPA and the best school that will realistically accept you in spite of it.

3.25

I know many people hold this belief, but I do think that I have unique, game-changing softs. Will also have 2 years post-college work experience.

I'd say 173 should be your cutoff. HYS simply aren't happening and CCN will be a stretch regardless of your score, but a 173 will put you above median at all CCN and above the 75th at both Chicago and NYU. Beyond that, any increase in LSAT score isn't likely to make or break your application. Good luck.

[ConsideringLawSchool]

my cutoff was 170, but I think I would have retaken a 172.

I really need a cutoff before I see my score but can't decide...

3.25

I know many people hold this belief, but I do think that I have unique, game-changing softs. Will also have 2 years post-college work experience.

I'd say 173 should be your cutoff. HYS simply aren't happening and CCN will be a stretch regardless of your score, but a 173 will put you above median at all CCN and above the 75th at both Chicago and NYU. Beyond that, any increase in LSAT score isn't likely to make or break your application. Good luck.

You think Chicago ED is unlikely with 3.25/178/great softs?

[AngryAvocado]

I'd say 173 should be your cutoff. HYS simply aren't happening and CCN will be a stretch regardless of your score, but a 173 will put you above median at all CCN and above the 75th at both Chicago and NYU. Beyond that, any increase in LSAT score isn't likely to make or break your application. Good luck.

You think Chicago ED is unlikely with 3.25/178/great softs?

Unlikely? Yes. Impossible? No.

I'm not saying you don't have a chance, and you might as well ED to NYU or Chicago with a >172, but just realize that you're going to be a long-shot for the T6 regardless of your score. The sub 3.4 acceptances for non-URMs at those schools are just very few and far between.

[whitman]

So 3.49 and a 172 + a year of community service with a gov. organization. I could have been more prepared (I left 4 blank on logic games and it seems like I could get down to -0).

Should I retake? I guess with my GPA HYS CCN are probably all out, so does it even matter?

I'm specifically interested in Stanford (yeah I know that ones out but I might as well try), Berkeley (same thing), UVA, Penn, Mich, Duke, UCLA, Vandy, and Texas.

[ConsideringLawSchool]

After deciding over 177 was my cutoff, I just got the e-mail that I got a 177... I'm tempted just to leave well enough alone though.

[rayiner]

After deciding over 177 was my cutoff, I just got the e-mail that I got a 177... I'm tempted just to leave well enough alone though.

You'd be an idiot to retake a 177.

[rayiner]

So 3.49 and a 172 + a year of community service with a gov. organization. I could have been more prepared (I left 4 blank on logic games and it seems like I could get down to -0).

Should I retake? I guess with my GPA HYS CCN are probably all out, so does it even matter?

I'm specifically interested in Stanford (yeah I know that ones out but I might as well try), Berkeley (same thing), UVA, Penn, Mich, Duke, UCLA, Vandy, and Texas.

You have a shot at CCN with that GPA, but you need 173+.

[vanwinkle]

After deciding over 177 was my cutoff, I just got the e-mail that I got a 177... I'm tempted just to leave well enough alone though.

Dude, take the 177 and run with it. You've got no shot at Y unless your personal story in your PS is truly exceptional (and I doubt that), and a 177 is above the 75th at every other school in the country. Gaining an extra point or two is not going to help you at all, and you risk getting a lower score and having to justify that.

177 is your cutoff. You have a 177. So cut it off, you don't need anything more than that.

[ConsideringLawSchool]

After deciding over 177 was my cutoff, I just got the e-mail that I got a 177... I'm tempted just to leave well enough alone though.

Dude, take the 177 and run with it. You've got no shot at Y unless your personal story in your PS is truly exceptional (and I doubt that), and a 177 is above the 75th at every other school in the country. Gaining an extra point or two is not going to help you at all, and you risk getting a lower score and having to justify that.

177 is your cutoff. You have a 177. So cut it off, you don't need anything more than that.

Well, my cutoff was over 177. I looked at the retaker's data from LSAC, and the only person who retook 177 got the same (http://members.lsac.org/Public/MainPage ... Page2.aspx)

[vanwinkle]

Well, my cutoff was over 177.

Well, then you were foolish.

[ConsideringLawSchool]

Well, my cutoff was over 177.

Well, then you were foolish.

I'm a perfectionist, sadly.

[JazzOne]

my cutoff was 170, but I think I would have retaken a 172.

I really need a cutoff before I see my score but can't decide...

It depends on your GPA and the best school that will realistically accept you in spite of it.

3.25

I know many people hold this belief, but I do think that I have unique, game-changing softs. Will also have 2 years post-college work experience.

I'm curious to know what kind of game-changing softs you could possibly acquire in two years.

[rayiner]

Well, my cutoff was over 177.

Well, then you were foolish.

I'm a perfectionist, sadly.

You're a dumbfuck is what you are.

Spending time and money to do something that will have no impact = dumbfuck.

[ConsideringLawSchool]

my cutoff was 170, but I think I would have retaken a 172.

I really need a cutoff before I see my score but can't decide...

It depends on your GPA and the best school that will realistically accept you in spite of it.

I know many people hold this belief, but I do think that I have unique, game-changing softs. Will also have 2 years post-college work experience.

I'm curious to know what kind of game-changing softs you could possibly acquire in two years.[/quote]

Softs go back to college when I was working 60+ hours per week and travelling the country. Don't want to be uniquely-identifying, but softs have gotten considerable national and international media attention, so I think they are at least unique. Happy to PM more details.

[ConsideringLawSchool]

Any other thoughts?

[ConsideringLawSchool]

I'm wondering what percent of the people who said 179 mean it.

[KibblesAndVick]

I'm wondering what percent of the people who said 179 mean it.

I'd like to think that if you're gifted enough to score 179 (hell 175+ for that matter) you wouldn't be stupid enough to retake...

[MagicallyDelicious]

I'm wondering what percent of the people who said 179 mean it.

0%.

Seriously.

[ConsideringLawSchool]

I'm wondering what percent of the people who said 179 mean it.

0%.

Seriously.

Why? Once you get 179, you clearly have what it takes to get 180. I don't know about you guys, but my Saturday mornings are typically not so amazingly awesome that I couldn't give up one to take a test. Without having to study much (if at all), I can see taking the gamble for 180. I know the risk of dropping, but that's just an issue of confidence...

[KibblesAndVick]

I'm wondering what percent of the people who said 179 mean it.

0%.

Seriously.

Why? Once you get 179, you clearly have what it takes to get 180. I don't know about you guys, but my Saturday mornings are typically not so amazingly awesome that I couldn't give up one to take a test. Without having to study much (if at all), I can see taking the gamble for 180. I know the risk of dropping, but that's just an issue of confidence...

This lends itself to a bit of a catch-22. In order to rationally have the confidence to retake a 179 you would have to be so god-like at the LSAT that you would have scored a 180 the first time. But, if you scored a 180 the first time you wouldn't be able to improve and hence no retake .

[Kikero]

I can't see retaking the test at anything over a 170 really. I mean maybe I severely misunderstand how LSAT scoring works, but isn't it possible to actually get more questions right and get a same or even lower scaled score depending on other test takers' results? For example, I got a 173 and while I have a tested 160+ IQ which would suggest that I can do better than a 173, I'd be way too scared that I would end up having a bad day and dropping a few points or something, especially since it wouldn't only be dependent on my own performance.

[MagicallyDelicious]

I'm wondering what percent of the people who said 179 mean it.

0%.

Seriously.

Why? Once you get 179, you clearly have what it takes to get 180. I don't know about you guys, but my Saturday mornings are typically not so amazingly awesome that I couldn't give up one to take a test. Without having to study much (if at all), I can see taking the gamble for 180. I know the risk of dropping, but that's just an issue of confidence...

Yes, most people who have pulled 177+ on an actual LSAT have probably pulled a 180 on a PT. That's besides the point. There is nothing to gain in scoring a 180 when you already have a 179, barring a very strange circumstance where you've scored extremely low in the past and a 179 may seem like a fluke. Even then, I can't see it helping much. A 180 gets you almost nothing over a 179, and the fact that one retook a 179 may even make an adcom suspect said applicant of extreme neurosis.

[ConsideringLawSchool]

I can't see retaking the test at anything over a 170 really. I mean maybe I severely misunderstand how LSAT scoring works, but isn't it possible to actually get more questions right and get a same or even lower scaled score depending on other test takers' results? For example, I got a 173 and while I have a tested 160+ IQ which would suggest that I can do better than a 173, I'd be way too scared that I would end up having a bad day and dropping a few points or something, especially since it wouldn't only be dependent on my own performance.

The only way in which it is entirely dependent on your own performance is if you get a perfect score. For me anyway, I already know that I have a good score in the bank, and I think it's highly unlikely I'd drop. Therefore, why not just have fun with it--especially since I'm not sure I ever want to go to law school, so I don't have much to lose.

[Ragged]

I can't see retaking the test at anything over a 170 really. I mean maybe I severely misunderstand how LSAT scoring works, but isn't it possible to actually get more questions right and get a same or even lower scaled score depending on other test takers' results? For example, I got a 173 and while I have a tested 160+ IQ which would suggest that I can do better than a 173, I'd be way too scared that I would end up having a bad day and dropping a few points or something, especially since it wouldn't only be dependent on my own performance.

The only way in which it is entirely dependent on your own performance is if you get a perfect score. For me anyway, I already know that I have a good score in the bank, and I think it's highly unlikely I'd drop. Therefore, why not just have fun with it--especially since I'm not sure I ever want to go to law school, so I don't have much to lose.

Do it. Do it. Tell us how it goes.

Great job on already amazing score.