Top Law Schools

.

If you are averaging 168-172, I would probably avoid retaking. However, if you can bring that average over 170, and if you have valid indicators that you have a good chance of scoring 170+, I would recommend retaking. I personally would study hard and retake a 169. The 169/170 distinction at UVA/Penn is significant because UVA's and Penn's medians are 170.

I'm in the same boat as you are (got a 169). From what I heard, some people say it makes little difference, but some others say there is some kind of "magic" cutoff from 169 to 170 because a lot of the T14 medians are 170. LSN graphs seems to suggest that there is a drop off from 170 to 169 where the GPA needed with a 169 is somewhat higher than the GPA for a 170 to get into certain schools.

However, I've so far gotten into UCLA with significant $$$, NU and GULC with a 169 so I'd say a 169 definitely doesn't shut you out of the T14 if you have a nice (>3.6) GPA.

.

soccer88 wrote:So aside from the rather obvious one point distinction, is there any significant or attributable reason for the (judging from LSN, for example, Penn and UVA's 2011 charts) fairly steep distinction between the two scores? With score banding, variances in curves from test to test etc, it seems that the drop off is arbitrary and perhaps cosmetic, but I am in no way an authority on the matter.

As a follow up, is it worth retaking with a 169 to break that alleged gap? It seems odd to consider a retake for one point, particularly since in my case I was only PTing in the 168-172 range and an increase is in no way a guarantee, as I already have a first score in the low 160s under my belt, showing that one can certainly under score their PT range. Thoughts/recommendations/commentary?

170 is Penn and UVA's LSAT median. Anyone below that hurts their median, so there is a huge difference in your chance of acceptance.

170 is particularly powerful because Northwestern, Duke and Georgetown also have a 170 median. And Michigan and Cornell are looking to move up to a 170 median.

soccer88 wrote:So aside from the rather obvious one point distinction, is there any significant or attributable reason for the (judging from LSN, for example, Penn and UVA's 2011 charts) fairly steep distinction between the two scores? With score banding, variances in curves from test to test etc, it seems that the drop off is arbitrary and perhaps cosmetic, but I am in no way an authority on the matter.

As a follow up, is it worth retaking with a 169 to break that alleged gap? It seems odd to consider a retake for one point, particularly since in my case I was only PTing in the 168-172 range and an increase is in no way a guarantee, as I already have a first score in the low 160s under my belt, showing that one can certainly under score their PT range. Thoughts/recommendations/commentary?

170 just so happens to be the LSAT median at many top schools (11 out of T14 have a LSAT median of 170 or higher) http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=163250
Someone with a 169 will hurt many school's LSAT median whereas a 170 would not (especially at Penn/UVA where the median is 170). Schools probably care about medians because it affects their rank, not so much because they think there's actually a difference in quality between a candidate with a 169 vs one with a 170, all else being equal.

As to whether or not it's worth retaking, that really depends on the rest of your application. If you have a solid GPA or strong softs you can probably get into the same schools with a 169 or 170. On the other hand if your gpa/softs are not so good, retaking for even a 1 point increase might open doors previously shut to you. In most cases a higher score is usually welcome, but not always needed/helpful pending on other factors. 169 is definitely one of those scores that kinda sucks because you're literally 1 point under the LSAT median for most top schools which is like 1 question on the test. It SHOULDN'T make a difference but it does and LSN definitely shows that.

KevinP wrote:If you are averaging 168-172, I would probably avoid retaking. However, if you can bring that average over 170, and if you have valid indicators that you have a good chance of scoring 170+, I would recommend retaking. I personally would study hard and retake a 169. The 169/170 distinction at UVA/Penn is significant because UVA's and Penn's medians are 170.

I disagree on the not retaking advice. If you got a 169, you can get a 170, even if you are only averaging in the 168-170 range. If you have a 169, you have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by a retake. Either (a) you get a 170+ and your chances increase, or (b) you get a 169- and your chances stay the same since they only care about your highest score.

soccer88 wrote:

cactuarX3 wrote:I'm in the same boat as you are (got a 169). From what I heard, some people say it makes little difference, but some others say there is some kind of "magic" cutoff from 169 to 170 because a lot of the T14 medians are 170. LSN graphs seems to suggest that there is a drop off from 170 to 169 where the GPA needed with a 169 is somewhat higher than the GPA for a 170 to get into certain schools.

However, I've so far gotten into UCLA with significant $$$, NU and GULC with a 169 so I'd say a 169 definitely doesn't shut you out of the T14 if you have a nice (>3.6) GPA.

3.5ish, so not the ideal GPA, but it's at or just above the bottom top 14s 25th %

Hmmmm, don't want to sound like an asshole, but with a 3.5, I would advise a retake. Looking on LSN, it looks like for most of the T14, you're going to need a >3.6 or >3.7 to have a good shot. Don't count on being at the 25%-tile as a good chance for admission. If you can manage a 171 or above, a 3.5 might even get you CCN if you have strong softs.

As someone else with ~3.5, it's definitely worth it to have a 170 vs. a 169. You'll be in at MVP (with ED) with a 170, probably/definitely out with a 169. And a 173+ and you have a decent chance at CCN.

bk187 wrote:

KevinP wrote:If you are averaging 168-172, I would probably avoid retaking. However, if you can bring that average over 170, and if you have valid indicators that you have a good chance of scoring 170+, I would recommend retaking. I personally would study hard and retake a 169. The 169/170 distinction at UVA/Penn is significant because UVA's and Penn's medians are 170.

I disagree on the not retaking advice. If you got a 169, you can get a 170, even if you are only averaging in the 168-170 range. If you have a 169, you have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by a retake. Either (a) you get a 170+ and your chances increase, or (b) you get a 169- and your chances stay the same since they only care about your highest score.

Fair enough. Didn't realize the O.P. had a 3.5. In that case, s/he pretty much has to retake for a decent shot at the T14 (assuming non-URM).

169 vs 170 is to the T-14 what 166 vs 167 is to the top 30.

Would people say that's a fair distinction?

.

ED UVA on the first day of the cycle and you can probably get in with a 3.5/169.

.

soccer88 wrote:Any idea on likelihood of the GW full ride ed scholarship with 3.5 169?

I don't think there's any shot at that.

I'm a 3.5/170 and I netted Michigan and GULC. I'm held at NYU and Cornell; WL at Penn and Columbia. Didn't apply to UVA/Duke/NU/Berkeley. If I had gotten a 169, I would have retaken. A 3.5 is just not a convincing GPA.

Same, 3.5 here. I think my cycle would have been significantly different had I not hit 170+ (I scored 171).

For what it's worth, in at Penn/Duke/Cornell/GULC. Waiting on Mich/NU. The scary part about being a splitter is just not knowing who will take a chance on you. I actually thought about not ED'ing anywhere because of the hope that a T-10 would take a chance on me and I'd still have the ability to negotiate $$. Ended up ED'ing Columbia (super reach) and was deferred.

InGoodFaith wrote:ED UVA on the first day of the cycle and you can probably get in with a 3.5/169.

Below both medians? No way.

Tiago Splitter wrote:

InGoodFaith wrote:ED UVA on the first day of the cycle and you can probably get in with a 3.5/169.

Below both medians? No way.

Check LSN, I know I've seen this before.

LSN shows a yellow wall for non URMs at 169 until you get up above the GPA median.

To provide some hope for those of the 169 crew, I have the same score and have gotten into most of the lower T14 so far. No word yet on cracking the T10 though....

cactuarX3 wrote:To provide some hope for those of the 169 crew, I have the same score and have gotten into most of the lower T14 so far. No word yet on cracking the T10 though....

169 can get you into the T6, but you have to have the GPA. Where 170 becomes critical is for people with below median GPAs.

Tiago Splitter wrote:

cactuarX3 wrote:To provide some hope for those of the 169 crew, I have the same score and have gotten into most of the lower T14 so far. No word yet on cracking the T10 though....

169 can get you into the T6, but you have to have the GPA. Where 170 becomes critical is for people with below median GPAs.

True. I've seen people with 169/3.9 get into NYU. But man, 3.9-4.0+ is a really small range.

InGoodFaith wrote:

Tiago Splitter wrote:

InGoodFaith wrote:ED UVA on the first day of the cycle and you can probably get in with a 3.5/169.

Below both medians? No way.

Check LSN, I know I've seen this before.

seen it before =/= probably

I saw one non-URM in the last 4 years get in with those types of numbers