Is TLS just neurotic, or is 170 really a "bad" score? Forum

[digifly]

Well stated. And I think it's true that an unfortunate amount of people take the LSAT, get a mediocre score, go to a poor school, and end up disappointed. To me it seems that all the hubbub over the depressed legal market really only applies to "those" lawyers. People who get into T14 schools and who graduate in the top 50% of their class have a great shot at employment. Good lawyers will always be needed.

This is a terrible way to look at things. Half of the T14 end up below median, many of them with 3.8+ GPAs and 170+ LSATs. People above median at T14s strike out. "Good lawyer" is also a relatively useless term. Getting a 168 vs a 170 on the LSAT (the difference between UVA and WUSTL) doesn't make you a good lawyer. Getting high grades in law school doesn't make you a good lawyer.

Looking at the situation as if it doesn't apply to you - it only applies to those other people - is ridiculous hubris. Will going to a good school give you a better shot at being employed? Of course, but it isn't even close to a guarantee. Especially once you factor in the amount of debt that many people take out for top schools.

What I meant was this: many firms (it seems) objectively classify students at the top schools and in the tops of their classes as better candidates for employment. They will consider these candidates likely to be "good lawyers." These candidates will always be in demand. This is in response to the "holy shit the market is so saturated" arguments.

[mqt]

I got a 171 and I oscillate between thinking it is a great score and a sub par score. On here, I definitely feel like it is a below average score and nothing to be proud of. In real life, when people do this when I tell them my score, it makes me feel a little better.

This. I also found it helped to look at medians for the top schools. 171, while disappointing to me, was at or above the median for every school but Harvard, Yale and Columbia. So yes, low 170s are still fantastic scores. It's just that we're in a group of people who are largely incredibly qualified law school applicants.

NYU and Chi also have 171 medians

So, 171 would be at or above the median at these schools. Thank you for reaffirming what I already said.

[helix23]

I got a 171 and I oscillate between thinking it is a great score and a sub par score. On here, I definitely feel like it is a below average score and nothing to be proud of. In real life, when people do this when I tell them my score, it makes me feel a little better.

This. I also found it helped to look at medians for the top schools. 171, while disappointing to me, was at or above the median for every school but Harvard, Yale and Columbia. So yes, low 170s are still fantastic scores. It's just that we're in a group of people who are largely incredibly qualified law school applicants.

NYU and Chi also have 171 medians

So, 171 would be at or above the median at these schools. Thank you for reaffirming what I already said.

some rondo attitude

[smaug_]

As others have stated, it isn't that a 170 is bad, it is that a person who can score a 170 can possibly, with more effort, score higher. If you don't have a great GPA score less than 175 and you have the opportunity, you should probably retake. I don't think a 170 is necessarily a sit-out-a-cycle bad score, but there is no reason to settle for a 170.

[Greeno]

Anyone have a strong argument for why someone shouldn't retake a low-170s score?

I'm half-way convinced to retake my 171 in December.

[sinfiery]

Anyone have a strong argument for why someone shouldn't retake a low-170s score?

I'm half-way convinced to retake my 171 in December.

Effort. Money. Time.

[WhiskeynCoke]

Effort. Money. Time.

If those are good enough reasons for you to not retake the LSAT, they are good enough reasons for you not to got to law school.

[Greeno]

Effort. Money. Time.

If those are good enough reasons for you to not retake the LSAT, they are good enough reasons for you not to got to law school.

Yeah, those didn't seem very compelling to me either. How about this: I sent in an ED app to NYU already (semi-splitter, low chance of admit). Any chance they see I'm registered to retake my 171 in December and say "Wow, this kid is clearly irrational. Denied." ?

[sinfiery]

Effort. Money. Time.

If those are good enough reasons for you to not retake the LSAT, they are good enough reasons for you not to got to law school.

I disagree. Especially if you scored near your PT average after believing you knew the test.

After you know the test, room for improvement is much harder to come by then doing PTs all day.

Yeah, those didn't seem very compelling to me either. How about this: I sent in an ED app to NYU already (semi-splitter, low chance of admit). Any chance they see I'm registered to retake my 171 in December and say "Wow, this kid is clearly irrational. Denied." ?

LS's don't care about retakes. A 171 is far from spectacular at NYU. The answer is no.

[Nova]

I sent in an ED app to NYU already (semi-splitter, low chance of admit). Any chance they see I'm registered to retake my 171 in December and say "Wow, this kid is clearly irrational. Denied." ?

No

[Greeno]

Damn... might be time to brush off the ol' books. Thanks for the input guys

[WhiskeynCoke]

After you know the test, room for improvement is much harder to come by then doing PTs all day.

Not necessarily true. I was averaging around 171 before my 1st attempt, which I thought was my "peak" (30+ PT's, multiple books, prep class). Got a 167. Decided to retake.

Average for next 5 PT's jumped up to 173, realized I had a new "peak." Got a 170. Once again decided to retake.

Average for my next 15 PT's ultimately reached 177, at which point I had taken every single released test (even the feb ones). Got a 179 on the real thing.

For me, it was the pure repetition that cured me of all my performance errors. I "understood" the test before my first attempt, but I had not yet mastered "the performance." Retaking my 170, despite being told not to, was the best decision I ever made.

[JCFindley]

Retake or accept Cooley at sticker.

[jkpolk]

Effort. Money. Time.

If those are good enough reasons for you to not retake the LSAT, they are good enough reasons for you not to got to law school.

gotta think on the margins brah

[Tiago Splitter]

After you know the test, room for improvement is much harder to come by then doing PTs all day.

Not necessarily true. I was averaging around 171 before my 1st attempt, which I thought was my "peak" (30+ PT's, multiple books, prep class). Got a 167. Decided to retake.

Average for next 5 PT's jumped up to 173, realized I had a new "peak." Got a 170. Once again decided to retake.

Average for my next 15 PT's ultimately reached 177, at which point I had taken every single released test (even the feb ones). Got a 179 on the real thing.

For me, it was the pure repetition that cured me of all my performance errors. I "understood" the test before my first attempt, but I had not yet mastered "the performance." Retaking my 170, despite being told not to, was the best decision I ever made.

Excellent post. You don't know what you don't know. Someone could score a 160 after extensive studying and think they "know the test," but we would all of course find that ridiculous. We shouldn't think much differently about someone scoring a 170. And if nothing else, someone capable of scoring a 170 is capable of scoring 1-2 points higher just by getting lucky on a few 50-50 questions. Since you already have a 170, might as well play with house money and try to grab those few extra points.

[florida1949]

After you know the test, room for improvement is much harder to come by then doing PTs all day.

For me, it was the pure repetition that cured me of all my performance errors. I "understood" the test before my first attempt, but I had not yet mastered "the performance." Retaking my 170, despite being told not to, was the best decision I ever made.

Could not agree with this more...


I retook at 170--->176.

I definitely "knew the test" the first time, but I think nerves got the best of me. By studying more and having one (decent) LSAT score already under my belt, I think I was able to go into my second LSAT with much greater confidence

[gable sans stache]

I don't think a 170 is necessarily a sit-out-a-cycle bad score, but there is no reason to settle for a 170.

It was for me - seemed to put me (with my own unique application, of course) right on the cusp of scholarships. Everyone's app is different, but a few points could mean a lot - two year hiatus in my case.

I retook at 170--->176.

This is why I'm retaking - I feel like it's easier to polish the weak areas, especially with a change in prep materials, than getting ~170 in the first place.

[sinfiery]

I also retook and it was well worth it. 167-->176

But a 167 was below my score range. Of course I was going to retake.


Now, if you are averaging a 166, with a range of a 163-169 and you end up with a 170 on test day, after extensive studying (30+PTs) of the test, I would say that it would be a much harder decision to make as to retaking or not.

If you don't score outside of your high end range/near it, you would probably want to retake.


Also doing multiple PTs increases consistency, but rarely does it improve the range. Of course it can, but in general I don't think it actually improves your potential easily. Only your consistency.

[Corrupty]

As an anecdote, I retook a 171 and ended up with a much better score. Now I go to Columbia with money. If you're on the fence about this, don't be. #Yolo

[kingjones59]

As an anecdote, I retook a 171 and ended up with a much better score. Now I go to Columbia with money. If you're on the fence about this, don't be. #Yolo

I am one of those that retook a sub-170 LSAT and actually got a LOWER score. For me, atleast I put in the effort to try and do better, I think I owed myself that. Attending a T-14 in the fall so not all was lost, but could have done so with $$ with a better score. I think especially if that was your first LSAT that you owe it to yourself to atleast try one more time, it wont hurt you (didnt hurt me).

[JamMasterJ]

I got a 171 and I oscillate between thinking it is a great score and a sub par score. On here, I definitely feel like it is a below average score and nothing to be proud of. In real life, when people do this when I tell them my score, it makes me feel a little better.

This. I also found it helped to look at medians for the top schools. 171, while disappointing to me, was at or above the median for every school but Harvard, Yale and Columbia. So yes, low 170s are still fantastic scores. It's just that we're in a group of people who are largely incredibly qualified law school applicants.

NYU and Chi also have 171 medians

So, 171 would be at or above the median at these schools. Thank you for reaffirming what I already said.

[SumStalwart]

digify, you said that you have an LSAT of 170 and a 3.9 LSAC GPA? Without knowing anything else, it seems like you have a decent shot of getting into Stanford. In previous years, they seem to favor a strong GPA. However, you can definitely increase your chances with a retake.

[digifly]

digify, you said that you have an LSAT of 170 and a 3.9 LSAC GPA? Without knowing anything else, it seems like you have a decent shot of getting into Stanford. In previous years, they seem to favor a strong GPA. However, you can definitely increase your chances with a retake.

Ahem, it's digifLy. Haha, just kidding.

Well, I finish UG very soon, so you guys think it may be worth retaking in February? How will that affect my cycle? I guess it would probably be good if (and when) I'm wait listed.

[094320]

..

[SumStalwart]

My bad, digiFLY .

Yeah... it's not ideal. Ideally, you would be able to retake in December. However, February or sitting this cycle out are your other options. Sitting out the cycle and retaking would probably benefit you the most-- higher LSAT, W/E, and potentially even lower applicants.

I guess that it comes down to how long you are willing to wait to "start" your career.

Good luck!