Top Law Schools

Any 164< and 3.7> had luck with your cycle so far??

Wormfather wrote:Reverse splitters retake

+1

168 ----> 175

Check out my profile for my cycle, I'm a 164/3.77 and have been doing alright for myself so far.

teachmehowtoraji wrote:Check out my profile for my cycle, I'm a 164/3.77 and have been doing alright for myself so far.

Congrats on the acceptances!! I'm applying to a lot of the same schools as you, hope it goes just as well.

teachmehowtoraji wrote:Check out my profile for my cycle, I'm a 164/3.77 and have been doing alright for myself so far.

Alright? You have Cornell listed as a "long shot." You'd be an auto-admit at Cornell with 3-4 more points on your LSAT. You need to retake, too.

TripTrip wrote:

teachmehowtoraji wrote:Check out my profile for my cycle, I'm a 164/3.77 and have been doing alright for myself so far.

Alright? You have Cornell listed as a "long shot." You'd be an auto-admit at Cornell with 3-4 more points on your LSAT. You need to retake, too.

FWIW, I'm probably going to take a year off or so and retake/reapply, so I'm well aware. Just thought I'd cast a wide net this cycle since apps are down and see what happens.

teachmehowtoraji wrote:

TripTrip wrote:

teachmehowtoraji wrote:Check out my profile for my cycle, I'm a 164/3.77 and have been doing alright for myself so far.

Alright? You have Cornell listed as a "long shot." You'd be an auto-admit at Cornell with 3-4 more points on your LSAT. You need to retake, too.

FWIW, I'm probably going to take a year off or so and retake/reapply, so I'm well aware. Just thought I'd cast a wide net this cycle since apps are down and see what happens.

Yeah, I'm doing the same thing.

I'm 164 3.89.

Didn't apply to any huge reaches but I've gotten a few acceptances and at least one awesome scholarship

You should rename this thread "People who need to retake the LSAT unite"

.

Regulus wrote:Must write the obligatory Regulus response.... although I am pretty sure my cycle would have been killer with a 170+, it wasn't bad by any means with a 166 / 3.92.

Chicago with a 166 is about as killer as I can imagine, I'd be willing to gues you had some nasty softs though.


Edit: Grammar

.

Regulus wrote:

teachmehowtoraji wrote:

Regulus wrote:Must write the obligatory Regulus response.... although I am pretty sure my cycle would have been killer with a 170+, it wasn't bad by any means with a 166 / 3.92.

Chicago with a 166 is about as killer as I can imagine, I'd be willing to gues you had some nasty softs though.


Edit: Grammar

Naw... this is about as killer as I can imagine. (LSN)

Ahhh yeah I've seen kingsfield's cycle on the Acceptances threads...it's so disheartening seeing someone with the same LSAT as me posting on all the same threads as me withdrawing because he's in HLS. Gonna go kill myself/study LR til my eyes bleed

teachmehowtoraji wrote:Check out my profile for my cycle, I'm a 164/3.77 and have been doing alright for myself so far.

I have been, too. But that does not move RS's away from financial obstacles. No T20 is going to give a 3.9 a serious scholly if their LSAT is a 155.

JXander wrote:

teachmehowtoraji wrote:Check out my profile for my cycle, I'm a 164/3.77 and have been doing alright for myself so far.

I have been, too. But that does not move RS's away from financial obstacles. No T20 is going to give a 3.9 a serious scholly if their LSAT is a 155.

Couldn't have said it better myself (all the more reason I'm leaning towards a retake).

Regulus wrote:EDIT: I think my biggest saving factor is the fact that I'm an underrepresented minority.... 100% atheist.

That reminds me of this lulzy thread from the summer http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=187575

Nova wrote:

Regulus wrote:EDIT: I think my biggest saving factor is the fact that I'm an underrepresented minority.... 100% atheist.

That reminds me of this lulzy thread from the summer http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=187575

Looks like an absolute shitstorm of a thread (from the first ~20 posts)

Regulus wrote:

teachmehowtoraji wrote:

Regulus wrote:Must write the obligatory Regulus response.... although I am pretty sure my cycle would have been killer with a 170+, it wasn't bad by any means with a 166 / 3.92.

Chicago with a 166 is about as killer as I can imagine, I'd be willing to gues you had some nasty softs though.


Edit: Grammar

Naw... this is about as killer as I can imagine. (LSN)

EDIT: I think my biggest saving factor is the fact that I'm an underrepresented minority.... 100% atheist.

While we're certainly a minority I doubt we're underrepresented in law school (since I'm pretty sure there's no statistics on atheists in law school I'm just going to take this on faith).

And I have to throw out the standard disclaimer that while some people do very well despite mediocre-for-the-T14 LSATs, they are the exceptions that prove the rule, and they could've done even better with a retake (as Regulus admitted). Even Kingsfield probably could've gotten Y if he had retaken and gotten a 170+, though based on his user name it's possible that H was his no. 1 choice in any case.

.

.