Is retake always the answer? Forum

[snooze]

Disclaimer: 0L

The most recent W&M thread (168/3.02, etc.) got me thinking. Is retake always the answer? Then I played with mylsn.info. It seems as if the 170-ish/3.0 combinations yields better results (in terms of admissions as well as scholly) than the 175+/3.0 combinations? Is it because the 175+/3.0 sample is too small?

[toothbrush]

are you going to construe an argument that getting a 170-174 is sometimes better than getting a 175-180?

[Mullens]

Are you asking if a 170 is better than a 175? lol no

[bombaysippin]

yes.

[snooze]

All I'm saying is that particular piece of TLS wisdom may not be empirically supported, from what I've been seeing.

[toothbrush]

All I'm saying is that particular piece of TLS wisdom may not be empirically supported, from what I've been seeing.

Likely 'cause of small sample.

What I and the other 2 posters above are trying to say is that you're making an asinine argument - that a 170 > 175.

[Ricky-Bobby]

I don't see how the data backs this up. The 175+ people didn't apply as heavily to the lower schools, but in almost all cases they fared better overall.

eta: small sample size is also credited. you're looking at ~15 applicants with 170-174 and ~9 with 175+. individual differences like softs matter a lot more on this level of scrutiny

[03152016]

with those powerful analytical skills i know u r going 2 b an excellent lawyer op

[BillsFan9907]

Disclaimer: 0L

The most recent W&M thread (168/3.02, etc.) got me thinking. Is retake always the answer? Then I played with mylsn.info. It seems as if the 170-ish/3.0 combinations yields better results (in terms of admissions as well as scholly) than the 175+/3.0 combinations? Is it because the 175+/3.0 sample is too small?

It might be yield protection. They assume you won't be going to William and Mary with a 175.

[daleearnhardt123]

OP has caught on to an emerging trend in law school admissions. Higher scores are quickly becoming frowned upon. Admissions directors know that a high-LSAT scorer may consider him/herself too good for doc review monkey work. Accordingly , such a graduate may instead choose to be unemployed. This is bad for the schools LST #s.

Gradually schools have become much more receptive to 170s than 175s and the trend really looks like it's pushing down to 165s being better than 170s. OP, don't listen to the ppl in this thread. If I were you I would stop retaking if my practice tests started breaking the 165 mark .

[Typhoon24]

it's a good answer

[snooze]

OP has caught on to an emerging trend in law school admissions. Higher scores are quickly becoming frowned upon. Admissions directors know that a high-LSAT scorer may consider him/herself too good for doc review monkey work. Accordingly , such a graduate may instead choose to be unemployed. This is bad for the schools LST #s.

Gradually schools have become much more receptive to 170s than 175s and the trend really looks like it's pushing down to 165s being better than 170s. OP, don't listen to the ppl in this thread. If I were you I would stop retaking if my practice tests started breaking the 165 mark .

lol, i see what you did there.

[Mullens]

To answer the thread title and ignore OP's ridiculous assertion that 170>175, retake is not *always* the answer. Only the Sith deal in absolutes. There are probably diminishing returns once you hit a specific school's 75th percentile as it doesn't affect any of their reported USNWR stats and I don't think I would ever tell someone to retake a 177+ even if they were consistently hitting 180s on practice tests. Retaking takes time and effort but it is usually the correct answer.

[snooze]

Just to clarify, the purpose of this thread isn't arguing 170>175 (when did I ever say that?). Also, obviously the title is misleading.

Granted, all I'm doing is to suggest, with some empirical support (I'd like to believe), that 170ish LSAT combinations of splitters may have performed better than 175+ LSAT combinations. Obviously, the question comes back to the sample size.

[ilikebaseball]

Just to clarify, the purpose of this thread isn't arguing 170>175 (when did I ever say that?). Also, obviously the title is misleading.

Granted, all I'm doing is to suggest, with some empirical support (I'd like to believe), that 170ish LSAT combinations of splitters may have performed better than 175+ LSAT combinations. Obviously, the question comes back to the sample size.

And you have to consider that people with 175 plus, youd think would be exclusive to top 10 schools

[Tiago Splitter]

Only at Penn, where scoring too high significantly increases the chances of yield protection.

[Cradle6]

Sample size and yield protect probably explain the data you're seeing.

(Haven't looked myself)