JUST RETAKE BRO Forum

[emkay625]

Let's discuss another hive mind issue. Not everyone should retake. Further, TLS just assumes that retaking is like some free gift or something. No, studying for it takes mental energy and time- count all the hours you took studying for the second LSAT and multiple by 20 (what you might make waiting tables instead) studying for months to RETAKE an exam that you ALREADY STUDIED for. Unless you just mis bubbled or fucked up a logic game, you probably should not retake. If you scored 2-3 points below your avg, then that's pretty normal and you shouldn't slave away again for a marginal chance of doing better (there's stats that say second-time takers score worse on avg).

Talk about putting in a lot of effort for a slight chance at a few extra $$$ (which you could probably make waiting tables instead of studying for dat retake). That's not a rational bet. I know some one is gonna say "but I scored a 151 my first time, then learned it and made a 170." you could have saved a lot of time by studying for it correctly the first time.

The issue is most people haven't done this.

Here's what you're missing: for most folks, it's not that they poured their heart and soul into studying the first time around. Most posters who come in here and ask for advice will have kind of studied, but not to the "did all the PS bibles, did every PT available under simulated conditions, etc." level. Most people pick up a Kaplan book at Barnes and Noble, flip through it, take a couple of PTS, and call it a day. That person absolutely should study the right way and retake again.

Also, it's not a few extra $. A 3-4 point increase can mean the difference in sticker and 100K. That's a lot of money.

And LSAC's data shows the vast majority of repeaters improve their score, so I'm not sure where you got that from. Source?

(Here's the LSAC report: http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source ... erdata.pdf It's from 2013 but it's the most recent data on the issue they provide)

[Gifted Hands]

I'm trying to stop the "top law school" arrogant tone into a more humble, state-school friendly atmosphere.

1. Original post: "I am trying to 'stiphen' the TLS arrogant tone into a more humble state-school friendly atmosphere"
2. Edited 'stiphen' to "stop" (presumably after someone arrogantly pointed out that 'stiphen' is not a word)
3. Result: "I am trying to stop the TLS arrogant tone into a more humble state-school friendly atmosphere"

How does one stop something into something? Perhaps this a grammatical device that is only taught in state schools, and thus we arrogant TLS posters are simply struggling to understand your esoteric method of persuasion.

Obviously, like all issues of uncertainty or ambiguity on TLS, this situation leads to the 100% valid conclusion: retake.

180 post- you're gonna make a great lawyer with such attention to detail

[5558675309]

I'm trying to stop the "top law school" arrogant tone into a more humble, state-school friendly atmosphere.

1. Original post: "I am trying to 'stiphen' the TLS arrogant tone into a more humble state-school friendly atmosphere"
2. Edited 'stiphen' to "stop" (presumably after someone arrogantly pointed out that 'stiphen' is not a word)
3. Result: "I am trying to stop the TLS arrogant tone into a more humble state-school friendly atmosphere"

How does one stop something into something? Perhaps this a grammatical device that is only taught in state schools, and thus we arrogant TLS posters are simply struggling to understand your esoteric method of persuasion.

Obviously, like all issues of uncertainty or ambiguity on TLS, this situation leads to the 100% valid conclusion: retake.

180 post- you're gonna make a great lawyer with such attention to detail

Yeah, but only if I can stop my tendency to procrastinate into more disciplined study habits, and stiphen my aversion to long hours into the prioritization of long-term gain.

[somethingElse]

I think 5558675309 and Gifted Hands are the same person. CONSPIRACY!

[5558675309]

I think 5558675309 and Gifted Hands are the same person. CONSPIRACY!

PSA: The TLS hive-mind is conflating user accounts

[RZ5646]

Was going to try to make a good faith effort in responding to this mess but I just realized you are the same OP from the recent PSA: Borrowing is Good post so congrats you win whatever award you are going for here this week.

I'm trying to stop the "top law school" arrogant tone into a more humble, state-school friendly atmosphere.

Probably a troll, but anyway...

Isn't that a contradiction? This is literally http://www.top-law-schools.com, not meh-I-guess-I-can-just-go-to-a-state-school-and-hope-for-the-best.com

I kinda agree with your other thread about how TLS is too financially conservative, but retaking is a no-brainer. Settling for a score below 170 when you have retakes available is just plain dumb because you're leaving so much on the table.

ETA:

In OP's defense, "you should retake because you can score higher if you try harder and it will improve your prospects" is good advice, but "JUST RETAKE BRO" is not, and we've all seen "retake" used as a meme here. Memes and trolling have no place in TLS's on-topic forums. Either try to contribute something valuable or go to the lounge.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Was going to try to make a good faith effort in responding to this mess but I just realized you are the same OP from the recent PSA: Borrowing is Good post so congrats you win whatever award you are going for here this week.

I'm trying to stop the "top law school" arrogant tone into a more humble, state-school friendly atmosphere.

Some of us went to state schools, bro.

And some t14s are state schools.

[tsujimoto74]

You could make what, $30k (I'm being generous here) in the time it takes you to study for a retake? A full ride is worth about $150k, give or take, and can hinge on one LSAT point. There are very few circumstances where a retake doesn't make sense.

Stop giving bad advice.

I disagree on one lsat point but yea 30k sounds about right

With my shit GPA, one point was the difference between a full ride and probably nothing. They paid because they were desperate to keep their median that year. $150k for one point, at least in my case, is not an exaggeration.

+1. I have an underwhelming UGPA. Getting good admissions outcomes, for me, was entirely dependent on nailing the LSAT. Thankfully, I pulled that off on try #1, but I was fully prepared to keep studying and sit for the test again in September if I didn't get a score I liked in June.

There's no real downside to retaking, other than being out the cost of registering for the test, but the upside is huge.

[NYsportsFan21]

The 3 pt difference meant the world to what schools I got into and what $$ I received

[WinterComing]

And some t14s are state schools.

Nony just blew OP's mind.

Settling for a score below 170 when you have retakes available is just plain dumb because you're leaving so much on the table.

I'm taking this a little out of context, sorry, but the suggestion that anybody can get a 170 with enough elbow grease, which is repeated here fairly often, is actually the only part of the "retake" chorus with which I would quibble. The LSAT is a learnable test, and I think everyone should retake until they've maxed out their abilities. But making a 170, which is the 97th percentile, the baseline for acceptable performance would seem to set many people up to fail.

[pancakes3]

But making a 170, which is the 97th percentile, the baseline for acceptable performance would seem to set many people up to fail.

and yet during basketball halftime shows where one lucky fan gets to take the halfcourt shot to win a million dollars, they all take it. every single one. nobody ever says - this is an unreasonable expectation. i'll just take my free t-shirt and head back to the stands, thank you very much.

[somethingElse]

But making a 170, which is the 97th percentile, the baseline for acceptable performance would seem to set many people up to fail.

and yet during basketball halftime shows where one lucky fan gets to take the halfcourt shot to win a million dollars, they all take it. every single one. nobody ever says - this is an unreasonable expectation. i'll just take my free t-shirt and head back to the stands, thank you very much.

[Jordan Catalano]

I'm taking this a little out of context, sorry, but the suggestion that anybody can get a 170 with enough elbow grease, which is repeated here fairly often, is actually the only part of the "retake" chorus with which I would quibble. The LSAT is a learnable test, and I think everyone should retake until they've maxed out their abilities. But making a 170, which is the 97th percentile, the baseline for acceptable performance would seem to set many people up to fail.

Agreed. Once you get up into the high 160s, it becomes quite tricky to gain each additional point.

[WinterComing]

But making a 170, which is the 97th percentile, the baseline for acceptable performance would seem to set many people up to fail.

and yet during basketball halftime shows where one lucky fan gets to take the halfcourt shot to win a million dollars, they all take it. every single one. nobody ever says - this is an unreasonable expectation. i'll just take my free t-shirt and head back to the stands, thank you very much.

This is a particularly poor analogy. With the halfcourt shot, you either make or miss, and either get rich or leave empty-handed. The LSAT is not all or nothing. (And success at the LSAT requires a combination of natural ability and hard work, whereas a halfcourt shot is almost completely luck, for everyone on earth except maybe Steph Curry.)

Again, I said people should retake until they do the best they can. If that's a 170+, good for them. If that's a 168 or something, I'm not going to label that person a failure. And setting realistic goals will only help someone avoid burnout and frustration during their months of study. That is not, in any way, similar to missing a halfcourt shot for a million dollars.

[eagle2a]

OP is probably an adcom at some shit school

[gsy987]

OP is probably an adcom at some shit school

COOLEY LAW 4 LIFE

[Barack O'Drama]

Let's discuss another hive mind issue. Not everyone should retake. Further, TLS just assumes that retaking is like some free gift or something. No, studying for it takes mental energy and time- count all the hours you took studying for the second LSAT and multiple by 20 (what you might make waiting tables instead) studying for months to RETAKE an exam that you ALREADY STUDIED for. Unless you just mis bubbled or fucked up a logic game, you probably should not retake. If you scored 2-3 points below your avg, then that's pretty normal and you shouldn't slave away again for a marginal chance of doing better (there's stats that say second-time takers score worse on avg).

Talk about putting in a lot of effort for a slight chance at a few extra $$$ (which you could probably make waiting tables instead of studying for dat retake). That's not a rational bet. I know some one is gonna say "but I scored a 151 my first time, then learned it and made a 170." you could have saved a lot of time by studying for it correctly the first time.

Gifted Hands...you aren't too bright are you. You're probably just trying to justify your choice to not retake.

That said, you couldn't be more wrong and basically everyones' responses prove it.

1) A higher LSAT can be and IS the difference between a TTT and T14/Regional with good $$$. That translates to better employment opportunities, be it Big law PI, academia, you name it. If you don't value your options and education to be an atty, you shouldn't be one. Seriously, your reasoning skills are terrible. DON'T be an attorney. The difference between $30,000 now and free tuition AND/OR a better school is literally priceless to many.

2) Who says you cannot both work and study for a retake? I'm studying right now while working... 3 hours a day M-F and Saturday 6-8 hours. Not hard to figure out. This alone pretty much destroys your argument.

3) The LSAT is easier than Law school and law school is easier than the bar and the bar is easier than practice, etc. (Idk if this is the case, but I've heard it from more than one practicing attorney) So if you can't dedicate getting a high LSAT score now, what makes you think you will be a good attorney? It is the easiest part of the process.

Also, your argument: "but I scored a 151 my first time, then learned it and made a 170." you could have saved a lot of time by studying for it correctly the first time"

Ok...Time and experience with the LSAT are not something you may have the luxury of the first time. So much so that its almost never a bad idea to retake. Put in 2 hours a day and sit out a cycle. A year to get into your dream school with $$$ or graduate in debt from a casino-law school where you're gambling your future; doesn't seem like a hard decision to me.

I hate to feed trolls like you, but I would equally hate for some naive person looking for confirmation that giving up and applying instead of retaking is the right answer.

TL;DR The LSAT is so important that almost nothing should have more priority than it during admissions (once your GPA is set in stone)

[gsy987]

Let's discuss another hive mind issue. Not everyone should retake. Further, TLS just assumes that retaking is like some free gift or something. No, studying for it takes mental energy and time- count all the hours you took studying for the second LSAT and multiple by 20 (what you might make waiting tables instead) studying for months to RETAKE an exam that you ALREADY STUDIED for. Unless you just mis bubbled or fucked up a logic game, you probably should not retake. If you scored 2-3 points below your avg, then that's pretty normal and you shouldn't slave away again for a marginal chance of doing better (there's stats that say second-time takers score worse on avg).

Talk about putting in a lot of effort for a slight chance at a few extra $$$ (which you could probably make waiting tables instead of studying for dat retake). That's not a rational bet. I know some one is gonna say "but I scored a 151 my first time, then learned it and made a 170." you could have saved a lot of time by studying for it correctly the first time.

Gifted Hands...you aren't too bright are you. You're probably just trying to justify your choice to not retake.

That said, you couldn't be more wrong and basically everyones' responses prove it.

1) A higher LSAT can be and IS the difference between a TTT and T14/Regional with good $$$. That translates to better employment opportunities, be it Big law PI, academia, you name it. If you don't value your options and education to be an atty, you shouldn't be one. Seriously, your reasoning skills are terrible. DON'T be an attorney. The difference between $30,000 now and free tuition AND/OR a better school is literally priceless to many.

2) Who says you cannot both work and study for a retake? I'm studying right now while working... 3 hours a day M-F and Saturday 6-8 hours. Not hard to figure out. This alone pretty much destroys your argument.

3) The LSAT is easier than Law school and law school is easier than the bar and the bar is easier than practice, etc. (Idk if this is the case, but I've heard it from more than one practicing attorney) So if you can't dedicate getting a high LSAT score now, what makes you think you will be a good attorney? It is the easiest part of the process.

Also, your argument: "but I scored a 151 my first time, then learned it and made a 170." you could have saved a lot of time by studying for it correctly the first time"

Ok...Time and experience with the LSAT are not something you may have the luxury of the first time. So much so that its almost never a bad idea to retake. Put in 2 hours a day and sit out a cycle. A year to get into your dream school with $$$ or graduate in debt from a casino-law school where you're gambling muir future; doesn't seem like a hard decision to me.

I hate to feed trolls like you, but I would equally hate for some naive person looking for confirmation that giving up and applying instead of retaking is the right answer.

TL;DR The LSAT is so important that almost nothing should have more priority than it during admissions (once your GPA is set in stone)

Argument over. Game, set, match to Barack O'Drama (which may be my favorite TLS username.)

[Barack O'Drama]

Was going to try to make a good faith effort in responding to this mess but I just realized you are the same OP from the recent PSA: Borrowing is Good post so congrats you win whatever award you are going for here this week.

I'm trying to stop the "top law school" arrogant tone into a more humble, state-school friendly atmosphere.

Some of us went to state schools, bro.

When Nony said: And some t14s are state schools.



LMFAO ouch OP! Just ouch!

[Barack O'Drama]

Let's discuss another hive mind issue. Not everyone should retake. Further, TLS just assumes that retaking is like some free gift or something. No, studying for it takes mental energy and time- count all the hours you took studying for the second LSAT and multiple by 20 (what you might make waiting tables instead) studying for months to RETAKE an exam that you ALREADY STUDIED for. Unless you just mis bubbled or fucked up a logic game, you probably should not retake. If you scored 2-3 points below your avg, then that's pretty normal and you shouldn't slave away again for a marginal chance of doing better (there's stats that say second-time takers score worse on avg).

Talk about putting in a lot of effort for a slight chance at a few extra $$$ (which you could probably make waiting tables instead of studying for dat retake). That's not a rational bet. I know some one is gonna say "but I scored a 151 my first time, then learned it and made a 170." you could have saved a lot of time by studying for it correctly the first time.

Gifted Hands...you aren't too bright are you. You're probably just trying to justify your choice to not retake.

That said, you couldn't be more wrong and basically everyones' responses prove it.

1) A higher LSAT can be and IS the difference between a TTT and T14/Regional with good $$$. That translates to better employment opportunities, be it Big law PI, academia, you name it. If you don't value your options and education to be an atty, you shouldn't be one. Seriously, your reasoning skills are terrible. DON'T be an attorney. The difference between $30,000 now and free tuition AND/OR a better school is literally priceless to many.

2) Who says you cannot both work and study for a retake? I'm studying right now while working... 3 hours a day M-F and Saturday 6-8 hours. Not hard to figure out. This alone pretty much destroys your argument.

3) The LSAT is easier than Law school and law school is easier than the bar and the bar is easier than practice, etc. (Idk if this is the case, but I've heard it from more than one practicing attorney) So if you can't dedicate getting a high LSAT score now, what makes you think you will be a good attorney? It is the easiest part of the process.

Also, your argument: "but I scored a 151 my first time, then learned it and made a 170." you could have saved a lot of time by studying for it correctly the first time"

Ok...Time and experience with the LSAT are not something you may have the luxury of the first time. So much so that its almost never a bad idea to retake. Put in 2 hours a day and sit out a cycle. A year to get into your dream school with $$$ or graduate in debt from a casino-law school where you're gambling muir future; doesn't seem like a hard decision to me.

I hate to feed trolls like you, but I would equally hate for some naive person looking for confirmation that giving up and applying instead of retaking is the right answer.

TL;DR The LSAT is so important that almost nothing should have more priority than it during admissions (once your GPA is set in stone)

Argument over. Game, set, match to Barack O'Drama (which may be my favorite TLS username.)

Thanks gsy987! You seem like a really cool dude.

[Gifted Hands]

Let's discuss another hive mind issue. Not everyone should retake. Further, TLS just assumes that retaking is like some free gift or something. No, studying for it takes mental energy and time- count all the hours you took studying for the second LSAT and multiple by 20 (what you might make waiting tables instead) studying for months to RETAKE an exam that you ALREADY STUDIED for. Unless you just mis bubbled or fucked up a logic game, you probably should not retake. If you scored 2-3 points below your avg, then that's pretty normal and you shouldn't slave away again for a marginal chance of doing better (there's stats that say second-time takers score worse on avg).

Talk about putting in a lot of effort for a slight chance at a few extra $$$ (which you could probably make waiting tables instead of studying for dat retake). That's not a rational bet. I know some one is gonna say "but I scored a 151 my first time, then learned it and made a 170." you could have saved a lot of time by studying for it correctly the first time.

Gifted Hands...you aren't too bright are you. You're probably just trying to justify your choice to not retake.

That said, you couldn't be more wrong and basically everyones' responses prove it.

1) A higher LSAT can be and IS the difference between a TTT and T14/Regional with good $$$. That translates to better employment opportunities, be it Big law PI, academia, you name it. If you don't value your options and education to be an atty, you shouldn't be one. Seriously, your reasoning skills are terrible. DON'T be an attorney. The difference between $30,000 now and free tuition AND/OR a better school is literally priceless to many.

2) Who says you cannot both work and study for a retake? I'm studying right now while working... 3 hours a day M-F and Saturday 6-8 hours. Not hard to figure out. This alone pretty much destroys your argument.

3) The LSAT is easier than Law school and law school is easier than the bar and the bar is easier than practice, etc. (Idk if this is the case, but I've heard it from more than one practicing attorney) So if you can't dedicate getting a high LSAT score now, what makes you think you will be a good attorney? It is the easiest part of the process.

Also, your argument: "but I scored a 151 my first time, then learned it and made a 170." you could have saved a lot of time by studying for it correctly the first time"

Ok...Time and experience with the LSAT are not something you may have the luxury of the first time. So much so that its almost never a bad idea to retake. Put in 2 hours a day and sit out a cycle. A year to get into your dream school with $$$ or graduate in debt from a casino-law school where you're gambling your future; doesn't seem like a hard decision to me.

I hate to feed trolls like you, but I would equally hate for some naive person looking for confirmation that giving up and applying instead of retaking is the right answer.

TL;DR The LSAT is so important that almost nothing should have more priority than it during admissions (once your GPA is set in stone)

besides the irony of this sentence, i'm top 25% T1 come at me bro

[ronanOgara]

Let's discuss another hive mind issue. Not everyone should retake. Further, TLS just assumes that retaking is like some free gift or something. No, studying for it takes mental energy and time- count all the hours you took studying for the second LSAT and multiple by 20 (what you might make waiting tables instead) studying for months to RETAKE an exam that you ALREADY STUDIED for. Unless you just mis bubbled or fucked up a logic game, you probably should not retake. If you scored 2-3 points below your avg, then that's pretty normal and you shouldn't slave away again for a marginal chance of doing better (there's stats that say second-time takers score worse on avg).

Talk about putting in a lot of effort for a slight chance at a few extra $$$ (which you could probably make waiting tables instead of studying for dat retake). That's not a rational bet. I know some one is gonna say "but I scored a 151 my first time, then learned it and made a 170." you could have saved a lot of time by studying for it correctly the first time.

Gifted Hands...you aren't too bright are you. You're probably just trying to justify your choice to not retake.

That said, you couldn't be more wrong and basically everyones' responses prove it.

1) A higher LSAT can be and IS the difference between a TTT and T14/Regional with good $$$. That translates to better employment opportunities, be it Big law PI, academia, you name it. If you don't value your options and education to be an atty, you shouldn't be one. Seriously, your reasoning skills are terrible. DON'T be an attorney. The difference between $30,000 now and free tuition AND/OR a better school is literally priceless to many.

2) Who says you cannot both work and study for a retake? I'm studying right now while working... 3 hours a day M-F and Saturday 6-8 hours. Not hard to figure out. This alone pretty much destroys your argument.

3) The LSAT is easier than Law school and law school is easier than the bar and the bar is easier than practice, etc. (Idk if this is the case, but I've heard it from more than one practicing attorney) So if you can't dedicate getting a high LSAT score now, what makes you think you will be a good attorney? It is the easiest part of the process.

Also, your argument: "but I scored a 151 my first time, then learned it and made a 170." you could have saved a lot of time by studying for it correctly the first time"

Ok...Time and experience with the LSAT are not something you may have the luxury of the first time. So much so that its almost never a bad idea to retake. Put in 2 hours a day and sit out a cycle. A year to get into your dream school with $$$ or graduate in debt from a casino-law school where you're gambling your future; doesn't seem like a hard decision to me.

I hate to feed trolls like you, but I would equally hate for some naive person looking for confirmation that giving up and applying instead of retaking is the right answer.

TL;DR The LSAT is so important that almost nothing should have more priority than it during admissions (once your GPA is set in stone)

besides the irony of this sentence, i'm top 25% T1 come at me bro

At a T1??????? Wow! How did you do it??

[Gifted Hands]

Jesus, you epitomize the elitism here

[ronanOgara]

Jesus, you epitomize the elitism here

*Said right after bragging about his class and school rank.

[Gifted Hands]

Jesus, you epitomize the elitism here

*Said right after bragging about his class and school rank.

well it wasn't meant to be a brag considering that's like bottom 1/10 on this site. satire-look it up