Top Law Schools

.

One could make an argument either way, and I'm sure you'll get a lot of folks telling you to retake. A 167 is nothing to scoff at and you should be proud of your score. Many would love to be in your position, especially paired with that stellar gpa. You're looking at t14 acceptances and full rides at t20s. You could always apply and then retake in Feb for more $$$. People underestimate how much of a bump is given by applying early.

Either way, enjoy some great options and outcomes.

whodareswins wrote:One could make an argument either way, and I'm sure you'll get a lot of folks telling you to retake. A 167 is nothing to scoff at and you should be proud of your score. Many would love to be in your position, especially paired with that stellar gpa. You're looking at t14 acceptances and full rides at t20s. You could always apply and then retake in Feb for more $$$. People underestimate how much of a bump is given by applying early.

Either way, enjoy some great options and outcomes.

A 167 is a great score, and one to be proud of.

HOWEVER, you owe it to yourself to leave nothing on the table. You wouldn't leave the football field with 2 minutes left in the game, hoping that you did good enough. An added 5 points could garner 180k in scholarship money from a t14. If we include lifetime earnings, the difference could grow to 7 digits.

You should be proud. You should also keep going.

SweetTort wrote:

whodareswins wrote:One could make an argument either way, and I'm sure you'll get a lot of folks telling you to retake. A 167 is nothing to scoff at and you should be proud of your score. Many would love to be in your position, especially paired with that stellar gpa. You're looking at t14 acceptances and full rides at t20s. You could always apply and then retake in Feb for more $$$. People underestimate how much of a bump is given by applying early.

Either way, enjoy some great options and outcomes.

A 167 is a great score, and one to be proud of.

HOWEVER, you owe it to yourself to leave nothing on the table. You wouldn't leave the football field with 2 minutes left in the game, hoping that you did good enough. An added 5 points could garner 180k in scholarship money from a t14. If we include lifetime earnings, the difference could grow to 7 digits.

You should be proud. You should also keep going.

That's fair. It also depends on your gut feeling and anticipated retake score. For example, if you know you could have studied harder, or misread a LG rule, then you probabaly should retake. On the other hand, if you truly gave it all and scored on the upper end of your practice tests, then the retake is less of a given.

I was surprised and relieved that I notched a 166 and doubt that I could score more than a point higher. I'm running with that score and have already been accepted to every school in the #16-20, full ride at state school, etc.

Given that your score is still three points below the bottom end of your PT range, I'd definitely retake. Even getting to 170 means that you're above median for every non-T6 school plus NYU. With your GPA, you'll get big money all over the place. Many people (myself included) would kill for that GPA - I think it's worth just one more shot.

If you have to put off law school another year, retaking probably isn't worth it(especially for a potential 3 points that you might not get). If not then of course, why not try to get the best score possible? Getting anything 165+ is gold(you beat over 90% of the people taking the test, if you do that in law school anywhere halfway decent you'll get the coveted "biglaw" positions), especially the last several admissions cycles(maybe 5 years ago not so much) and you're not even trying to make up for a bad GPA. I'm always mystified when some on here advise people with LSAT's in the mid 160's to put off law school a year for the chance of doing even better, yet (correctly) ridicule people for expecting they'll be in the top 10% of their class. You should be thrilled with your score and go to your best option, I just don't see much upside if your ideal scenario is getting 3 points, there's no guarantee you'll get those points and if law school applications go back up next year(let's hope not) it's certainly possible that a 167 this year will get pretty similar results to a 168-170. Good luck with whatever you do.

Ferrisjso wrote:If you have to put off law school another year, retaking probably isn't worth it(especially for a potential 3 points that you might not get). If not then of course, why not try to get the best score possible? Getting anything 165+ is gold(you beat over 90% of the people taking the test, if you do that in law school anywhere halfway decent you'll get the coveted "biglaw" positions), especially the last several admissions cycles(maybe 5 years ago not so much) and you're not even trying to make up for a bad GPA. I'm always mystified when some on here advise people with LSAT's in the mid 160's to put off law school a year for the chance of doing even better, yet (correctly) ridicule people for expecting they'll be in the top 10% of their class. You should be thrilled with your score and go to your best option, I just don't see much upside if your ideal scenario is getting 3 points, there's no guarantee you'll get those points and if law school applications go back up next year(let's hope not) it's certainly possible that a 167 this year will get pretty similar results to a 168-170. Good luck with whatever you do.

Here's the upside-- going from below median at most t14's to above median, garnering hundreds of thousands in scholarship money, and avoiding crippling debt.

Also, the reason everyone is so dubious about people planning to be at the top 10% is because 1) law school grading is somewhat arbitrary and 2) your classmates are close to your work ethic/intelligence. In contrast, on the LSAT there is an objective way to win, and your opponents are basically the general population.

SweetTort wrote:

Ferrisjso wrote:If you have to put off law school another year, retaking probably isn't worth it(especially for a potential 3 points that you might not get). If not then of course, why not try to get the best score possible? Getting anything 165+ is gold(you beat over 90% of the people taking the test, if you do that in law school anywhere halfway decent you'll get the coveted "biglaw" positions), especially the last several admissions cycles(maybe 5 years ago not so much) and you're not even trying to make up for a bad GPA. I'm always mystified when some on here advise people with LSAT's in the mid 160's to put off law school a year for the chance of doing even better, yet (correctly) ridicule people for expecting they'll be in the top 10% of their class. You should be thrilled with your score and go to your best option, I just don't see much upside if your ideal scenario is getting 3 points, there's no guarantee you'll get those points and if law school applications go back up next year(let's hope not) it's certainly possible that a 167 this year will get pretty similar results to a 168-170. Good luck with whatever you do.

Here's the upside-- going from below median at most t14's to above median, garnering hundreds of thousands in scholarship money, and avoiding crippling debt.

Also, the reason everyone is so dubious about people planning to be at the top 10% is because 1) law school grading is somewhat arbitrary and 2) your classmates are close to your work ethic/intelligence. In contrast, on the LSAT there is an objective way to win, and your opponents are basically the general population.

^ All of this.

A few points can and does make a substantial difference in where you'll get accepted and with what money. You owe it to yourself to get the best deal you can.

Alexandros wrote:

SweetTort wrote:

Ferrisjso wrote:If you have to put off law school another year, retaking probably isn't worth it(especially for a potential 3 points that you might not get). If not then of course, why not try to get the best score possible? Getting anything 165+ is gold(you beat over 90% of the people taking the test, if you do that in law school anywhere halfway decent you'll get the coveted "biglaw" positions), especially the last several admissions cycles(maybe 5 years ago not so much) and you're not even trying to make up for a bad GPA. I'm always mystified when some on here advise people with LSAT's in the mid 160's to put off law school a year for the chance of doing even better, yet (correctly) ridicule people for expecting they'll be in the top 10% of their class. You should be thrilled with your score and go to your best option, I just don't see much upside if your ideal scenario is getting 3 points, there's no guarantee you'll get those points and if law school applications go back up next year(let's hope not) it's certainly possible that a 167 this year will get pretty similar results to a 168-170. Good luck with whatever you do.

Here's the upside-- going from below median at most t14's to above median, garnering hundreds of thousands in scholarship money, and avoiding crippling debt.

Also, the reason everyone is so dubious about people planning to be at the top 10% is because 1) law school grading is somewhat arbitrary and 2) your classmates are close to your work ethic/intelligence. In contrast, on the LSAT there is an objective way to win, and your opponents are basically the general population.

^ All of this.

A few points can and does make a substantial difference in where you'll get accepted and with what money. You owe it to yourself to get the best deal you can.

I already know why people are dubious about people expecting to be top 10%, I said I agreed in my post. Your chances of being in the top 10% of your class is probably going to be close to 10%. However, that same skepticism doesn't seem to exist in regards to asking people to delay their life a year to marginally improve a score that already puts them in the top 10% of test takers(or in OP's case higher). I understand the difference between a competition based grade in LS and a performance based grade on the LSAT but at the end of the day getting a 167 the first time was a difficult feat and there is no guarantee one will do better. In today's admissions environment that score absent a horrible GPA can probably get a free ride from almost any regional T1 in the country and admission with money to several T-14's(is it true that it's about to be called the T-13?). Save from the top 3, there really aren't any schools out of OP's reach this cycle(not sure if these are the dream schools OP is referring to or not) A few years ago what I described wasn't the case and next year it's possible that one or two LSAT points can yield the same admissions results.

Keep in mind I'm not saying one shouldn't retake with that score(why not try to maximize your score) but I'm saying the yield might not be worth a year of one's time. I feel it's important to say my piece on this because if I don't no one else will because most people on here are unconditionally pro retake and see drastic LSAT improvements as more likely than they actually are IMO. If someone asks "Retake or apply" and everyone tells them retake, they're probably going to just retake thinking it's a no brainier. I want to make it clear they are in a wonderful position and if they are satisfied with their current likely choices they shouldn't retake. If they have reason to believe they can do better based on their first LSAT and/or have aspirations for one of the (very few) schools that a 167 doesn't open the door for then they should retake. You are right a few points "can" make a huge difference, that doesn't mean OP will get those few points or that they will make that difference a year from now if applications rebound. Just wanted to present the other side of this equation because again if I don't do it, no one else will(that's been my experience anyway reading threads like this)

Ferrisjso wrote:

Alexandros wrote:

SweetTort wrote:

Ferrisjso wrote:If you have to put off law school another year, retaking probably isn't worth it(especially for a potential 3 points that you might not get). If not then of course, why not try to get the best score possible? Getting anything 165+ is gold(you beat over 90% of the people taking the test, if you do that in law school anywhere halfway decent you'll get the coveted "biglaw" positions), especially the last several admissions cycles(maybe 5 years ago not so much) and you're not even trying to make up for a bad GPA. I'm always mystified when some on here advise people with LSAT's in the mid 160's to put off law school a year for the chance of doing even better, yet (correctly) ridicule people for expecting they'll be in the top 10% of their class. You should be thrilled with your score and go to your best option, I just don't see much upside if your ideal scenario is getting 3 points, there's no guarantee you'll get those points and if law school applications go back up next year(let's hope not) it's certainly possible that a 167 this year will get pretty similar results to a 168-170. Good luck with whatever you do.

Here's the upside-- going from below median at most t14's to above median, garnering hundreds of thousands in scholarship money, and avoiding crippling debt.

Also, the reason everyone is so dubious about people planning to be at the top 10% is because 1) law school grading is somewhat arbitrary and 2) your classmates are close to your work ethic/intelligence. In contrast, on the LSAT there is an objective way to win, and your opponents are basically the general population.

^ All of this.

A few points can and does make a substantial difference in where you'll get accepted and with what money. You owe it to yourself to get the best deal you can.

I already know why people are dubious about people expecting to be top 10%, I said I agreed in my post. Your chances of being in the top 10% of your class is probably going to be close to 10%. However, that same skepticism doesn't seem to exist in regards to asking people to delay their life a year to marginally improve a score that already puts them in the top 10% of test takers(or in OP's case higher). I understand the difference between a competition based grade in LS and a performance based grade on the LSAT but at the end of the day getting a 167 the first time was a difficult feat and there is no guarantee one will do better. In today's admissions environment that score absent a horrible GPA can probably get a free ride from almost any regional T1 in the country and admission with money to several T-14's(is it true that it's about to be called the T-13?). Save from the top 3, there really aren't any schools out of OP's reach this cycle(not sure if these are the dream schools OP is referring to or not) A few years ago what I described wasn't the case and next year it's possible that one or two LSAT points can yield the same admissions results.

Keep in mind I'm not saying one shouldn't retake with that score(why not try to maximize your score) but I'm saying the yield might not be worth a year of one's time. I feel it's important to say my piece on this because if I don't no one else will because most people on here are unconditionally pro retake and see drastic LSAT improvements as more likely than they actually are IMO. If someone asks "Retake or apply" and everyone tells them retake, they're probably going to just retake thinking it's a no brainier. I want to make it clear they are in a wonderful position and if they are satisfied with their current likely choices they shouldn't retake. If they have reason to believe they can do better based on their first LSAT and/or have aspirations for one of the (very few) schools that a 167 doesn't open the door for then they should retake. You are right a few points "can" make a huge difference, that doesn't mean OP will get those few points or that they will make that difference a year from now if applications rebound. Just wanted to present the other side of this equation because again if I don't do it, no one else will(that's been my experience anyway reading threads like this)

OP was averaging 170-175. Excellent score though it is, they clearly performed below their capabilities, and there's good reason to think they'd do better on a retake. If OP hit their average, say 173, they'll be looking at significantly more $ and much less debt from a better school. I do think that's worth a year of one's time.

Ferrisjso wrote: I already know why people are dubious about people expecting to be top 10%, I said I agreed in my post. Your chances of being in the top 10% of your class is probably going to be close to 10%. However, that same skepticism doesn't seem to exist in regards to asking people to delay their life a year to marginally improve a score that already puts them in the top 10% of test takers(or in OP's case higher). I understand the difference between a competition based grade in LS and a performance based grade on the LSAT but at the end of the day getting a 167 the first time was a difficult feat and there is no guarantee one will do better. In today's admissions environment that score absent a horrible GPA can probably get a free ride from almost any regional T1 in the country and admission with money to several T-14's(is it true that it's about to be called the T-13?). Save from the top 3, there really aren't any schools out of OP's reach this cycle(not sure if these are the dream schools OP is referring to or not) A few years ago what I described wasn't the case and next year it's possible that one or two LSAT points can yield the same admissions results.

Keep in mind I'm not saying one shouldn't retake with that score(why not try to maximize your score) but I'm saying the yield might not be worth a year of one's time. I feel it's important to say my piece on this because if I don't no one else will because most people on here are unconditionally pro retake and see drastic LSAT improvements as more likely than they actually are IMO. If someone asks "Retake or apply" and everyone tells them retake, they're probably going to just retake thinking it's a no brainier. I want to make it clear they are in a wonderful position and if they are satisfied with their current likely choices they shouldn't retake. If they have reason to believe they can do better based on their first LSAT and/or have aspirations for one of the (very few) schools that a 167 doesn't open the door for then they should retake. You are right a few points "can" make a huge difference, that doesn't mean OP will get those few points or that they will make that difference a year from now if applications rebound. Just wanted to present the other side of this equation because again if I don't do it, no one else will(that's been my experience anyway reading threads like this)

I don't know why people have such an issue with understanding the difference between a projected curve and a forced curve.

Your 1L grades (which are the grades that matter most) are on a forced curve. So even if you have a super-great exam, you could end up at the bottom of the class if the rest of your classmates had even better exams. The professors are required by the school to only hand out a limited number of top grades.

The LSAT is a projected curve. The projection is usually pretty accurate, but it's not forced. If during one administration, 15% of test takers break 165, LSAC isn't going to go in and change a few scores to 163-164 based on what they expected the curve to be. Other students' performance has absolutely no impact on your score. More importantly, you can prepare and practice for the LSAT; you can improve your score. No matter how much preparation you do, your first semester of 1L is going to be flying blind. You have no way of knowing how good you are at law school exams (especially relative to the rest of your class) until you actually take some and get grades back.

The reason that you haven't noticed anyone presenting "the other side" in these threads is because most people on this site have figured out the rationale behind retaking for the score you want. The difference between a 167 and a 170 is (as others have pointed out) literally six figures of scholarship money. There is no evidence to support a sharp increase in LSAT takers, so the chances of everyone's medians shooting back up to pre-crash levels are slim-to-none.

I have a 3.4 GPA (lower first year GPA, but 3.86 last semester in college) from top 3 liberal arts college (also many collegiate accolades)...I am registered for the LSAT in February, hoping to apply for entry in Fall 2018. What LSAT score do I realistically need to aim for to be considered for Berkeley, Cornell, Penn, or NYU. My practice tests are a bit all over the place but the highest I have recently received was a 164 and then 168. Given that I am not applying until the Fall, should I postpone my February test date and take it in June (would rather be one and done than take it in Feb and then again in June or September). I work full-time, so feel as though the Feb test might be approaching a few weeks too quickly (one month to go), but also feel as though 4 months until the June LSAT is rather long. All test prepping advice and recommendations are welcomed.

sharpie202 wrote:I have a 3.4 GPA (lower first year GPA, but 3.86 last semester in college) from top 3 liberal arts college (also many collegiate accolades)...I am registered for the LSAT in February, hoping to apply for entry in Fall 2018. What LSAT score do I realistically need to aim for to be considered for Berkeley, Cornell, Penn, or NYU. My practice tests are a bit all over the place but the highest I have recently received was a 164 and then 168. Given that I am not applying until the Fall, should I postpone my February test date and take it in June (would rather be one and done than take it in Feb and then again in June or September). I work full-time, so feel as though the Feb test might be approaching a few weeks too quickly (one month to go), but also feel as though 4 months until the June LSAT is rather long. All test prepping advice and recommendations are welcomed.

170+, probably.

Take the LSAT only when you're ready. Only you know if that's February or June. Either score will be fine for next cycle.

sharpie202 wrote:I have a 3.4 GPA (lower first year GPA, but 3.86 last semester in college) from top 3 liberal arts college (also many collegiate accolades)...I am registered for the LSAT in February, hoping to apply for entry in Fall 2018. What LSAT score do I realistically need to aim for to be considered for Berkeley, Cornell, Penn, or NYU. My practice tests are a bit all over the place but the highest I have recently received was a 164 and then 168. Given that I am not applying until the Fall, should I postpone my February test date and take it in June (would rather be one and done than take it in Feb and then again in June or September). I work full-time, so feel as though the Feb test might be approaching a few weeks too quickly (one month to go), but also feel as though 4 months until the June LSAT is rather long. All test prepping advice and recommendations are welcomed.

as you've probably read all over this forum, a huge chunk of LS admissions is based purely on your LSAT and GPA (everyone agrees its at least 75% of your app and some say its as high as 90%). of course softs matter but usually only on the fringes, so if you dont have a high LSAT to offset a lower GPA (and vice versa) your softs arent going to come into play. Since your GPA is below the 25th percentile for all those schools youre going to need to be an LSAT score at their 75th percentile. a 168 or 169 could get you into cornell, and maybe berkeley, though you'd def need a 170+ if you want a shot at penn or nyu.

to answer your second question, as the above poster said its totally up to you when you feel like youre ready for the LSAT, if you dont feel like you could hit close to a 170 by february push it back till june.

What are some recommendations on drill exercises do you have to improve on each section? I have read in many of the forums to "drill" (which has been for me taking 3-4 35 minute timed sections of the same section and then carefully going back to see errors and corrections). But, wanted to see if any other people had some other exercises/routines that helped them!

Likewise.... What are study/drill recommendations that you had for each section? Right now, I can get 3 games completely correct (unable to fully get to the last, sometimes can but time ends during set-up or first question). RC, I can get all 3 passages right with no attempt of last, or sometimes I am able to do all 4 with 3-5 wrong overall. Logical reasoning is my weakest, but I definitely can improve, since think this is one section time isn't as much an issue. When I go slow in LR, I cna get ~19-20 right. What advice do you have? Hoping to get my score to 168-170.