Stop Telling People to Retake Forum

[Mikey]

So today, my list comes down to UIUC and John Marshall. I have withdrawn from all other schools.
One offers a full ride, the other offers peanuts (and I won't tell you which one is which).

full ride to JM, nothing at UIUC

weren't you saying that you were going to retake though?

[amta]

So today, my list comes down to UIUC and John Marshall. I have withdrawn from all other schools.
One offers a full ride, the other offers peanuts (and I won't tell you which one is which).

please do not ask me for gas money while i fill up my car.

[guynourmin]

So today, my list comes down to UIUC and John Marshall. I have withdrawn from all other schools.
One offers a full ride, the other offers peanuts (and I won't tell you which one is which).

please do not ask me for gas money while i fill up my car.

I just need $17 to get enough gas to get to my estranged daughters wedding in South Dakota tho

[chicagoburger]

So today, my list comes down to UIUC and John Marshall. I have withdrawn from all other schools.
One offers a full ride, the other offers peanuts (and I won't tell you which one is which).

please do not ask me for gas money while i fill up my car.

Kid, not everyone here is making less than $300,000 before law school.
I am not going to law school for money.

[amta]

So today, my list comes down to UIUC and John Marshall. I have withdrawn from all other schools.
One offers a full ride, the other offers peanuts (and I won't tell you which one is which).

please do not ask me for gas money while i fill up my car.

Kid, not everyone here is making less than $300,000 before law school.
I am not going to law school for money.

or a job, apparently.....

[Scurvy Cur]

So today, my list comes down to UIUC and John Marshall. I have withdrawn from all other schools.
One offers a full ride, the other offers peanuts (and I won't tell you which one is which).

please do not ask me for gas money while i fill up my car.

Kid, not everyone here is making less than $300,000 before law school.
I am not going to law school for money.

Look, I'm sure if you'd included that in your initial request for feedback, you'd not have gotten so many "retake" suggestions.

I think most of the people here, with a more realistic understanding of your goals, roughly outlined like "I'm essentially cost indifferent, I make 300k/yr already, but am heading back to school on a lark. I actually don't care much about employment prospects, and am mainly interested in the experience of going to school again" would all have agreed that you didn't need a retake at all, since your goals are entirely decoupled from your desire to actually use that new degree and unconstrained by such petty concerns as how you're going to pay for where you want to go.

As always, the clearer you are about what you want out of school, the better the quality of help you're going to get

[chicagoburger]

So today, my list comes down to UIUC and John Marshall. I have withdrawn from all other schools.
One offers a full ride, the other offers peanuts (and I won't tell you which one is which).

please do not ask me for gas money while i fill up my car.

Kid, not everyone here is making less than $300,000 before law school.
I am not going to law school for money.

or a job, apparently.....

From my limited experience in this whole application process, I began to think that top law schools are nothing more than a bunch of LSAT whores.
Such test driven admission process is beyond my wildest imagination. Maybe only North Korea does such kind of admission tbh.

[amta]

From my limited experience in this whole application process, I began to think that top law schools are nothing more than a bunch of LSAT whores.
Such test driven admission process is beyond my wildest imagination. Maybe only North Korea does such kind of admission tbh.

totally agree. they should let more people into law school because they are nice people.

[jjcorvino]

From my limited experience in this whole application process, I began to think that top law schools are nothing more than a bunch of LSAT whores.
Such test driven admission process is beyond my wildest imagination. Maybe only North Korea does such kind of admission tbh.

totally agree. they should let more people into law school because they are nice people.

+1, Yale I am a really nice person. I have a rescue dog and help old ladies cross the street!

[Baby Gaga]

From my limited experience in this whole application process, I began to think that top law schools are nothing more than a bunch of LSAT whores.
Such test driven admission process is beyond my wildest imagination. Maybe only North Korea does such kind of admission tbh.

totally agree. they should let more people into law school because they are nice people.

I assume that's what UVA does (I did not get into UVA)

[Johann]

So today, my list comes down to UIUC and John Marshall. I have withdrawn from all other schools.
One offers a full ride, the other offers peanuts (and I won't tell you which one is which).

either is a fine outcome. whichever will give you less regrets. id prolly roll the dice with illinois.

[zot1]

So today, my list comes down to UIUC and John Marshall. I have withdrawn from all other schools.
One offers a full ride, the other offers peanuts (and I won't tell you which one is which).

either is a fine outcome. whichever will give you less regrets. id prolly roll the dice with illinois.

Same.

[cavalier1138]

So today, my list comes down to UIUC and John Marshall. I have withdrawn from all other schools.
One offers a full ride, the other offers peanuts (and I won't tell you which one is which).

please do not ask me for gas money while i fill up my car.

Kid, not everyone here is making less than $300,000 before law school.
I am not going to law school for money.

or a job, apparently.....

From my limited experience in this whole application process, I began to think that top law schools are nothing more than a bunch of LSAT whores.
Such test driven admission process is beyond my wildest imagination. Maybe only North Korea does such kind of admission tbh.

Yeah! Fuck them! Go to John Marshall, and be the best you can be!

Please don't call me asking for a job in three years.

Also, just hilarious seeing Ferrisjso in here continually trying to justify their life choices. This is the thread that keeps on giving.

[bk1]

I died at DPRK.

[somedeadman]

So today, my list comes down to UIUC and John Marshall. I have withdrawn from all other schools.
One offers a full ride, the other offers peanuts (and I won't tell you which one is which).

please do not ask me for gas money while i fill up my car.

Kid, not everyone here is making less than $300,000 before law school.
I am not going to law school for money.

or a job, apparently.....

From my limited experience in this whole application process, I began to think that top law schools are nothing more than a bunch of LSAT whores.
Such test driven admission process is beyond my wildest imagination. Maybe only North Korea does such kind of admission tbh.

Yeah! Fuck them! Go to John Marshall, and be the best you can be!

Please don't call me asking for a job in three years.

Also, just hilarious seeing Ferrisjso in here continually trying to justify their life choices. This is the thread that keeps on giving.

I'm pretty sure they're trolls

[Capt_Beatty]

When people ask for serious advice here, the first answer they should expect is "Retake", which is very sad. Many of these seasoned TLSers don't understand that "Retake" is not an option to most of the people, nor should it.

First, the opportunity cost of retaking the test is huge. Spending one extra year of your life on this freaking stupid test should only be considered when you don't have a life, a real life.

Secondly, people know what they want and what can be reached. If I got only 3.4 gpa and I want to stay in Chicago, pass the bar, why do I need to retake to shoot for UChicago?

Thirdly, LSAT is curved. Only 30% people can get above 160. You advise all those 70% below to retake for a year. They will score differently, but most of them will be below 160 again. The "retake" suggestion simply won't work for most of the applicants mathematically speaking.

Lastly, if the person wants to ask a question regarding a school choice, we should assume that person has done the homework and covered the retake option.

So next time if you see any legit questions, please don't reply "retake".

retake the GRE and apply next year to Harvard Law, bromontana.

I think half the problem is K-JD's have 0 idea what type of law they want to practice, get sucked into biglaw to unsaddle themselves from all the debt, and quickly weld their hand to the bottle to suck away all the pain of a starch-white corporate troll environment. Me? I'm a vet. and a licensed architect, I just want to go either big construction law/land use, or in house counsel at a construction/engineering firm. worse case scenario, I'm back at a design/construction firm as an executive.

[mjb447]

I died at DPRK.

It's a really apt, though, given how test driven the DPRK is during the admissions process.

[Ferrisjso]

When people ask for serious advice here, the first answer they should expect is "Retake", which is very sad. Many of these seasoned TLSers don't understand that "Retake" is not an option to most of the people, nor should it.

First, the opportunity cost of retaking the test is huge. Spending one extra year of your life on this freaking stupid test should only be considered when you don't have a life, a real life.

Secondly, people know what they want and what can be reached. If I got only 3.4 gpa and I want to stay in Chicago, pass the bar, why do I need to retake to shoot for UChicago?

Thirdly, LSAT is curved. Only 30% people can get above 160. You advise all those 70% below to retake for a year. They will score differently, but most of them will be below 160 again. The "retake" suggestion simply won't work for most of the applicants mathematically speaking.

Lastly, if the person wants to ask a question regarding a school choice, we should assume that person has done the homework and covered the retake option.

So next time if you see any legit questions, please don't reply "retake".

retake the GRE and apply next year to Harvard Law, bromontana.

I think half the problem is K-JD's have 0 idea what type of law they want to practice, get sucked into biglaw to unsaddle themselves from all the debt, and quickly weld their hand to the bottle to suck away all the pain of a starch-white corporate troll environment. Me? I'm a vet. and a licensed architect, I just want to go either big construction law/land use, or in house counsel at a construction/engineering firm. worse case scenario, I'm back at a design/construction firm as an executive.

I think chicago projected my thoughts more clearly than I usually do. I don't think retake is never the right choice and they're are times when the OP really does need to retake but I feel like we have a very high concentration of high LSAT scorers on here with the mentality "if I did it, so can you, you must have just not studied hard enough" and that their stories represent the reality for the average LSAT test taker and/or law school 1L, when that just isn't true. Another thing that chicago brings up that's an excellent point, is that assumption I often see, that people who come on here for help haven't thought about their situation at all and are clueless about the legal landscape(not saying this is always the case, it isn't). People who post on here probably have been lurking for a good while beforehand before asking their own questions and I have no doubt that many are intimidated by the way above average/average/below average applicants are treated here, which is why it's important to treat everyone with kindness because if things get to out of control people will be discouraged from even asking.

All the STEM kids should seriously follow the GRE advice though, you have no idea how lucky you are to have an alternative that suits to your strengths.

[UVA2B]

When people ask for serious advice here, the first answer they should expect is "Retake", which is very sad. Many of these seasoned TLSers don't understand that "Retake" is not an option to most of the people, nor should it.

First, the opportunity cost of retaking the test is huge. Spending one extra year of your life on this freaking stupid test should only be considered when you don't have a life, a real life.

Secondly, people know what they want and what can be reached. If I got only 3.4 gpa and I want to stay in Chicago, pass the bar, why do I need to retake to shoot for UChicago?

Thirdly, LSAT is curved. Only 30% people can get above 160. You advise all those 70% below to retake for a year. They will score differently, but most of them will be below 160 again. The "retake" suggestion simply won't work for most of the applicants mathematically speaking.

Lastly, if the person wants to ask a question regarding a school choice, we should assume that person has done the homework and covered the retake option.

So next time if you see any legit questions, please don't reply "retake".

retake the GRE and apply next year to Harvard Law, bromontana.

I think half the problem is K-JD's have 0 idea what type of law they want to practice, get sucked into biglaw to unsaddle themselves from all the debt, and quickly weld their hand to the bottle to suck away all the pain of a starch-white corporate troll environment. Me? I'm a vet. and a licensed architect, I just want to go either big construction law/land use, or in house counsel at a construction/engineering firm. worse case scenario, I'm back at a design/construction firm as an executive.

I think chicago projected my thoughts more clearly than I usually do. I don't think retake is never the right choice and they're are times when the OP really does need to retake but I feel like we have a very high concentration of high LSAT scorers on here with the mentality "if I did it, so can you, you must have just not studied hard enough" and that their stories represent the reality for the average LSAT test taker and/or law school 1L, when that just isn't true. Another thing that chicago brings up that's an excellent point, is that assumption I often see, that people who come on here for help haven't thought about their situation at all and are clueless about the legal landscape(not saying this is always the case, it isn't). People who post on here probably have been lurking for a good while beforehand before asking their own questions and I have no doubt that many are intimidated by the way above average/average/below average applicants are treated here, which is why it's important to treat everyone with kindness because if things get to out of control people will be discouraged from even asking.

All the STEM kids should seriously follow the GRE advice though, you have no idea how lucky you are to have an alternative that suits to your strengths.

I really wish you'd stop falsely conflating tempered and rational approaches to this decision process with negativity and neigh saying. Are there people more conservative than you are in the cost-benefit analysis of deciding to invest thousands of dollars in a law school education with relatively marginal chances of a desired outcome? Absolutely. But you consistently and recklessly try to suggest that people advising against taking on serious debt for marginal chances at their desired outcomes are just pessimists who don't believe in the power of personal drive. Or that the data we have available to us isn't representative of the chances of achieving those goals. It's pretty disconcerting that you honestly believe those advising against taking on serious debt for slim chance of a desired outcome are the problem here.

I know you've already set your mind on all of this, and I've given up trying to convince you that your advice is reckless and unnecessary, but I hope others understand that those telling people to "retake" or "figure out your goals before you make this decision" genuinely want people to make good decisions that will satisfy their pursuit of professional goals while not going into ruinous debt to do so.

I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall continuing to argue for unbiased cost-benefit analysis, but it bears repeating. No decision is good or bad in a vacuum. Given the totality of the circumstances, a good decision for one can be horrible for another. It's up to the circumstance to inform that.

[Capt_Beatty]

When people ask for serious advice here, the first answer they should expect is "Retake", which is very sad. Many of these seasoned TLSers don't understand that "Retake" is not an option to most of the people, nor should it.

First, the opportunity cost of retaking the test is huge. Spending one extra year of your life on this freaking stupid test should only be considered when you don't have a life, a real life.

Secondly, people know what they want and what can be reached. If I got only 3.4 gpa and I want to stay in Chicago, pass the bar, why do I need to retake to shoot for UChicago?

Thirdly, LSAT is curved. Only 30% people can get above 160. You advise all those 70% below to retake for a year. They will score differently, but most of them will be below 160 again. The "retake" suggestion simply won't work for most of the applicants mathematically speaking.

Lastly, if the person wants to ask a question regarding a school choice, we should assume that person has done the homework and covered the retake option.

So next time if you see any legit questions, please don't reply "retake".

retake the GRE and apply next year to Harvard Law, bromontana.

I think half the problem is K-JD's have 0 idea what type of law they want to practice, get sucked into biglaw to unsaddle themselves from all the debt, and quickly weld their hand to the bottle to suck away all the pain of a starch-white corporate troll environment. Me? I'm a vet. and a licensed architect, I just want to go either big construction law/land use, or in house counsel at a construction/engineering firm. worse case scenario, I'm back at a design/construction firm as an executive.

I think chicago projected my thoughts more clearly than I usually do. I don't think retake is never the right choice and they're are times when the OP really does need to retake but I feel like we have a very high concentration of high LSAT scorers on here with the mentality "if I did it, so can you, you must have just not studied hard enough" and that their stories represent the reality for the average LSAT test taker and/or law school 1L, when that just isn't true. Another thing that chicago brings up that's an excellent point, is that assumption I often see, that people who come on here for help haven't thought about their situation at all and are clueless about the legal landscape(not saying this is always the case, it isn't). People who post on here probably have been lurking for a good while beforehand before asking their own questions and I have no doubt that many are intimidated by the way above average/average/below average applicants are treated here, which is why it's important to treat everyone with kindness because if things get to out of control people will be discouraged from even asking.

All the STEM kids should seriously follow the GRE advice though, you have no idea how lucky you are to have an alternative that suits to your strengths.

I really wish you'd stop falsely conflating tempered and rational approaches to this decision process with negativity and neigh saying. Are there people more conservative than you are in the cost-benefit analysis of deciding to invest thousands of dollars in a law school education with relatively marginal chances of a desired outcome? Absolutely. But you consistently and recklessly try to suggest that people advising against taking on serious debt for marginal chances at their desired outcomes are just pessimists who don't believe in the power of personal drive. Or that the data we have available to us isn't representative of the chances of achieving those goals. It's pretty disconcerting that you honestly believe those advising against taking on serious debt for slim chance of a desired outcome are the problem here.

I know you've already set your mind on all of this, and I've given up trying to convince you that your advice is reckless and unnecessary, but I hope others understand that those telling people to "retake" or "figure out your goals before you make this decision" genuinely want people to make good decisions that will satisfy their pursuit of professional goals while not going into ruinous debt to do so.

I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall continuing to argue for unbiased cost-benefit analysis, but it bears repeating. No decision is good or bad in a vacuum. Given the totality of the circumstances, a good decision for one can be horrible for another. It's up to the circumstance to inform that.

and that their stories represent the reality for the average LSAT test taker and/or law school 1L, when that just isn't true.

The reality is that the average LSAT test taker is a numerical entity and has no bearing on the subjectivity operating with such precocious vivaciousness here. For a person who even ventures to post on TLS has probably already tipped the scales of the average LSAT test taker, and has no doubt cast themselves a hand to which they must fritter and waste their days leading up to and after their LSAT take sweltering in the incubatory morphosis of OL life.

retake has been a catchphrase, mantra, and espirit de corps (?) of tls for years, use it recklessly!

[UVA2B]

When people ask for serious advice here, the first answer they should expect is "Retake", which is very sad. Many of these seasoned TLSers don't understand that "Retake" is not an option to most of the people, nor should it.

First, the opportunity cost of retaking the test is huge. Spending one extra year of your life on this freaking stupid test should only be considered when you don't have a life, a real life.

Secondly, people know what they want and what can be reached. If I got only 3.4 gpa and I want to stay in Chicago, pass the bar, why do I need to retake to shoot for UChicago?

Thirdly, LSAT is curved. Only 30% people can get above 160. You advise all those 70% below to retake for a year. They will score differently, but most of them will be below 160 again. The "retake" suggestion simply won't work for most of the applicants mathematically speaking.

Lastly, if the person wants to ask a question regarding a school choice, we should assume that person has done the homework and covered the retake option.

So next time if you see any legit questions, please don't reply "retake".

retake the GRE and apply next year to Harvard Law, bromontana.

I think half the problem is K-JD's have 0 idea what type of law they want to practice, get sucked into biglaw to unsaddle themselves from all the debt, and quickly weld their hand to the bottle to suck away all the pain of a starch-white corporate troll environment. Me? I'm a vet. and a licensed architect, I just want to go either big construction law/land use, or in house counsel at a construction/engineering firm. worse case scenario, I'm back at a design/construction firm as an executive.

I think chicago projected my thoughts more clearly than I usually do. I don't think retake is never the right choice and they're are times when the OP really does need to retake but I feel like we have a very high concentration of high LSAT scorers on here with the mentality "if I did it, so can you, you must have just not studied hard enough" and that their stories represent the reality for the average LSAT test taker and/or law school 1L, when that just isn't true. Another thing that chicago brings up that's an excellent point, is that assumption I often see, that people who come on here for help haven't thought about their situation at all and are clueless about the legal landscape(not saying this is always the case, it isn't). People who post on here probably have been lurking for a good while beforehand before asking their own questions and I have no doubt that many are intimidated by the way above average/average/below average applicants are treated here, which is why it's important to treat everyone with kindness because if things get to out of control people will be discouraged from even asking.

All the STEM kids should seriously follow the GRE advice though, you have no idea how lucky you are to have an alternative that suits to your strengths.

I really wish you'd stop falsely conflating tempered and rational approaches to this decision process with negativity and neigh saying. Are there people more conservative than you are in the cost-benefit analysis of deciding to invest thousands of dollars in a law school education with relatively marginal chances of a desired outcome? Absolutely. But you consistently and recklessly try to suggest that people advising against taking on serious debt for marginal chances at their desired outcomes are just pessimists who don't believe in the power of personal drive. Or that the data we have available to us isn't representative of the chances of achieving those goals. It's pretty disconcerting that you honestly believe those advising against taking on serious debt for slim chance of a desired outcome are the problem here.

I know you've already set your mind on all of this, and I've given up trying to convince you that your advice is reckless and unnecessary, but I hope others understand that those telling people to "retake" or "figure out your goals before you make this decision" genuinely want people to make good decisions that will satisfy their pursuit of professional goals while not going into ruinous debt to do so.

I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall continuing to argue for unbiased cost-benefit analysis, but it bears repeating. No decision is good or bad in a vacuum. Given the totality of the circumstances, a good decision for one can be horrible for another. It's up to the circumstance to inform that.

and that their stories represent the reality for the average LSAT test taker and/or law school 1L, when that just isn't true.

The reality is that the average LSAT test taker is a numerical entity and has no bearing on the subjectivity operating with such precocious vivaciousness here. For a person who even ventures to post on TLS has probably already tipped the scales of the average LSAT test taker, and has no doubt cast themselves a hand to which they must fritter and waste their days leading up to and after their LSAT take sweltering in the incubatory morphosis of OL life.

retake has been a catchphrase, mantra, and espirit de corps (?) of tls for years, use it recklessly!

Not trying to be a jerk, but what's your point here?

[Capt_Beatty]

When people ask for serious advice here, the first answer they should expect is "Retake", which is very sad. Many of these seasoned TLSers don't understand that "Retake" is not an option to most of the people, nor should it.

First, the opportunity cost of retaking the test is huge. Spending one extra year of your life on this freaking stupid test should only be considered when you don't have a life, a real life.

Secondly, people know what they want and what can be reached. If I got only 3.4 gpa and I want to stay in Chicago, pass the bar, why do I need to retake to shoot for UChicago?

Thirdly, LSAT is curved. Only 30% people can get above 160. You advise all those 70% below to retake for a year. They will score differently, but most of them will be below 160 again. The "retake" suggestion simply won't work for most of the applicants mathematically speaking.

Lastly, if the person wants to ask a question regarding a school choice, we should assume that person has done the homework and covered the retake option.

So next time if you see any legit questions, please don't reply "retake".

retake the GRE and apply next year to Harvard Law, bromontana.

I think half the problem is K-JD's have 0 idea what type of law they want to practice, get sucked into biglaw to unsaddle themselves from all the debt, and quickly weld their hand to the bottle to suck away all the pain of a starch-white corporate troll environment. Me? I'm a vet. and a licensed architect, I just want to go either big construction law/land use, or in house counsel at a construction/engineering firm. worse case scenario, I'm back at a design/construction firm as an executive.

I think chicago projected my thoughts more clearly than I usually do. I don't think retake is never the right choice and they're are times when the OP really does need to retake but I feel like we have a very high concentration of high LSAT scorers on here with the mentality "if I did it, so can you, you must have just not studied hard enough" and that their stories represent the reality for the average LSAT test taker and/or law school 1L, when that just isn't true. Another thing that chicago brings up that's an excellent point, is that assumption I often see, that people who come on here for help haven't thought about their situation at all and are clueless about the legal landscape(not saying this is always the case, it isn't). People who post on here probably have been lurking for a good while beforehand before asking their own questions and I have no doubt that many are intimidated by the way above average/average/below average applicants are treated here, which is why it's important to treat everyone with kindness because if things get to out of control people will be discouraged from even asking.

All the STEM kids should seriously follow the GRE advice though, you have no idea how lucky you are to have an alternative that suits to your strengths.

I really wish you'd stop falsely conflating tempered and rational approaches to this decision process with negativity and neigh saying. Are there people more conservative than you are in the cost-benefit analysis of deciding to invest thousands of dollars in a law school education with relatively marginal chances of a desired outcome? Absolutely. But you consistently and recklessly try to suggest that people advising against taking on serious debt for marginal chances at their desired outcomes are just pessimists who don't believe in the power of personal drive. Or that the data we have available to us isn't representative of the chances of achieving those goals. It's pretty disconcerting that you honestly believe those advising against taking on serious debt for slim chance of a desired outcome are the problem here.

I know you've already set your mind on all of this, and I've given up trying to convince you that your advice is reckless and unnecessary, but I hope others understand that those telling people to "retake" or "figure out your goals before you make this decision" genuinely want people to make good decisions that will satisfy their pursuit of professional goals while not going into ruinous debt to do so.

I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall continuing to argue for unbiased cost-benefit analysis, but it bears repeating. No decision is good or bad in a vacuum. Given the totality of the circumstances, a good decision for one can be horrible for another. It's up to the circumstance to inform that.

and that their stories represent the reality for the average LSAT test taker and/or law school 1L, when that just isn't true.

The reality is that the average LSAT test taker is a numerical entity and has no bearing on the subjectivity operating with such precocious vivaciousness here. For a person who even ventures to post on TLS has probably already tipped the scales of the average LSAT test taker, and has no doubt cast themselves a hand to which they must fritter and waste their days leading up to and after their LSAT take sweltering in the incubatory morphosis of OL life.

retake has been a catchphrase, mantra, and espirit de corps (?) of tls for years, use it recklessly!

Not trying to be a jerk, but what's your point here?

it was an anachronistic post, i think. what was your abbrvt'ed point up there?

[uion1715]

Again, I would rather retake the LSAT rather than getting in a $$$ of debt and having to only eat one meal a day and live without heating. But that's just me.

[UVA2B]

When people ask for serious advice here, the first answer they should expect is "Retake", which is very sad. Many of these seasoned TLSers don't understand that "Retake" is not an option to most of the people, nor should it.

First, the opportunity cost of retaking the test is huge. Spending one extra year of your life on this freaking stupid test should only be considered when you don't have a life, a real life.

Secondly, people know what they want and what can be reached. If I got only 3.4 gpa and I want to stay in Chicago, pass the bar, why do I need to retake to shoot for UChicago?

Thirdly, LSAT is curved. Only 30% people can get above 160. You advise all those 70% below to retake for a year. They will score differently, but most of them will be below 160 again. The "retake" suggestion simply won't work for most of the applicants mathematically speaking.

Lastly, if the person wants to ask a question regarding a school choice, we should assume that person has done the homework and covered the retake option.

So next time if you see any legit questions, please don't reply "retake".

retake the GRE and apply next year to Harvard Law, bromontana.

I think half the problem is K-JD's have 0 idea what type of law they want to practice, get sucked into biglaw to unsaddle themselves from all the debt, and quickly weld their hand to the bottle to suck away all the pain of a starch-white corporate troll environment. Me? I'm a vet. and a licensed architect, I just want to go either big construction law/land use, or in house counsel at a construction/engineering firm. worse case scenario, I'm back at a design/construction firm as an executive.

I think chicago projected my thoughts more clearly than I usually do. I don't think retake is never the right choice and they're are times when the OP really does need to retake but I feel like we have a very high concentration of high LSAT scorers on here with the mentality "if I did it, so can you, you must have just not studied hard enough" and that their stories represent the reality for the average LSAT test taker and/or law school 1L, when that just isn't true. Another thing that chicago brings up that's an excellent point, is that assumption I often see, that people who come on here for help haven't thought about their situation at all and are clueless about the legal landscape(not saying this is always the case, it isn't). People who post on here probably have been lurking for a good while beforehand before asking their own questions and I have no doubt that many are intimidated by the way above average/average/below average applicants are treated here, which is why it's important to treat everyone with kindness because if things get to out of control people will be discouraged from even asking.

All the STEM kids should seriously follow the GRE advice though, you have no idea how lucky you are to have an alternative that suits to your strengths.

I really wish you'd stop falsely conflating tempered and rational approaches to this decision process with negativity and neigh saying. Are there people more conservative than you are in the cost-benefit analysis of deciding to invest thousands of dollars in a law school education with relatively marginal chances of a desired outcome? Absolutely. But you consistently and recklessly try to suggest that people advising against taking on serious debt for marginal chances at their desired outcomes are just pessimists who don't believe in the power of personal drive. Or that the data we have available to us isn't representative of the chances of achieving those goals. It's pretty disconcerting that you honestly believe those advising against taking on serious debt for slim chance of a desired outcome are the problem here.

I know you've already set your mind on all of this, and I've given up trying to convince you that your advice is reckless and unnecessary, but I hope others understand that those telling people to "retake" or "figure out your goals before you make this decision" genuinely want people to make good decisions that will satisfy their pursuit of professional goals while not going into ruinous debt to do so.

I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall continuing to argue for unbiased cost-benefit analysis, but it bears repeating. No decision is good or bad in a vacuum. Given the totality of the circumstances, a good decision for one can be horrible for another. It's up to the circumstance to inform that.

and that their stories represent the reality for the average LSAT test taker and/or law school 1L, when that just isn't true.

The reality is that the average LSAT test taker is a numerical entity and has no bearing on the subjectivity operating with such precocious vivaciousness here. For a person who even ventures to post on TLS has probably already tipped the scales of the average LSAT test taker, and has no doubt cast themselves a hand to which they must fritter and waste their days leading up to and after their LSAT take sweltering in the incubatory morphosis of OL life.

retake has been a catchphrase, mantra, and espirit de corps (?) of tls for years, use it recklessly!

Not trying to be a jerk, but what's your point here?

it was an anachronistic post, i think. what was your abbrvt'ed point up there?

The poster I quoted conflates reality with negativity, and it's not helpful for anyone. Was that not clear?

[A. Nony Mouse]

@ferrisjo - you overestimate a lot of people who ask for advice here, who don't actually know very much about the legal landscape and haven't actually lurked and gathered information before they post (that's fine, there's no quiz before you can post and I don't mean it as a criticism at all, but it colors how people here respond). Regardless, though, if someone doesn't demonstrate that they have actually thought carefully about the legal landscape there isn't actually any reason to assume they have. There's a reason why people want quite a lot of info before advising someone.

Re: Beatty - I took that to mean that the "average" LSAT taker is a statistical fiction, and that someone who finds TLS is already probably more informed/looking to be informed than the average. And also to ferrisjo, TLS isn't a random sample and so you can't say "TLS posters don't represent the average!"

(Also I don't understand why you're so optimistic about good outcomes from the schools you're considering yet so pessimistic about good outcomes from retaking the LSAT. Why do you think you'll beat the employment stats but not the LSAT stats?)