Stop Telling People to Retake Forum

[smaug]

Actually I'm going to change my answer. "Don't go to law school" is really the better advice and should probably replace "retake" as the go to.

Yes people on a law forum must really love their profession. Jeez lmfao.

I enjoy my job but still tell people they shouldn't go.

The costs to entry into the profession are too high and the best case scenario for most students at real schools is also the modal outcome... which is pretty fucked up.

For people who are intelligent and driven, I push the work, then do a top MBA program line hard now.

If you're a dumb I'm too lazy to give you advice so you can go to law school or something, I don't care.

(The above excepts people who want to do like, actual public interest work or want to do (non white collar) criminal work. Those people can go to law school w/o the snark).

[20170322]

RemindMe! three years.

[Johann]

I think it's helpful for people who aren't aware what a retake could mean for them. But at the same time it's not usually helpful to someone who has taken twice, is between 2 schools, and doesn't care about Biglaw. I don't think I ever tell anyone to retake (not because I wouldn't but because tls so exhaustively covers it) because with tithe retake chorus a bunch of actually useful information is omitted or drowned out (like repayment plans, actual outcomes from
Schools etc).

Tls as a whole is very risk averse. They favor retaking and that's why most of tls goes to T14 or doesn't go to law school. all comes down to your risk levels and point in your life.

[Johann]

Same with "big law", so many times people don't even mention big law when asking back about a school and people are like "well the school places this many people in big law, so it's a bad decision. What's sad is this discourages people from lower ranked schools from taking advantage of these resources.

People don't say this unless someone says that they want a job in big law, but is looking at schools with poor placement in biglaw. Which happens here quite a bit.

I went to a lower-ranked school. I don't want to scare anyone away from the resources TLS can offer. But I also want people to make absolutely, completely informed decisions.

Also stop focusing on retaking during undergrad. There are lots of people making the decision to go to law school at all times of their life. You don't only get a shot at the LSAT during UG.

Tbf i feel like people here sometimes assume big law if an applicant is considering an option that would leave them $150,000 in debt since it's hard to pay that down on a non-big law salary.

Plsf and re/paye make it doable. Almost everyone I know has 6 figure debt from a ttt and is doing fine with home ownership, vacations, eating out and partying etc. I don't know anyone that has a law degree and lives a below middle class life.

[cavalier1138]

All law students deserve a friendly environment where they could discuss their career with like minded people, not just T18 people!

As mentioned, you already get plenty of friendly feedback (probably too much) from the relatives and pre-law counselors telling you, "Sure, go to Florida Coastal for $150k. You're smart, so you'll succeed wherever you go; just give it your all, tiger." And then I assume they tousle your hair or toss you a baseball mitt so you can go play catch out in the yard and talk about how great your opportunities are.

If you want to discuss career paths, then that's exactly what happens here. You just seem to be upset that people are portraying the financial and career-related realities of law school instead of this fantastical portrait that you've painted for yourself. Law school is not for everyone, and yes, most people who take the LSAT should not be going to law school in the first place. Part of why we're in the middle of a pretty abysmal career market with skyrocketing law school tuition is precisely because too many people who have no business going to law school were given the chance to go, and unscrupulous people saw the chance to profit off of their ambition.

Not explaining the reality of law school and legal job outcomes to prospective students is irresponsible.

No one in their right mind would advise someone to go to Florida Coastal for 150k! I've gotten very negative commentary for example thinking 120k at a school like W+M or W+L is a fine deal, or paying about 100-150k to go to the regional school in the area you want to practice. Saying that's the same as Florida Coastal(even for free) is pure false equivalency, only real schools in Florida are FU, FSU, Miami, Stetson and maybe FIU? Let's not compare places that are about to lose ABA accreditation to regional schools. People should be able to tell the difference between friendly people who don't know what the hell they're talking about and friendly people who do!

Explaining debt, the horrible interest and the job market is responsible but you guys go way to far.

I'm glad that your big takeaway from that was that I didn't reference the specific dumb financial decisions you advocate.

[TLSModBot]

The rampant strawmen murders in this thread are my favorite part

"Well when TLS says to retake no matter what in all circumstances, that's still bad!"

(TLS consensus does not do this)

"Well TLS hive mind are all T14orBust!"

(No they're not)

[AJordan]

Was hoping, selfishly, that this thread was not altruistic in nature but rather akin to "tapping the glass" in pokerspeak. Was let down. I selfishly agree with the title. I don't want you folks who did better than I did in undergrad taking my seat/scholarship money. By all means, don't retake.

[Lahtso Nuggin]

Uh, does no one wonder if this OP is even serious? I mean who doesn't prepare enough to know the importance of the LSAT to the point they don't know how to do games and ALSO thinks they're going to (apparently) take off three years from working to go to LS to go straight into solo practice. I mean unless you're unemployed you might as well stay where you are now working outside of the law cause with preparation and studying skills that you have voluntarily owned up to it would seem likely that you'll be employed outside the law after LS as well. Presumably this person WILL actually GAF enough to realize they'll potentially need to study for that BAR thing, or maybe being tippy top in your class at John Marshal will take care of that as well. OP must be flame.

[waldorf]

I think it's helpful for people who aren't aware what a retake could mean for them. But at the same time it's not usually helpful to someone who has taken twice, is between 2 schools, and doesn't care about Biglaw. I don't think I ever tell anyone to retake (not because I wouldn't but because tls so exhaustively covers it) because with tithe retake chorus a bunch of actually useful information is omitted or drowned out (like repayment plans, actual outcomes from
Schools etc).

Tls as a whole is very risk averse. They favor retaking and that's why most of tls goes to T14 or doesn't go to law school. all comes down to your risk levels and point in your life.

I agree, especially with the bolded. I think a lot of people who come on here are ignorant (not necessarily on purpose, but because they've either been given no advice or bad advice) about what their employment opportunities might be, the importance of the LSAT, and the importance of going to a top school if you have certain career goals. I also think a lot of people have many one person in their life who they know worked at a huge law firm after going to a TTT school and therefore they think it's probable that they can achieve the same. Plus, a lot of people who didn't take out debt for undergrad/parents paid for much/most (I'm not knocking that, I was one of those people) are ignorant about money. They simply don't know what it's like to live in the real world where you're paying for everything yourself and they don't know how much it actually costs to live, so they think it'll be a lot easier to pay off loans than it actually will be.

For some people, a retake might not be worth it, and I certainly think there are more exceptions to the retake rule than TLSers usually say. But, for those who simply don't understand the importance of an LSAT, the doors an amazing score can open for you, and the real cost of the debt they are considering taking on for a law school that probably won't give them the opportunities they want - it's worth talking to them about retaking. However, I think an explanation of WHY someone should retake is a lot more effective than just saying "this is ridiculous for you to even consider! RETAKE!".

[katthegreat11]

Something I've heard mentioned before is, say you take the LSAT cold and get a 150. You study for a reasonable amount of time (say 10-15 hours a week for 4-6 months) and get a 160. But you're not happy with that score, you want to retake, so you spend hours, weeks, months studying and studying your ass off. You study so so incredibly hard, devote your entire life to studying the LSAT, and finally, 6 months or a year later, you take it again and get a 170.

How the hell would you keep that kind of insane studying schedule up in law school? the LSAT is intended to be a proxy for success in law school, so if you have to use a study schedule that is impossible to stick to long-term (aka 3 years) to get there, what will you do when you get there?

I'm not saying I 100% agree with this, but I do think it's interesting.

[BlendedUnicorn]

Something I've heard mentioned before is, say you take the LSAT cold and get a 150. You study for a reasonable amount of time (say 10-15 hours a week for 4-6 months) and get a 160. But you're not happy with that score, you want to retake, so you spend hours, weeks, months studying and studying your ass off. You study so so incredibly hard, devote your entire life to studying the LSAT, and finally, 6 months or a year later, you take it again and get a 170.

How the hell would you keep that kind of insane studying schedule up in law school? the LSAT is intended to be a proxy for success in law school, so if you have to use a study schedule that is impossible to stick to long-term (aka 3 years) to get there, what will you do when you get there?

I'm not saying I 100% agree with this, but I do think it's interesting.

Call in

[Future Ex-Engineer]

Something I've heard mentioned before is, say you take the LSAT cold and get a 150. You study for a reasonable amount of time (say 10-15 hours a week for 4-6 months) and get a 160. But you're not happy with that score, you want to retake, so you spend hours, weeks, months studying and studying your ass off. You study so so incredibly hard, devote your entire life to studying the LSAT, and finally, 6 months or a year later, you take it again and get a 170.

How the hell would you keep that kind of insane studying schedule up in law school? the LSAT is intended to be a proxy for success in law school, so if you have to use a study schedule that is impossible to stick to long-term (aka 3 years) to get there, what will you do when you get there?

I'm not saying I 100% agree with this, but I do think it's interesting.

I think that idea is the hyperbole/strawman murdering that was referred to a few posts up - at the end of the day, no one is seriously encouraging people to literally put their entire life on hold for a year to study/retake. They are simply advocating for people to not jump into school with a score below your potential. I would go as far as to say that another aspect of that mentality is that a number of people here think that if you can't score above a certain threshold with a moderate amount of prep/study, you shouldn't be going to LS in the first place - a mentality that could be offensive to some snowflakes, but fiscally makes sense.

[cavalier1138]

Something I've heard mentioned before is, say you take the LSAT cold and get a 150. You study for a reasonable amount of time (say 10-15 hours a week for 4-6 months) and get a 160. But you're not happy with that score, you want to retake, so you spend hours, weeks, months studying and studying your ass off. You study so so incredibly hard, devote your entire life to studying the LSAT, and finally, 6 months or a year later, you take it again and get a 170.

How the hell would you keep that kind of insane studying schedule up in law school? the LSAT is intended to be a proxy for success in law school, so if you have to use a study schedule that is impossible to stick to long-term (aka 3 years) to get there, what will you do when you get there?

I'm not saying I 100% agree with this, but I do think it's interesting.

The LSAT isn't exactly a "proxy" for success in that way. But the goal of getting that 170+ is that you won't have to bust your ass in law school, because you'll already be at a place where a median outcome is the job you want. Now, I don't understand what you think you'll be doing during school besides studying, but there are large groups of people who seem thrilled to be taking on huge amounts of debt for an educational experience they aren't actually using.

[waldorf]

Something I've heard mentioned before is, say you take the LSAT cold and get a 150. You study for a reasonable amount of time (say 10-15 hours a week for 4-6 months) and get a 160. But you're not happy with that score, you want to retake, so you spend hours, weeks, months studying and studying your ass off. You study so so incredibly hard, devote your entire life to studying the LSAT, and finally, 6 months or a year later, you take it again and get a 170.

How the hell would you keep that kind of insane studying schedule up in law school? the LSAT is intended to be a proxy for success in law school, so if you have to use a study schedule that is impossible to stick to long-term (aka 3 years) to get there, what will you do when you get there?

I'm not saying I 100% agree with this, but I do think it's interesting.

Obviously a 0L, but I don't think studying for a standardized test and studying for an exam in school are comparable. The approaches are completely different.

[katthegreat11]

Something I've heard mentioned before is, say you take the LSAT cold and get a 150. You study for a reasonable amount of time (say 10-15 hours a week for 4-6 months) and get a 160. But you're not happy with that score, you want to retake, so you spend hours, weeks, months studying and studying your ass off. You study so so incredibly hard, devote your entire life to studying the LSAT, and finally, 6 months or a year later, you take it again and get a 170.

How the hell would you keep that kind of insane studying schedule up in law school? the LSAT is intended to be a proxy for success in law school, so if you have to use a study schedule that is impossible to stick to long-term (aka 3 years) to get there, what will you do when you get there?

I'm not saying I 100% agree with this, but I do think it's interesting.

Obviously a 0L, but I don't think studying for a standardized test and studying for an exam in school are comparable. The approaches are completely different.

Yeah I'd argue that studying/preparing in law school is much harder than studying for the LSAT... you have to start preparing/outlining at the very beginning of the semester for law school exams.

[waldorf]

Something I've heard mentioned before is, say you take the LSAT cold and get a 150. You study for a reasonable amount of time (say 10-15 hours a week for 4-6 months) and get a 160. But you're not happy with that score, you want to retake, so you spend hours, weeks, months studying and studying your ass off. You study so so incredibly hard, devote your entire life to studying the LSAT, and finally, 6 months or a year later, you take it again and get a 170.

How the hell would you keep that kind of insane studying schedule up in law school? the LSAT is intended to be a proxy for success in law school, so if you have to use a study schedule that is impossible to stick to long-term (aka 3 years) to get there, what will you do when you get there?

I'm not saying I 100% agree with this, but I do think it's interesting.

Obviously a 0L, but I don't think studying for a standardized test and studying for an exam in school are comparable. The approaches are completely different.

Yeah I'd argue that studying/preparing in law school is much harder than studying for the LSAT... you have to start preparing/outlining at the very beginning of the semester for law school exams.

But you're studying material and learning how to apply what you learned to the law. I'd argue that that's extremely different from studying for the LSAT, and for some it may be a lot easier, for some it may be a lot harder.

[katthegreat11]

Something I've heard mentioned before is, say you take the LSAT cold and get a 150. You study for a reasonable amount of time (say 10-15 hours a week for 4-6 months) and get a 160. But you're not happy with that score, you want to retake, so you spend hours, weeks, months studying and studying your ass off. You study so so incredibly hard, devote your entire life to studying the LSAT, and finally, 6 months or a year later, you take it again and get a 170.

How the hell would you keep that kind of insane studying schedule up in law school? the LSAT is intended to be a proxy for success in law school, so if you have to use a study schedule that is impossible to stick to long-term (aka 3 years) to get there, what will you do when you get there?

I'm not saying I 100% agree with this, but I do think it's interesting.

I think that idea is the hyperbole/strawman murdering that was referred to a few posts up - at the end of the day, no one is seriously encouraging people to literally put their entire life on hold for a year to study/retake. They are simply advocating for people to not jump into school with a score below your potential. I would go as far as to say that another aspect of that mentality is that a number of people here think that if you can't score above a certain threshold with a moderate amount of prep/study, you shouldn't be going to LS in the first place - a mentality that could be offensive to some snowflakes, but fiscally makes sense.

I agree with you completely, I think the danger of always saying "retake, retake" is that it can encourage people to pursue that kind of study schedule. i see people on TLS and reddit talk about quitting their jobs to study for the LSAT...

[cavalier1138]

Yeah I'd argue that studying/preparing in law school is much harder than studying for the LSAT... you have to start preparing/outlining at the very beginning of the semester for law school exams.

Kinda...

You actually can't start outlining the first few weeks of your first semester, because you won't have the first clue what to put on the outline. But it's not harder or easier than studying for the LSAT, because it's totally different. With the LSAT, you're studying to learn the right answer for a specific testing format. Law classes don't focus on that, and you're doing a lot more reading and a lot less drilling (until the very end of the semester). It's just not a comparable process.

The reason the LSAT is seen as a good test for admissions is that it tests the baseline skills you need to think like a lawyer. They don't use it because they think your study habits for the LSAT and for law school will be the same.

[waldorf]

Something I've heard mentioned before is, say you take the LSAT cold and get a 150. You study for a reasonable amount of time (say 10-15 hours a week for 4-6 months) and get a 160. But you're not happy with that score, you want to retake, so you spend hours, weeks, months studying and studying your ass off. You study so so incredibly hard, devote your entire life to studying the LSAT, and finally, 6 months or a year later, you take it again and get a 170.

How the hell would you keep that kind of insane studying schedule up in law school? the LSAT is intended to be a proxy for success in law school, so if you have to use a study schedule that is impossible to stick to long-term (aka 3 years) to get there, what will you do when you get there?

I'm not saying I 100% agree with this, but I do think it's interesting.

I think that idea is the hyperbole/strawman murdering that was referred to a few posts up - at the end of the day, no one is seriously encouraging people to literally put their entire life on hold for a year to study/retake. They are simply advocating for people to not jump into school with a score below your potential. I would go as far as to say that another aspect of that mentality is that a number of people here think that if you can't score above a certain threshold with a moderate amount of prep/study, you shouldn't be going to LS in the first place - a mentality that could be offensive to some snowflakes, but fiscally makes sense.

I agree with you completely, I think the danger of always saying "retake, retake" is that it can encourage people to pursue that kind of study schedule. i see people on TLS and reddit talk about quitting their jobs to study for the LSAT...

It makes sense if you think about the scholarship opportunities that the difference even a point or two can make once you're in the 160s. Many people who are taking time off work to study (myself included) think of their studying in terms of the money they'll technically make by saving huge amounts of money due to scholarships. If you study 100 hours for the LSAT, and you end up getting, say, a $100k scholarship you wouldn't have otherwise - that's 1k an hour. Not bad.

[Future Ex-Engineer]

Something I've heard mentioned before is, say you take the LSAT cold and get a 150. You study for a reasonable amount of time (say 10-15 hours a week for 4-6 months) and get a 160. But you're not happy with that score, you want to retake, so you spend hours, weeks, months studying and studying your ass off. You study so so incredibly hard, devote your entire life to studying the LSAT, and finally, 6 months or a year later, you take it again and get a 170.

How the hell would you keep that kind of insane studying schedule up in law school? the LSAT is intended to be a proxy for success in law school, so if you have to use a study schedule that is impossible to stick to long-term (aka 3 years) to get there, what will you do when you get there?

I'm not saying I 100% agree with this, but I do think it's interesting.

I think that idea is the hyperbole/strawman murdering that was referred to a few posts up - at the end of the day, no one is seriously encouraging people to literally put their entire life on hold for a year to study/retake. They are simply advocating for people to not jump into school with a score below your potential. I would go as far as to say that another aspect of that mentality is that a number of people here think that if you can't score above a certain threshold with a moderate amount of prep/study, you shouldn't be going to LS in the first place - a mentality that could be offensive to some snowflakes, but fiscally makes sense.

I agree with you completely, I think the danger of always saying "retake, retake" is that it can encourage people to pursue that kind of study schedule. i see people on TLS and reddit talk about quitting their jobs to study for the LSAT...

It makes sense if you think about the scholarship opportunities that the difference even a point or two can make once you're in the 160s. Many people who are taking time off work to study (myself included) think of their studying in terms of the money they'll technically make by saving huge amounts of money due to scholarships. If you study 100 hours for the LSAT, and you end up getting, say, a $100k scholarship you wouldn't have otherwise - that's 1k an hour. Not bad.

While that may work for some people, the more risk-averse among us would absolutely never quit a 'good' career/job to study for a test with the hopes of scoring better. It's 100% possible to improve your score consistently while working full time.

However, if you've got a terrible job or are exceptionally unhappy with your current life situation and can afford to take that gamble, it can pay off.

[waldorf]

Something I've heard mentioned before is, say you take the LSAT cold and get a 150. You study for a reasonable amount of time (say 10-15 hours a week for 4-6 months) and get a 160. But you're not happy with that score, you want to retake, so you spend hours, weeks, months studying and studying your ass off. You study so so incredibly hard, devote your entire life to studying the LSAT, and finally, 6 months or a year later, you take it again and get a 170.

How the hell would you keep that kind of insane studying schedule up in law school? the LSAT is intended to be a proxy for success in law school, so if you have to use a study schedule that is impossible to stick to long-term (aka 3 years) to get there, what will you do when you get there?

I'm not saying I 100% agree with this, but I do think it's interesting.

I think that idea is the hyperbole/strawman murdering that was referred to a few posts up - at the end of the day, no one is seriously encouraging people to literally put their entire life on hold for a year to study/retake. They are simply advocating for people to not jump into school with a score below your potential. I would go as far as to say that another aspect of that mentality is that a number of people here think that if you can't score above a certain threshold with a moderate amount of prep/study, you shouldn't be going to LS in the first place - a mentality that could be offensive to some snowflakes, but fiscally makes sense.

I agree with you completely, I think the danger of always saying "retake, retake" is that it can encourage people to pursue that kind of study schedule. i see people on TLS and reddit talk about quitting their jobs to study for the LSAT...

It makes sense if you think about the scholarship opportunities that the difference even a point or two can make once you're in the 160s. Many people who are taking time off work to study (myself included) think of their studying in terms of the money they'll technically make by saving huge amounts of money due to scholarships. If you study 100 hours for the LSAT, and you end up getting, say, a $100k scholarship you wouldn't have otherwise - that's 1k an hour. Not bad.

While that may work for some people, the more risk-averse among us would absolutely never quit a 'good' career/job to study for a test with the hopes of scoring better. It's 100% possible to improve your score consistently while working full time.

However, if you've got a terrible job or are exceptionally unhappy with your current life situation and can afford to take that gamble, it can pay off.

I was thinking more of KJDs/1 year off people who are working a minimum wage or close to it job just to fill their time before law school. If you're not in that category and you're making great money/have a solid career, that's obviously a lot different than taking time off from a job where you make $12 an hour and just need to fill your time/get by before school starts.

[emkay625]

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".

Well I don't think the curve thing is true but for the rest of it, YESSS it's about time someone decided to stick up for what's right! All law students deserve a friendly environment where they could discuss their career with like minded people, not just T18 people! These people are in a bubble three quarters of test takers are below 158 and most 1L's are not going in situations these people would approve, this can be proven with the 509's. The kids on here are likely to be ones to benifit from "retaking" even though massive increases are pretty unlikely and thus think if they can do it, everyone can and should as well and give up a year of their life to do so. I've also found it perplexing how one could view not working a job one doesn't like as "opportunity cost" but not skipping a year and I've glad you've brought it up. These threads are a great resource and even the retake people have some good insights(on debt and employment) but they take it to far and are incredibly condescending to people(one guy was like "here's your new life plan") who probably aren't ignorant. If we've got 2 something GPA and an LSAT in the 140's you might have a point telling someone to retake same if they have time in UG left to retake(after all, why not) but encouraging someone to take a year off to hold out for better options that they are still likely not to get(again among the general population, huge LSAT increases aren't common) just seems like you are pushing your situation on them. Same with "big law", so many times people don't even mention big law when asking back about a school and people are like "well the school places this many people in big law, so it's a bad decision. What's sad is this discourages people from lower ranked schools from taking advantage of these resources.

The website is top-law-schools.com.

I'm a friendly person. I never just say retake. And I certainly do NOT advocate T-14 or bust. (I did not attend a T-14.) But don't come to a website named top-law-schools.com and then be surprised when the advice is geared toward helping people get into top schools.

[blahblah123]

"Retake" was the best advice I ever received. I would not have been in at HLS, Columbia, UChicago, ... if I had not retaken the LSAT.

Big thank you to all the folks on these threads who consistently introduce newbies to the world of Retake.

[poptart123]

The website is top-law-schools.com.

I'm a friendly person. I never just say retake. And I certainly do NOT advocate T-14 or bust. (I did not attend a T-14.) But don't come to a website named top-law-schools.com and then be surprised when the advice is geared toward helping people get into top schools.

Oh. My mistake. I thought this was ttttop-law-schools.com

+1 for retaking. Worked full time. Moved from bottom of T20 last cycle to T6 this cycle by only using 3 months of my life. It sucks, but so does unemployment, which statistically speaking, I was much more likely to face previously.

[chicagoburger]

I'm a friendly person. I never just say retake. And I certainly do NOT advocate T-14 or bust. (I did not attend a T-14.) But don't come to a website named top-law-schools.com and then be surprised when the advice is geared toward helping people getting into top schools.

Starbucks doesn't sell shining stars nor Milwaukee bucks.

To those who got way better offers after retaking LSAT, congrats. But you are the outlier I am afraid. There is one LSAT study that shows the mean LSAT scores were highest for second-time test takers(151.7), followed closely by first-time test takers (151.0) and third-time test takers (149.4). Huge difference anyone?
But I have to say, statistically speaking, most of those who scored below 160 here will score mostly below 160. That's the way LSAT test designed. 80% people has to be below 160 in general.