Stop Telling People to Retake Forum

[Future Ex-Engineer]

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.

And since the TLS crowd isn't representative of the general population, your 'study' numbers (uncited) don't matter
Guess it's a good thing that the people here are mostly top 20%'ers.
The best advice here is clearly to retake.

[poptart123]

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.

How much more did these study participants study for the test, if at all? Did they change their prep method, study more intensely, study less intensely?

Also, because most have a particular outcome does not mean you should not reasonably try for a better outcome.

[cavalier1138]

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.

That's. Not. How. It. Works.

If you get nothing else out of this thread, please get this very simple concept: the LSAT is not on a forced curve. It's a projected curve. So the test-makers may say that they expect 160 to be the 80th percentile, but it may end up actually being the 79th or 81st percentile. Theoretically, 160 could be the 99th percentile one year, but they're usually pretty good about projecting the curve. The point is that the curve is not forced on you, so your performance is not defined in relation to other test-takers. If you actually prepare (which you haven't done before) and take the right steps to improve your score, that will not be affected by anyone else's performance.

On a separate note, I have no idea where you found the "study" on retaking the test. I appreciate that you're trying to talk yourself out of putting a modicum of effort into this whole process, but don't go around citing bullshit statistics to scare other people away from making the right choice.

Edit: here's the real study (http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source ... erdata.pdf). It pretty clearly shows that a retake generally results in a higher score, especially in the 140s and 150s.

[BlendedUnicorn]

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.

And what percent of retakers do you think come to TLS and actually follow the advice that's given here? The whole point of getting advice is to get better outcomes than you'd get absent the advice.

And TBH if you can't break a 160 and you don't have very specific goals like criminal defense in Omaha or w/e then you probably shouldn't go to law school.

[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".

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.

That is just BS. "Top" is a completley ambiguous term and the site made detailed school profiles for the "Top 100" so clearly "top" was not meant in the context you think it was.

[cavalier1138]

That is just BS. "Top" is a completley ambiguous term and the site made detailed school profiles for the "Top 100" so clearly "top" was not meant in the context you think it was.

It's not really that ambiguous. You can also say "Top 150" Or "Top 300", but it doesn't mean anything. And having profiles of schools doesn't mean the site is endorsing those schools as being at the top of any rankings charts. The site doesn't even endorse its own profiles anymore, so it's not valid in the current admissions climate.

This is like talking about "top schools" taking on different meanings in undergrad. There are schools that are objective "top" universities. They have reputation, job outcomes, academic programs, etc. that make their degree worth more than other schools' degrees. You can't realistically claim that Chico is a top school because it's the top place to get your drink on. More importantly, you're aware of the distinction and just seem to want to rebel against it so that you can say that whatever school you choose is totally a top school, and you're just as good as those elitist kids from the other side of the tracks.

[emkay625]

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.

You're making so many incorrect/faulty statistical assumptions I don't know where to begin. Unless this study only included folks who took the test three times, comparing these means means nothing.

[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.

That is just BS. "Top" is a completley ambiguous term and the site made detailed school profiles for the "Top 100" so clearly "top" was not meant in the context you think it was.

First, my comments were in response to the post I quoted. He was complaining that TLS was not a haven for "all" law students. Please note that I did not define "top" as T-14, either. (In fact, I said I was not T-14 or bust). And the poster was not talking about strong regional schools, he was talking about "lower-ranked schools."

[chicagoburger]

That's. Not. How. It. Works.


On a separate note, I have no idea where you found the "study" on retaking the test. I appreciate that you're trying to talk yourself out of putting a modicum of effort into this whole process, but don't go around citing bullshit statistics to scare other people away from making the right choice.

Edit: here's the real study (http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source ... erdata.pdf). It pretty clearly shows that a retake generally results in a higher score, especially in the 140s and 150s.

Unfortunately, looking back LSAT scores and percentile, that's exactly how it works.
BTW, the study is found here :http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source ... -14-01.pdf
Over 6 years test numbers, by the official LSAC.org

[cavalier1138]

That's. Not. How. It. Works.


On a separate note, I have no idea where you found the "study" on retaking the test. I appreciate that you're trying to talk yourself out of putting a modicum of effort into this whole process, but don't go around citing bullshit statistics to scare other people away from making the right choice.

Edit: here's the real study (http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source ... erdata.pdf). It pretty clearly shows that a retake generally results in a higher score, especially in the 140s and 150s.

Unfortunately, looking back LSAT scores and percentile, that's exactly how it works.
BTW, the study is found here :http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source ... -14-01.pdf
Over 6 years test numbers, by the official LSAC.org

And as that study says, the mean score for retakers has been increasing. Which is also evidenced by the data that is actually relevant to this discussion, which is what I posted. The mean score for retaking is meaningless without knowing the initial score that was being retaken. The information on that shows that a retake of any score always has a much higher chance of a score increase than of a decrease or no change at all.

You are also fundamentally misunderstanding how the projected curve works, and I'm not sure why. The fact that 20% of test-takers are in the 80th percentile or higher is completely irrelevant to whether you can improve your LSAT score. You have yet to make anything resembling a coherent point on that front, and that isn't changed by you removing my explanation of how the LSAT is curved.

[pancakes3]

if you don't understand the retake advice, the problem is you.

[TheSpanishMain]

I love it when people argue, "Well, look, if someone retakes, they might not improve their score, so therefore they should just roll with whatever they have."

"Don't go" is always an option, and more often than not the correct one.

[TLSModBot]

OP you've convinced me. I think you should not retake, go to whatever school and fully debt-finance. It'll be great

[chicagoburger]

And as that study says, the mean score for retakers has been increasing. Which is also evidenced by the data that is actually relevant to this discussion, which is what I posted. The mean score for retaking is meaningless without knowing the initial score that was being retaken. The information on that shows that a retake of any score always has a much higher chance of a score increase than of a decrease or no change at all.

You are also fundamentally misunderstanding how the projected curve works, and I'm not sure why. The fact that 20% of test-takers are in the 80th percentile or higher is completely irrelevant to whether you can improve your LSAT score. You have yet to make anything resembling a coherent point on that front, and that isn't changed by you removing my explanation of how the LSAT is curved.

I want to add that retakes are not trying to do better than your first time performance score wise. Retakes are trying to compete with another group of test takers and trying to do better percentile wise. Unfortunately, reading from the study, mean score of retakes is virtually the same as first-time takers， which put them in the same percentile distribution. That means the retakes will not see much advantage of trying to place into the top 20% percentile this time around.

[BigZuck]

I love it when people argue, "Well, look, if someone retakes, they might not improve their score, so therefore they should just roll with whatever they have."

"Don't go" is always an option, and more often than not the correct one.

Also it's not like scoring the same or lower is a bad thing. It's a neutral thing (well, in terms of where you'll be admitted with the first score). Retaking is essentially a freeroll that costs a couple hundred bucks and a little bit of time at worst.

[TheSpanishMain]

Mean score of retakes is virtually the same as first-time takers， which put them in the same percentile distribution. That means the retakes will not see much advantage of trying to place into the top 20% percentile this time around.

Maybe some people shouldn't go to law school? I know I'm shooting the moon on this one, but strap in.

[star fox]

I love it when people argue, "Well, look, if someone retakes, they might not improve their score, so therefore they should just roll with whatever they have."

"Don't go" is always an option, and more often than not the correct one.

Also it's not like scoring the same or lower is a bad thing. It's a neutral thing (well, in terms of where you'll be admitted with the first score). Retaking is essentially a freeroll that costs a couple hundred bucks and a little bit of time at worst.

This needs to be repeated ad nauseam. There is no downside to re-taking. Full stop. Fight me on this if you disagree. And there is a lot of upside.

[BlendedUnicorn]

And as that study says, the mean score for retakers has been increasing. Which is also evidenced by the data that is actually relevant to this discussion, which is what I posted. The mean score for retaking is meaningless without knowing the initial score that was being retaken. The information on that shows that a retake of any score always has a much higher chance of a score increase than of a decrease or no change at all.

You are also fundamentally misunderstanding how the projected curve works, and I'm not sure why. The fact that 20% of test-takers are in the 80th percentile or higher is completely irrelevant to whether you can improve your LSAT score. You have yet to make anything resembling a coherent point on that front, and that isn't changed by you removing my explanation of how the LSAT is curved.

I want to add that retakes are not trying to do better than your first time performance score wise. Retakes are trying to compete with another group of test takers and trying to do better percentile wise. Unfortunately, reading from the study, mean score of retakes is virtually the same as first-time takers， which put them in the same percentile distribution. That means the retakes will not see much advantage of trying to place into the top 20% percentile this time around unless they go onto TLS and follow the advice given in any one of the numerous guides to retaking.

ftfyda

[stego]

And as that study says, the mean score for retakers has been increasing. Which is also evidenced by the data that is actually relevant to this discussion, which is what I posted. The mean score for retaking is meaningless without knowing the initial score that was being retaken. The information on that shows that a retake of any score always has a much higher chance of a score increase than of a decrease or no change at all.

You are also fundamentally misunderstanding how the projected curve works, and I'm not sure why. The fact that 20% of test-takers are in the 80th percentile or higher is completely irrelevant to whether you can improve your LSAT score. You have yet to make anything resembling a coherent point on that front, and that isn't changed by you removing my explanation of how the LSAT is curved.

I want to add that retakes are not trying to do better than your first time performance score wise. Retakes are trying to compete with another group of test takers and trying to do better percentile wise. Unfortunately, reading from the study, mean score of retakes is virtually the same as first-time takers， which put them in the same percentile distribution. That means the retakes will not see much advantage of trying to place into the top 20% percentile this time around.

This is wrong. You are trying to do better than your previous score. The different tests are test-equated to make scores from different administrations comparable. It's not a forced curve.

The data show that if your previous LSAT score was between 120 and 175, on average your most recent LSAT score is higher than the previous.

[stego]

I love it when people argue, "Well, look, if someone retakes, they might not improve their score, so therefore they should just roll with whatever they have."

"Don't go" is always an option, and more often than not the correct one.

Also it's not like scoring the same or lower is a bad thing. It's a neutral thing (well, in terms of where you'll be admitted with the first score). Retaking is essentially a freeroll that costs a couple hundred bucks and a little bit of time at worst.

This needs to be repeated ad nauseam. There is no downside to re-taking. Full stop. Fight me on this if you disagree. And there is a lot of upside.

Only downside is the cost of the test and the time it takes to study for it. Same/lower score doesn't hurt you.

[cavalier1138]

And as that study says, the mean score for retakers has been increasing. Which is also evidenced by the data that is actually relevant to this discussion, which is what I posted. The mean score for retaking is meaningless without knowing the initial score that was being retaken. The information on that shows that a retake of any score always has a much higher chance of a score increase than of a decrease or no change at all.

You are also fundamentally misunderstanding how the projected curve works, and I'm not sure why. The fact that 20% of test-takers are in the 80th percentile or higher is completely irrelevant to whether you can improve your LSAT score. You have yet to make anything resembling a coherent point on that front, and that isn't changed by you removing my explanation of how the LSAT is curved.

I want to add that retakes are not trying to do better than your first time performance score wise. Retakes are trying to compete with another group of test takers and trying to do better percentile wise. Unfortunately, reading from the study, mean score of retakes is virtually the same as first-time takers， which put them in the same percentile distribution. That means the retakes will not see much advantage of trying to place into the top 20% percentile this time around.

Jesus. I give up.

Please don't go to law school.

[Johann]

I love it when people argue, "Well, look, if someone retakes, they might not improve their score, so therefore they should just roll with whatever they have."

"Don't go" is always an option, and more often than not the correct one.

Also it's not like scoring the same or lower is a bad thing. It's a neutral thing (well, in terms of where you'll be admitted with the first score). Retaking is essentially a freeroll that costs a couple hundred bucks and a little bit of time at worst.

This needs to be repeated ad nauseam. There is no downside to re-taking. Full stop. Fight me on this if you disagree. And there is a lot of upside.

september -> december, sure. but at this point it means delaying life a year. a year of your life is not the same between people. assuming chicago burger is just going to spend the next year of his life arguing with people on here, not a big deal. but it can matter if law school -> career is holding up things like marriage and kids or influencing location.

[Thomas Hagan, ESQ.]

And as that study says, the mean score for retakers has been increasing. Which is also evidenced by the data that is actually relevant to this discussion, which is what I posted. The mean score for retaking is meaningless without knowing the initial score that was being retaken. The information on that shows that a retake of any score always has a much higher chance of a score increase than of a decrease or no change at all.

You are also fundamentally misunderstanding how the projected curve works, and I'm not sure why. The fact that 20% of test-takers are in the 80th percentile or higher is completely irrelevant to whether you can improve your LSAT score. You have yet to make anything resembling a coherent point on that front, and that isn't changed by you removing my explanation of how the LSAT is curved.

I want to add that retakes are not trying to do better than your first time performance score wise. Retakes are trying to compete with another group of test takers and trying to do better percentile wise. Unfortunately, reading from the study, mean score of retakes is virtually the same as first-time takers， which put them in the same percentile distribution. That means the retakes will not see much advantage of trying to place into the top 20% percentile this time around.

Have you done a single prep test yet? The percentiles are almost identical from test to test....I can pretty much guess my score just by counting the number of questions I got wrong (there are a couple of outlier exams here and there).

[TakeItToTrial]

And as that study says, the mean score for retakers has been increasing. Which is also evidenced by the data that is actually relevant to this discussion, which is what I posted. The mean score for retaking is meaningless without knowing the initial score that was being retaken. The information on that shows that a retake of any score always has a much higher chance of a score increase than of a decrease or no change at all.

You are also fundamentally misunderstanding how the projected curve works, and I'm not sure why. The fact that 20% of test-takers are in the 80th percentile or higher is completely irrelevant to whether you can improve your LSAT score. You have yet to make anything resembling a coherent point on that front, and that isn't changed by you removing my explanation of how the LSAT is curved.

I want to add that retakes are not trying to do better than your first time performance score wise. Retakes are trying to compete with another group of test takers and trying to do better percentile wise. Unfortunately, reading from the study, mean score of retakes is virtually the same as first-time takers， which put them in the same percentile distribution. That means the retakes will not see much advantage of trying to place into the top 20% percentile this time around.

If you can't grasp the difference between the way the LSAT is curved and a forced curve, even after multiple detailed explanations, you're going to have a tough time understanding complex legal issues.

[Johann]

Please don't go to law school.

i think this advice is also some of the worst thrown about advice on TLS. tls seems to set some arbitrary lsat bar for who they think is worthy of being a lawyer/will have a successful career. the people i know who find their jobs most meaningfull overwhelmingly come from lower ranked law schools and the people who have the most autonomy in their practice (own clients, own firms etc) overwhelmingly come from lower ranked law schools. (1) if your goal is to help disadvantaged people (domestic violence, criminal defense, landlord tenant law, immigration law), i dont think an lsat should really ever be a hindrance to going to law school (maybe sub-140 or something, but anything around average is fine) or (2) if your goal is to own your own practice and be autonomous, an average lsat score shouldnt deter your career goals.

the people who knew what they wanted to do with their degree (i.e. own practice doing _____ law; or help ______ group of disadvantaged people by doing _______) are most fit for being a lawyer in my opinion after seeing careers play out from those from good schools and those from bad schoools. theyve been the happiest and had most job satisfaction and been most successful in achieving career goals. however, people with generic goals of i want to help people usually hate law. sort of fine line between knowing what you want and just going with the wind.

people that are in the "i want to use my brain to do complicated work to make a lot of money" are usually the most frustrated. but within that, people who just want an upper middle class lifestyle and hard work is fine, law seems to be fine with them for the most part.