Bad cycle with a 172 - should I retake the LSAT? Forum

[GLZ19]

My scores are 172/3.67 (including a failed class)

I'm a white male, 26 years old, have been working in consulting since graduating in 2018, and have relatively strong softs: lead editor at a startup media company with 5,000 subs and plenty of volunteering.

I first applied in 2019 and was waitlisted by the entire T14 except NW and Columbia, the latter of which I deferred for two years before withdrawing. This year, I was accepted by NW, CU Boulder with $$, and UW (didn't apply for scholarships) and was waitlisted by T3-T12, Texas, and BU.

I withdrew from Columbia because I didn't want to do Big Law for 3-5 years to pay off debt and I still don't want to. I'd like to go into law because I want to read, write, and engage in argumentation fulltime while making good money, and I want to avoid significant 6-figure debt. Consulting has been fine (especially the lifestyle and money combo) but it's a bit of a drag and I think my 40-year-old self will regret not being an attorney. However, I don't feel strongly enough about this to take out $$$ in loans or go to a mediocre school.

Irrelevant back story aside, the last two cycles have been brutal to non-URMs with bad GPAs and good LSATs, so while it sounds crazy to try and improve the best part of my application, I'm not sure what else I can do. The recent inflation of LSAT scores plus the fact a 172 was an average performance for me (I was consistently scoring 171-175 in practice after 3 months of studying) makes me think I have a solid chance to improve.

But maybe I should focus my energy and time elsewhere over the next four to five months. Getting waitlisted by both Texas and BU makes me think even a 174 or 175 won't get me to a point where I'm getting significant money from a T-20, never mind a T13. Lastly, should I be concerned about applying for a third time?

[Access]

Acceptance to a T14 with partial scholarship strikes me as a fine result for a splitter. Maybe third time's the charm.

The real question is what's your goals? You don't want biglaw, but that's the path from a T14 regardless of debt. With bimodal salary distribution you'd be taking a huge financial cut if you got into public interest.

Lawyering is also not really about "argumentation", maybe volunteer as a debate coach to scratch that itch.

[nixy]

Acceptance to a T14 with partial scholarship strikes me as a fine result for a splitter. Maybe third time's the charm.

The real question is what's your goals? You don't want biglaw, but that's the path from a T14 regardless of debt. With bimodal salary distribution you'd be taking a huge financial cut if you got into public interest.

Lawyering is also not really about "argumentation", maybe volunteer as a debate coach to scratch that itch.

Litigation is absolutely about argumentation, even if not so much as a junior in biglaw (which the OP doesn't want).

That said, biglaw is the securest path to good money, depending on how you define that, so I agree that this is all hard to answer without knowing your goals, OP.

[pkeller]

To me, it sounds like your softs aren't as strong as you think. You have a great LSAT score, but it sounds like you're an average candidate otherwise (volunteering is pretty typical, sorry). If you don't want to do big law, I would care a bit less about the prestige of my school and take a scholarship at a lower ranked school if you're planning on doing public interest. You've had two bad cycles so far--if you retake, I would also work on adding other strengths to your application. What else can you do to make yourself stand out? Can your personal statement be stronger or more unique?

Again, to echo the other commenters, law school is a lot of money if you don't want to do big law, so I highly encourage you to figure out why you want to go to law school first. Otherwise, you really don't need that extra validation of being accepted into HYS if you don't have a rough plan.

[GLZ19]

Thanks everyone for the responses so far.

I recognize that my softs aren't very strong, though I guess it's impossible to say whether I've correctly assessed their strength. I'll say this much: I haven't been under the illusion they will push me over the top at any school, but I have assumed they don't hurt me. I can't imagine a school looks at 4 years of work, ample volunteering, and editing a medium-sized newsletter on politics and thinks that I have weak softs. But I could be wrong.

I'll be more specific about my goal, which is to practice law and make a good living without consistently working more than 50-60 hour weeks as quickly as possible. Working in house seems like the best way to accomplish that and, from what I can tell, the typical route is Big Law for as many years as is necessary to finally get an in-house offer. Am I right about that?

The reason I'd like to avoid debt - and am considering retaking the LSAT - is that I would like the financial flexibility to exit Big Law before I'm a sufficiently strong candidate to go in house path if I and/or my future wife and children can't handle it. I know that doing so would delay my eventual entrance into an in-house role, but I'd be willing to take a less direct, prestigious, and financially lucrative path if it means maintaining a healthy life at home.

I hope that outlining my goals more clearly helps with some of the responses, which I really appreciate.

[pkeller]

Thanks for the clarification. A few follow up questions.

Are your goals primarily related to a) financial stability and b) quality of life/work-life balance and mental health? I completely understand, and I am not judging you for that. That is perfectly legitimate, and those goals are important to me as well, and I've shaped my career around quality of life.

Sometimes candidates mention wanting to go to law school because they really care about the law, or the intellectual challenge. You haven't mentioned that, which is fine. You made an allusion to argumentation earlier but that was about it. I'm asking for further clarification so I can best understand and best help you.

I will say, at a law firm, even not in big law, it's rare that you're NOT working more than 50-60 hours a week. Even in house, there are times you're working 50-60 hours a week. From what I've heard, 9-5 in house is rare.

Obviously this isn't a decision I can make for you. Some points to consider:

-I know the consulting hours aren't great. But how much of financial stability goals can be achieved through consulting alone? Think about the cost/benefit of going to law school. It's three years, and you've already waited two. (Not trying to discourage you)
-Do you really want to go to law school? Or is it just a financial decision? Only you can answer that
-Is it really worth going to a top school when you could get a scholarship to a lower tier school, not do big law, work at a less prestigious firm and still make money while working fewer hours? You'd still achieve your goals

[jsnow212]

Thanks everyone for the responses so far.

I recognize that my softs aren't very strong, though I guess it's impossible to say whether I've correctly assessed their strength. I'll say this much: I haven't been under the illusion they will push me over the top at any school, but I have assumed they don't hurt me. I can't imagine a school looks at 4 years of work, ample volunteering, and editing a medium-sized newsletter on politics and thinks that I have weak softs. But I could be wrong.

No one is saying your softs are bad, but rather that the vast majority of softs are largely meaningless. The basic "major" soft is a couple years of real work experience (which you have). After that, nothing is really needle moving on its own except things like Rhodes Scholar, multiple degrees, etc.

Admissions is a numbers game. Is it worth to retake? Well, if you retake the LSAT and get the very highest score you've PT'd at (175), you'll get admitted to multiple T14s with no scholarship and maybe one with 25%ish. Basically, you're in no better of a position than you were in 2019. Furthermore, I'm not confident that getting a couple points above a 172 is meaningful for schools outside the T14. You're already above the 75th there, so the points have diminishing returns. You'll probably average out to 25-50% scholarships across the board in the next bucket of schools regardless of if you do the cycle again, with or without the higher LSAT.

So, you're looking at: 1) Retake, get into a T14, pay full or nearly full freight. 2) Take a 50% scholarship to the next bucket of semi-national/regional powerhouse schools. 3) Re-Apply to regional, lower-ranked schools and get a full ride.

Your choice requires a much greater analysis of your goals. Is the specter of debt the biggest consideration? Are you willing to accept some level of debt? If so, then the combination of cost + likelihood to land biglaw would be a paramount consideration. Even if you want to work at a nice, salaried in-house gig, the usual route involves biglaw. If you are willing to work as a local DA/defense attorney, then a full-ride to a regional school would be a good choice. We need more clarity here.

[AJordan]

I withdrew from Columbia because I didn't want to do Big Law for 3-5 years to pay off debt and I still don't want to. I'd like to go into law because I want to read, write, and engage in argumentation fulltime while making good money, and I want to avoid significant 6-figure debt. Consulting has been fine (especially the lifestyle and money combo) but it's a bit of a drag and I think my 40-year-old self will regret not being an attorney. However, I don't feel strongly enough about this to take out $$$ in loans or go to a mediocre school.

This paragraph is not irrelevant. It's pretty much the only thing worth really mulling over before considering what to do. Your goals aren't specific enough to be effective. "good money" is too vague. "Engage in argumentation full time" is probably only adjacent at best to most legal work, excepting a lot of government work which is not "good money" by pretty much any metric. You say you want to go in house but what is that other than an adjacent form of consulting? Sure you're qualified for legal work, but you're still primarily responsible for providing advice for business professionals who are free to take it or leave it. In the grand scheme you're still a cost center to the business above all else. Maybe a more necessary one than an outside consulting agency, maybe not.

It sounds like you're set on trying to find some sort of self-worth or meaning in your employment. No value judgment on that, but it certainly limits your decision making. What you described wanting is not something I often here lawyers say they have. Much easier to get a job for acceptable salary that you tolerate and find your joy elsewhere. In the legal sphere a good number of those jobs prefer T14/biglaw pipeline experience.

With that all said I don't think you can expect much better than NW with $$ if you reapply. Would you choose your old Columbia offer over that? It sounds like you (rightly) would pick NW. So at this point it looks like take it or find some more peace with your current situation. Too many people are fanciful about what a legal education is and provides. Take it from someone staring down graduation, it's absolutely nothing special, just an overpriced credentialing academy for people who want to be attorneys.

[Wshclifnan]

It sounds as if you are coming down to being worried about flexibility around leaving biglaw as a 2nd year vs a 5th year. As someone who took a year off with six figure debt after biglaw, then got a nice in house job, I can say that might be too narrow of a window to base your entire career over. I like the in house role, and many in house roles especially in tech or fintech gives you the ability to pay off debt. If you are good at what you do, there’s a reason why the typical pipeline works - there’s access to some fulfilling private sector jobs that pay well.

[tut7]

retake the LSAT

I'm amazed by how many tell me how learnable that test is

I've seen people with average SATs get 175

Amazing

[talons2250]

If you like your consulting job and it pays well, I suggest you stay there and don't go to law school at all. You might enjoy the three years of law school, but the actual practice of law is unpleasant for many people and it's only a minority of lawyers who are truly fulfilled in their careers. You could go through the whole song and dance of law school, accrue debt, and end up in a job you like less than your current consulting job.

[mandrewsf]

OP to be quite frank you come across as someone who isn't sure about why they want to go to law school - there isn't a unifying theme but a bunch of reasons that together seem rather desultory. If this is reflected in your application essays, that may explain why you underperformed.

But honestly I'd see it as a blessing too - if you're not sure about why you want to go to law school, then why go to law school? It sounds like you have a fairly good career already and unless you're 100% committed to something that you could only do as a lawyer (which can be 'making boatloads of money' though it sounds like that's not what's motivating you), I'd think twice about taking on a degree that's pretty poor return on investment otherwise. After all 3 years is a long time and your time is valuable.

[lionhead]

always retake after a few prep classes, nothing to lose

some study for a year on lsat alone, and it pays off